Table Of Content

IRESEARCH PAPERS TEACHERS' PERCEPTIONS OF TECHNOLOGY USE IN SCHOOLS by JAMES E, GENTRY" PAM LINDSEY** ‘ABSTRACT iis study surveyed 103 profesional K:12 educators repyesenting ura ond urban independent schoo! asics noth ‘cena! Texas conceming educational technology perceptions and is use nthe classrooms Descriptive statistics were Uttzed 0 describe partclpants responses fo survey ems. A chi-squared cross tabulation (3X3) fable was used 10 termine dlependiencelindepancience relationship between teacher sl.percepiion of ha use ofechnotogyin the Closroom andthe reported yearsof experiance using educational fechnology. Teachers whoreportedove 10yearsof ‘experience wih educationatechnology were significant mare key o have a postive perception of har abiyf0 Use fecnology nn classroom while teaches wit 15 yearsof experiance eve ikl reported a poor sel-percepiion of their abit to use technology in the elasroom, Teachers ranked managerial uses vereu Insructonal uses ashe most prevalent use of technology In ther Indivisual closrooms. Tus. ¢ asconnect between teachers Jdeas of Insructiona! fecnnology andi uses may exist ond warantsfutnerresearch. \epneres Teachers, Perceptions. Technology. Instructional uses. Expeenca, Educational Technology and Survey evoareh, INTRODUCTION Ssnce 19808, computers and other technology devices have been touted as the new revolution fr classroom Instucton, Today, even In very tual puble schools, ‘computer ae seen and used reutnty in classrooms or ‘2 myilad of purposes both nstuctional and manageil (0 wel os for entertainment. It seers, however, tht he bight promise that technology would provide a revolutionary innovation for teachers n tems of Classoom instution has not been realized (Howley & Howey, 2008; Levan & Wecmory, 2008; U, 2007). Underuttztion of technology inthe classoom has been fstocated wih sues of convenionce, ine-sructue Planning. and technological teracy Book Jung, & Kin, 2008; Cuban, 2001: Johnson, 2008; Lovin & Wadrnary, 2008; Smercon, Cronen,Lanahan. Anderson, Janno & ‘Angeles, 2000), For example, Boek et ct (2008) found feachers wih more years of experence tended to respond involuntary fo extemal pressures. when Incorporating technology inthe classoom (@.g, sit fequirements, principa's directives) while less experienced teachers voluntaty used technology from Inti Instuctional decision process (0.9. A teacher ‘may use PowerPoint fo create « gare forthe css fo lay Bocouse it seamed mere oticien). Sugar, Crawley, fond. Fine (2004) postulated that votoran teachers were loss thaly fo have the necessary taining to Incorporate ‘technology win students learning outcomes ondior fet ‘he use of technology asst one more thing fo do that was urelated fo he courte content o the stud ski ‘acquistion (Sugar Crawey Fine, 2004). Anois. conducted wth 382 high schoo! Englsh teachers, suggested that the pattclpants pmatly used thot ‘echnology resources for personal communication or study andlor gathering Information rather than for class0om irsructon (kong & Huang, 2008). Overt he research suggests tha! feachert perceptions about he Use of technologyasameansotinnovatveondetiectve classoom instruction decty Impact what types of Yecnology they use, how offen and for what purposes (Chant, Hong, Homg, Chang & Cau. 2006: Howey & Howe, 2008; Levan & Wadmany, 2008; 2007). 1.thestudy Teacher atdes and betets conceming technology lord Instuctional decision making may be one nfivertil factor Impacting technologys use ih the classioom (Kinzer, Commack, Labbo, Teale, & Sanny, 2004). The folowing study sought answersto the folowing questions: [Tanager Jerr or Shel €arSont acho VOL 4 NaF dune Aap 2008 = IRESEARCH PAPERS (cy Wnctre teachers perceptions regarding technology londitsuseinthok classiooms?nd (b) Are feachersusing Instructional technology pximarty for Innovative and create clase insucton? The folowing study surveyed @ select group of professional educator regarding ne perceptions cout technology n general ondisuse inher clostooms 4.4Method The subjects were a gioUP of professional educator ‘whose dicts are par ofthe Efecive Schools Project (ES) at Tatioton Stote Unvossy. The ESP prowcos Profesional development opportunities forteachers ond ‘ocrinstatos in approximately 70 pubic school dss In he Toteton service oreat. Tere were two gtouns of partons. One goup of 40 responded othe survey ct ‘on ES? meeting wile the other group o 63 received ine survey electonicatyvlaWebSurveyor(See Append A) 41.2Porteipants ‘The otal parctpant sample consisted of103 professional feductors representing ual ond urban independent School dstets In nor Cental Texas. This population Interoted tesecrchers ence this wae the primary area for Texeton State Univers’ pre-service teachers receive residency and intemship clostoom expeiances.ntusion Inttatvesregaidng technology use ond instucton wihin verse educational setings In Texas, and noch contol Texos In particutat have been « pmary concer for Teron educator since te late went century (Hensoy, (Opp, & Rivers, 1996). Educators suveyed represented ‘vee main dvsons winin pubic schoo's: Bement Ka [n=65) ntemediote or Junior¥igh/ 8 (n=22},0nd High School / 9-12 [n=16). The education levels reported vated trom 75%(77) wih boccolawecte degrees, £22%(23) win master degrees, ond 8%(3} win associate {dogroes Teachers serving rut schooland urban dts represented 54%(58} ond 48%( 46), respective, 2.Dato Analysis Doscrptivestotsice wre utived io deseroo poticponts responses fo suvay tems (See Append A). Meteors, Percentages ond ftequency counts were repored for survey tems 3-7 and 9. A chixquated cross fabulation (3X3) table wos used to dotermine dependencelindependence relationship. between ‘teachers sof perception of he use of technologyin the classoom. Teacher responses to survey toms 10.and2 ‘wore analyzed using the chi-squared examination ($08 ‘AppenckxA), tems 2 ond 10 elated foe respondents petception of emselves os technology users and hel ‘yeas of experience wth educational technology Peorson’ chisquored statisic 0) ond Cramers V (@) ettectsze measure were reported, 3.Rosutts ‘he participants responses for suvey Hams 3-7 were ‘counted and tabulated into percentages using the fool responses for the stongy ogee ond agree (SAA) ccotogotes, becouse the researchers were intrest in ‘ne teachers abity access ond use technologyin nee classooms The folowing represented tne content of SAA tems onaveod: 1. 1 use technology (computers) routnaly os part of losstoominstuction, 86.4%. 2, Inaveaccessto downloadte rsructonal sohwore suchasPhoto Story tlom Microsoft 69.9%, 3, have access fo search the Inemet for insuctonal softwere andlor other topics related to instucton, 92.2%. 4, Ihave acoesstodounloadsreaming videos erntne lrtometrolatedto lasscominstuction, 90.2%. 5, | eleve teachers should have ful access to the into, 86.4% ‘he final SSA lem concemed teachers betets about students’ eccess fo the Intent. The malty of the Yeachet responses, 73%, Inicatod thot they cid not bolleve studentsshould have ul accesstothe intemet Item 9 on the survey concomed teacher fximary uso of ‘technology. he respondents were askedtoprioitize thee {se of technology in tne classicom according to the folowing lis. he teachers wre cskod fo number th it from 1-5 wth 1 representing tel pimary use of ‘echnology in ther classoom, The percentages below rr Tigo rr at SERSTFEDSOROPITRGROSOG VELA NOT ne at BOE IRESEARCH PAPERS represent the teaches pimary use oftechnology. + Instuctionoldetvery(e., PowerPons): 16% 1 Research pntemetresouces): 19% + Student ila actos endorteetine: 14% + Emat22% 1+ Poperwork (EPs, Grads, Reports Lesson Plans):29% ‘Teaches sel-percepton responses fo suvey, tem 10, regarding hel use of technology for nstucton ranged from Excellent/93(32%), Adequate/29(28%), 10 Pood! (40%). The responses to this paricutar lem varied ‘2ccorng o he teaches reported years ot experince ‘with educational technology (8. 1-5 years 6-10 years, fond 10+ yes) [890 Table 1]. Based on tho thee fechnology experience categories, the toachers rated ‘he use of technology Inthe classoom rospectvel, as excolent 7 (7%), 518%), ond 21(20%), odequate 13(12%), (6%) ond 11(11%) ond poor 16(16%), 12(12%), and 13(12%). These diferences between the teachers yeors of experience with educational Jechnology ond ther perceptions of themselves os fettectve technology user wore statsicaly significant, X(4.N = 103) = 9.385, p =.05, 9. =.21. Temoderato ettectsze.2 (Rea Pao. 203) suggestod’21% of he vationce in teacher! sel-perception of thei use of Yechnology inthe closstoor could be accounted forby ‘he reported number of yeas using educational Technology. Teachers who tepored over 10 yoars of experience win educational technology were more lke 40 have a postive perception of thelr ably to use ‘technology In their clostoorn while teachers win 1-5 Yeas of experonce, more IRaly reported « poor sl Eile sows 8m ieee a a a sm Beet Sevdeoerr ‘ent. Sy tors Comparten 103 eochar St-prcepeen tAotv i te ockeoegy by Yor of Bootes ong Eoveatonlfecsreay perception of thelr abilly 1o use technology fh the classoom. Diecutsion and Conclusion School dicts throughout the Unfled States nave Invested a great deat of meney and resources to equlp ppublc school classooms wih computers of well os ‘acces other technology such os Smart Boards, Eimos, nd cigtal projector, Adatonaly, many schoo have Proved Infomet access for students and teacher. Teaches percoptons about technology in general ans that offectweness as technology uses recy impacts the type of and amount of technology Used In thee classooms (Chontn, Hong, Hong. Chang & Chu, 2006). “The data trom the present study sugges that teaches ‘wiih more experience wih educational technotogy perceived themselves os more etfecive technology ers. The mojotty respondents reported that they routinely used technology for classoom nstucton, however when asked speciicaly how they used Jechnology they reported the folowing: e-mal ond Papecwork (ER grades, etc were chosen as thet top two Portes (61%), while Inetuctlonal purpose (16%) and research (19%) wate chosen less offen, This fing suggests a disconnect between some teachers perceptions about what constives Irsuctonal uso of ‘technology. hey appeared io view ory use of classoom computersasinstuctonal "Another interesting fic ftom the dota indicated hat ‘he mojoity of the respondents cid not believe thet students should have ful acces fo the Intemet, Tie finding may be explained by teacher! comments cconceming hi ter. One teacher commented hat “ul ‘2ccossmoansabity or capabily ofthe system |notwor), however does not mean the ight fo goto every st. ‘Another stated,“ [il acces) should be monitored for fofey, but ould be avatobie’ The later statement feflecte o protectonit belief that may pewade the School culture ond influence deciions regarding ‘technology use. Future research concening protectionist bolietsandtechnology practice needed. In.conchsion, the present study supports he tncngs of [Tanager Jerr or Shel €arSont acho VOL 4 NaF dune Aap 2008 z IRESEARCH PAPERS foher studies, speciicaly, that teachers ore using ‘technology routinely in thet clossooms (Chanlin, Hong, Homg, Cnang & Chu, 2006; Howley & Howley, 2008; Levon & Wexdrany, 2008; 2007; Sugar Crawiey, Fine, 2004), but not spectcal for nnevatveInstucton. The respondents In this study perceived themseWves os effective technology uses, especially f hey hod more ‘experience wth technology, however, they si pimorly {sed technology for managerial rather than instuctonal oF research purposes. Therefore, t seems, os wih other studios, hat the promise of technology as a means to ‘enhance bestinstuctonal practice hasnot been filed |Atnough technology Is changing ond continues to change, he merging of bes instuctional practices with {technology 1008 is citical and, therefore, ments futher research (Gentry, 2004), Future research should look ct ‘he quatty of tring teachers receNve in merging Yechnology wih classicom instuction and student leamingoutcores References [DL Bak, ¥, Jung, J, & Kim, 8, (2008, January). What ‘makes teaches: use technology in the classtoom? [xpiomng te factors affecting tocitation of technology wih a Korean sample. Computers & Education, 60(1) 224-234, IR}. Baylor A. L, & Rilehle, D. (2002). What factor facttae teacher sal, teacher morale, and perceived student Jeaming In technology-using. classtooms? Comouters& Education 89, 395-414. [3]: Chant, L, Hong, J, Homg, J, chang 8. & Chu, (2006, February). Factors influencing technology Infegeation in teaching: @ Tawanese perspective. Innovetion In Education & Teaching ntemotional. 431), 67-68, [al Cuban, L. (2001), Oversold and underused Computers nthe closoom, Cambridge, MA: Horr Univrsy ross. [S1- Gentry, J (2008), tho enpact of Publishing Assistive Technology In on Inclusive Sith Grade Sociol tues CCrossoom on Students’ Content Leaming. Witing. Speling, ond Mottation: A desciipve compatson (Doctoral csertation, Texas AAM Univer. Commerce, 2008}, Dissertation Abstrcts International 66(11}.321A. [61 Hensley, 0.D., Opp, RD., & Rivers, B.C. (1996). The Texas prep consortia: Srateglesfor advancing academic ‘ond technical education (Report No. NCRIL-CE-73-101}. Asn, Texas Texos Higher Education Cootdincting Board (FRIC DocurnentReproducton Service No. ED 402-454) 1. Howey, A. & Howey, C. (2008), Planning for ‘echnology Inograton: Is the ogenda ovencted or Lnderappreciaton? Eaucatonal Planning, 17() 1-17. [61 Johnson, M. (2008, Max). New iteacies: Everyday Practices and clssoom learning -By Con Lanksheor & Michele Knobel A new Herocies somplor-ted by Michele Knobel & Colin Lanksheat Brith Journal of EducationatTectinology, 393}, 562-563. [91 Kinzer, C.K, Commack. D. W, Labbo, LD. Teale, W H. & Sanny, R. (2006). Using technology to lee}conceptualize pre-service leracy teacher leducaton: Conscertions of design, pedagogy, ond ros20rch. nM. C. Moen... Labbe, RD. Keto, 8. Reining (Ed, Intemational handbook of ieracy and technology Yo (pp. 211-283), Manwoh, Nu: Lawrence Efaum Associates. [NO}. Lovin, t, & Wacimany,R. (2008, August). Teachers Views on Factor Afecting ftfecte Integration of Information Technology in the Classioom: Developmental Scenery. Jounal of Technology & Teacher Edvoation, 16(2. 233-263. 1}. U, @ (2007). Student and teacher vows about ‘echnology: A tale of two cites? Jour of Research on Technology InEOucaton, £94), 377-397. 112}. Rea, L. M., & Parker R.A. (1992). Desgning and Ccondtcting survey research, FranclsorJossoy Boss. 113}. merdon8., Cronen, S.,Lanchan.L, Anderson JannotlN., & Angeles J (2000), Teachers to for he 2st century: A report on teaches-use of technology {NCES 2000-102), Washington, DC: US. Department of Education, Notional enter forEducotton statistics. (14), Sugox W, Crawley F& Fine, B, (2004), Examining fecchers! decisions to adopt new technology, EducationalTechnology and Society, 74, 201-213. rT Tigo rr at SERSTFEDSOROPITRGROSOG VELA NOT ne at BOE IRESEARCH PAPERS ‘AppendixA:Survey Questionnaire Ploasotolusyourschoollstict, Comous: Grade Levels} tought: Subjects taught: |.Whatisyour educational background? fercleone) (898A, b)M.Ed..c} Ph.D. d)Omer 2eas of experience using educational technology. {cteieono~below) N15 bj610 c)lo+ 31 use technology (computes) routinely as pat of class oominstucton,(cecle one—below) clStonglvAges bjAgee Nour d)Dkogree e1StonglyDagree 4, [hove aceess fo download fee Instuctonalsofwore suchas Poo Story tom Microsoft crcleone~below) €} Stongy Agree b) Agree c) Neuttal_d) Disagree ‘e1StonglyDiagree 5.1 have access to search the intone fr instuctonal sofware andlor other topics related to insruction.(ckcle one~below) alstongWAgiee b\Agies c\Nouta! <)Disagree ‘2)Stongy Disagree 6. have access 10 download streaming videos tom he Intemet reloted to clossioom Instuction. (ctcle ‘one-below) ‘alstongAgiee bIAgie® ]Neutal <}Dsagree e}StonglyDagree 7. | beleve teachers should have ful access fo the Infomet. {cele one ~bolow) alstongWAgiee bIAgie® c]Neutal <}Dsagree ‘e1stongly Disagree 8. | balove al students hous have ful access to the Infomet (ctl one ~bolow) clstongWAgies bjAgIee c]Neut! <)Disagee ‘e}StonglyOlsagree 9. Luse fechnologypmaty for foloaserate he folowing, 105. 1beingine mostused and theleostused) Cl instuctonal delvery (PowerPoint): byResecrch tniemetresources €)Studon Dl Practice andrea tener hE mat 8) Paperwork (EPs Pons} 10. Overall wou rote myusecot technology byas{chcle one~below albicotent —bjAdequate_}Poor 11. Lom provided technotogy toning mainy va (circle one~below) ‘technology deparmentinnouse) b)Educationsenee enter celPtvate Constants One: 12.tteachersrecetve taining. is(cirie one —below} ojsomesier Grades, Reports. Lesson lonwol b}blanwol ter: Pleate expan yout philopty concerning teaches ond shudentsuse of technology nthe clossroom. “THE END~THANK YOU PLEASE GIVE THIS 0 A TSU FACULYY ‘MENBER) [rranager error Seat faafonlachraog VoL Te T= de Rag 2008 = IRESEARCH PAPERS "ABOUT THE AUTHORS panto rte Doprtrartl Canaan araranten Rete S0 UNC Janes Gantry ion Asn ofc h Curcusm endetucon ron Sc nt He anes ore ent tt o ne mares of ho fletho Sonos rec! He agporrce rts tt eee ecer Soo suse a ‘Sareutr i raruser meso soa curulum dete a ache rte Cu, he 8 cancun IGG ‘Gace mutrrast tctrnbgy east ase ws Ae Soest Dano OmgaDE IMSS BY Te eT ‘Pen unanoy an fester Protas fan Sta User ho Deparment of Curouuncred tn Heras) Prec ere foror sasctln caoactl exscean ese as Po toe Jounal Pe Each Shook Pee! Srateosrer grads on undergOarFeCDLTS Nm oeO Seo a FoI ETI FOVCOTON DCO «paver cuneate ote = = Tigo rr at SERSTFEDSOROPITRGROSOG VELA NOT ne at BOE