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, producing
2
about 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.
3
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 their student 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 positive trend 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.
4
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.
5
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
http://www.tomorrow.org/speakup/pdfs/SU11_PersonalizedLearning_Educators.pdf
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).