1
Positive Perception, Integration Not So Much
Kurt Schulze Ed.D
Walden University
Today’s classrooms are at the forefront of a major shift in the way teachers teach and the way students learn, with technology playing a major role in this shift (Project Tomorrow, 2012). The exponential growth of technology being used in the educational system has dramatically increased the focus of the potential benefits to students, both in the educational and research environments (Ross, Morrison, & Lowther, 2010; Siggins, 2008).Digital technologies are reconfiguring the way teachers, students, and administrators view education and learning (Collins & Halverson, 2010) because resources have the ability to target specific student learning needs (Manochehri & Sharif, 2010).To have a positive change on the education environment, stakeholders need to understand the factors driving educational technology (Collins & Halverson, 2010).
The purpose of my quantitative study was to investigate the relationships between teachers’ perceptions and integration of educational technology and various teacher characteristics (age, gender, years of teaching experience, subject taught, grade level, and level of college education). The target population for this study was K-12 educators (N = 387) from one west central Ohio County, which contained five districts. Data were collected using the Teacher Technology Integration and Perception Survey, which is compilation of questions from two valid, reliable, and preestablished surveys, Teacher Technology Survey and Teacher use of Educational Technology in U.S. Public Schools.The survey was created and distributed electronically through Google Drive.One hundred and thirty-four participants completed and submitted the survey, producingabout a 35% response rate. Google Drive provided the descriptive statistical analysis and SPSS was used to calculate the Spearman rank-order correlational coefficient.
Technology Perceptions
Participants had a general positive perception of educational technology. They also had a very positive perception (4.4 / 5.0) of their willingness to learn about ways to integrate educational technology. In other words, teachers had a positive outlook on educational technology and were willing to participate in educational technology professional development. The teachers were also passionate about not wanting to technology to go away (4.1/5.0). In addition to not wanting technology to go away, teachers had positive perceptions that technology helps accommodate different learning styles, stimulates creativity, and is an effective instructional aide.The data indicated some important and interesting trends.
Even though the overall perception was positive, some negative trends were discovered.The data indicated negative trends between age, experience, and the level of educational attainment. Using Spearman rank-order correlation coefficient it was determine that there were negative correlations between age and perceived educational technology (r(134) = -.246) and experience and perceived educational technology (r(134) = -.227). Both were statistically significant at the p < .01. The data also showed a positive trend between perception and teachers’ grade level. Additionally, male participants and teachers from core subjects had higher perceptions. Male teachers who are 20-29 years old, have 1-9 years of teaching experience, have bachelor’s degree, and teach high school core classes had the best perception of educational technology. In other words, these characteristics are potential predictors of positive educational technology perception.
Technology Integration
The data indicated that teachers do not integrate educational technology, regardless of the different ways the data was reviewed. Technology integration data indicated participants do not integrate technology often. The overall average score for technology was a 1.95/4, which is rated as rarely. The data also indicated that when participants do utilize educational technology, with theirstudent learning activities, technology resources are used with low-level applications. Examples of low-level activities included helping students learn or practice basic skills, conducting research, and word processing. After these activities, the frequency in which teachers utilize educational technology to perform various tasks greatly declines.Using low-level activities instead of authentic learning collaborations has a small impact on individual classrooms; however, when applied to the whole district, it creates a huge impact on student learning and achievement (Miranda & Russell, 2011).
The only positivetrend that was found for technology integration was with grade level. In other words, teachers in higher grades integrate more technology than teachers in lower grade. The only other standout teacher characteristic was gender. Male participants used educational technology resources considerably more than female participants. However, the other teacher characteristics of age, years of teaching experience, educational level, and teaching subject did not have any standout results. Age, years of teaching experience, educational level, and teaching subject are not considered potential predictors for demonstrative technology integration in this sample of teachers from this county at this time.
Teachers willing and capable of utilizing educational technology face devastating barriers that prohibit successful technology integration (Keengwe et al, 2008; Lowther et al., 2008). Therefore,teachers must be able to overcome barriers before they are able to use technology resources effectively (An & Reigeluth, 2011). When teachers’ possess high-levels of self-efficacy, they are willing to confront and overcome technology barriers (Glazer & Hannafin, 2008; Studnicki, 2012).Teachers with higher self-efficacy show increased effort and determination (Studnicki, 2012).
Two primary themes emerged from the study. Teachers are eager to learn about technology and teachers are not using technology to its greatest potential. These are both good findings because teachers may be receptive to future PD. The data showed that age, education level, years of teaching experience, and level of educational attainment were not barriers to teachers learning technology. Differences in gender and grade level indicated that work needs to be completed to reduce the gap between these two characteristics.
In conclusion, the overall perception of educational technology within this particular county during the fall of 2013 was positive. Teachers indicated being very willing to further their knowledge and understanding of technology integration by enrolling in PD. The fact that teachers are willing to further their technology knowledge is crucial because the participants do not use technology, as they should. When teachers do use technology for student learning, the data indicated that students were presented with low-level applications instead of authentic learning experiences. This provided a very clear direction for creating a PD project for this country. It has a great likelihood of being a rousing success.
References
An, Y., & Reigeluth, C. (2011). Creating technology-enhanced, learner-centered classrooms: K-12 teachers' beliefs, perceptions, barriers, and support needs.Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education,28(2), 54-62.
Collins, A. A., & Halverson, R. R. (2010).The second educational revolution: rethinking education in the age of technology.Journal of Computer Assisted Learning,26(1), 18-27. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2009.00339.x
Glazer, E., & Hannafin, M. (2008).Factors that influence mentor and teacher interactions during technology integration collaborative apprenticeships.Journal of Technology and Teacher Education,16(1), 35-61.
Keengwe, J., Onchwari, G., & Wachira, P. (2008).Computer Technology Integration and Student Learning: Barriers and Promise.Journal Of Science Education & Technology,17(6), 560-565. doi:10.1007/s10956-008-9123-5
Lowther, D. L., Inan, F. A., Daniel Strahl, J. J., & Ross, S. M. (2008). Does technology integration “work” when key barriers are removed?.Educational Media International,45(3), 195-213. doi:10.1080/09523980802284317
Manochehri, N., & Sharif, K. (2010). A model-based investigation of learner attitude towards recently introduced classroom technology.Journal of Information Technology Education,9, 31-52.
Miranda, H., & Russell, M. (2011).Predictors of teacher-directed student use of technology in elementary classrooms: A multilevel SEM approach using data from the USEIT Study.Journal of Research on Technology in Education,43(4), 301-323.
Project Tomorrow. (2012). Personalizing the classroom experience – Teachers, librarians and administrators connect the dots with digital learning. Retrieved from
Ross, S. M., Morrison, G. R., & Lowther, D. L. (2010). Educational technology research past and present: Balancing rigor and relevance to impact school learning. Contemporary Educational Technology,1(1), 17-35.
Siggins, J. A. (2008). Unintended consequences: A friendly user looks at user-friendly digitization.Journal of Library Administration,48(2), 195-206.
Studnicki, E. A. (2012). Beliefs and technology – does one lead to the other? Evaluating the effects of teacher self-efficacy and school collective efficacy on technology use in the classroom (Doctoral dissertation).Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3504989).