3. Need for the Study
• There is an expectation that U.S. high-school teachers
can successfully utilize technology for instruction.
• National Education Technology Plan (2011) indicates:
• Schools must be ―applying the advanced technologies used in our
daily personal and professional lives to our entire education system
to improve student learning‖
• Paucity of peer-reviewed research studies which examine
high-school teachers’ technology self-efficacy in
relationship to attitudes and quality of technology
integration.
4. Research Questions
1. Is there a relationship between high-school teachers’
technology self-efficacy and quality of technology
integration?
2. Is there a relationship between high-school teachers’
technology self-efficacy and attitudes towards
technology integration?
3. Is there a relationship between high-school teachers’
attitudes towards technology integration and quality of
technology integration?
4. Ad Hoc Research Question: Is there a statistically
significant difference in the technology self-efficacy
between teachers who spend much time or little time on
technology integration professional development?
5. Methodology
• Descriptive
• Quantitate
• Correlational
• Survey Data—self-efficacy & attitudes
• Lesson Plan Rubric Scores—quality of technology integration
• Assumption:
• Teachers’ lesson plans are indicative of typical teachers’ classroom
instruction and actual practice (Shavelson, 1983).
6. Participants and Setting
• In-service high-school teachers (n = 74)
• 47% male; 53% female
• Average of 12 years teaching
• 85% received at least one Master’s Degree
• Numerous Subject Areas
• Career and Tech. Ed., Driver’s Ed., English, Fine Arts, JROTC,
Math, P.E., Science, Special Ed., Social Science, World Language,
ESL
• Large, public, Midwestern, urban, and ―technology-rich‖
district
8. Instruments
Instrument Original Instrument Authors Final Instrument
1 Computer Technology Integration
Survey (CTIS)
Wang, Ertmer and Newby
(2004)
Teacher Technology
Beliefs and Attitudes
Survey (TTBAS)
2 Teacher Technology Beliefs Survey
(TTBS)
An and Reigeluth (2011)
3 TPACK-Based Technology
Integration Assessment Rubric
(TTIAR)
Harris, Grandgenett, and
Hofer (2010)
TPACK-Based
Technology Integration
Assessment Rubric
9. Pilot Study
• Two months prior to data collection
• Survey Design
• Three Expert Raters
• Inter-rater reliability
• Operationalize Rubric
• Determined need for open-ended responses
10. Data (Rubric) Analysis
1. Each teacher submitted two lesson plans; Lesson 1 and
Lesson 2
2. Rater A and B, scored all of the Lesson 1 plans
3. Rater C and the researcher scored all of the Lesson 2 plans
4. The median score for Lesson 1 and Lesson 2 was used to
provide a final rating for each lesson plan and consisted of a
minimum score of 4 and a maximum score of 16
5. The median scores of Lesson 1 and Lesson 2 were added
together to provide a cumulative total of both lessons
submitted by each teacher
6. The total score, a minimum score of 8 and maximum score
of 32, was used to answer the research questions
11. Results – Research Question One
Is there a relationship between high-school teachers’
technology self-efficacy and quality of technology
integration?
There was a moderate
relationship between the
respondents’ levels of
technology integration self-
efficacy and the quality of
technology integration into
their lesson plans
(r = .41, p < .01).
12. Results – Research Question Two
• Is there a relationship between high-school teachers’
technology self-efficacy and attitudes towards technology
integration?
There is a strong relationship
between the respondents’
levels of technology
integration self-efficacy and
their positive beliefs that
utilizing technology for
instruction is valuable
(r = .61, p<.01).
13. Results – Research Question Three
• Is there a relationship between high-school teachers’
attitudes toward technology integration and quality of
technology integration?
There was a weak
relationship between the
respondents’ beliefs about the
importance of utilizing
technology for instruction and
the quality of technology
integration ( r = .26, p < .05)
14. Results – Ad Hoc Question Four
Is there a statistically significant difference in the
technology self-efficacy between teachers who spend
much time and little time on technology integration
professional development?
There was a statistically significant difference at the p < .05 level in
CTIS scores for two of the five categories of professional
development F (4, 69) = 2.5, p = .05). Group 1 (much professional
development) differed significantly from Group 5 (no professional
development).
Approximately how much professional development regarding technology integration
have you had OUTDISE of [district] professional development?
5 = Much
4 = Not Labeled
3= Some
2 = Not Labeled
1 = None
15. Results – Ad Hoc Question Four
Comparisons of Efficacy of Professional Development Groups
Group Label M SE Sig.
95% CI
LB UB
1 2 -.65490 .32672 .275 -1.5701 .2603
3 -.51405 .30195 .439 -1.3599 .3318
4 -.45294 .37961 .755 -1.5163 .6104
5 -1.35297* .45232 .031 -2.6200 -.0859
2 1 .65490 .32672 .275 -.2603 1.5701
3 .14085 .30195 .990 -.7050 .9867
4 .20196 .37961 .984 -.8614 1.2653
5 -.69804 .45232 .538 -1.9651 .5690
3 1 .51405 .30195 .439 -.3318 1.3599
2 -.14085 .30195 .990 -.9867 .7050
4 .06111 .35852 1.000 -.9432 1.0654
5 -.83889 .43477 .312 -2.0568 .3790
4 1 .45294 .37961 .755 -.6104 1.5163
2 -.20196 .37961 .984 -1.2653 .8614
3 -.06111 .35852 1.000 -1.0654 .9432
5 -.90000 .49189 .365 -2.2779 .4779
5 1 1.35297* .45232 .031 .0859 2.6200
2 .69804 .45232 .538 -.5690 1.9651
3 .83889 .43477 .312 -.3790 2.0568
4 .90000 .49189 .365 -.4779 2.2779
*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.
16. Results – Ad Hoc Question Four
Approximately how much professional development regarding technology
integration have you had OUTDISE of [district] professional development?
Collapsed groups from 5 groups to 3 groups:
• None = 1 or 2
• Some = 3
• Much = 4 or 5
There was no statistically significant differences at the p < .05 level in
between groups in self-efficacy, attitude, and quality of technology
integration.
Is there a statistically significant difference in the
technology self-efficacy between teachers who spend
much time and little time on technology integration
professional development?
17. Additional Analysis
Summer Technology Bootcamp refers to the school district’s week-long,
in-house summer professional development session. It was designed
to prepare teachers for the following academic year’s 1:1 technology
initiative where all freshman students received a notebook computer to
use at school and take home daily. The professional development
included training on classroom management tools and a new online
learning management system. Other sessions included product
demonstrations of various teaching and learning technologies.
There were no statistically significant differences in bootcamp
participants’ comparisons between self-efficacy, attitude, and quality of
technology integration to those who did not attend.
18. Discussion
• School administrators and those providing professional
development must find ways to help teachers see the
value of technology for instruction.
• Resistant teachers need to see practical and authentic applications
of technology in their subject areas to be persuaded that
technology has value in the classroom (Lambert and Gong, 2010).
• Context specific examples are used to bolster the value of
technology for instruction.
• Exemplars of technology enhanced lessons which take into
account all aspects of the TPACK model should be addressed.
19. Professional Development
• Findings support that those who seek out new ways to
understand technology for instruction hold beliefs that
they are capable of using technology and that it can
enhance their instructional practices.
• However, teachers who are most aggressive in their
pursuit of technology for instruction have the highest
levels of self-efficacy.
20. Combine Content with Context
• Teachers working in content specific groups were found to
have higher levels of self-efficacy after participation in a
week-long workshop (Shriner et al., 2010).
• Technology integration may need to be combined with the specific
content area knowledge to ensure relevance and effective
integration.
• Balance of content, pedagogy, and technology which allow for the
most rich integration of technology for instruction (Abbitt, 2011).
• Hopefully will lead to greater levels of technology self-efficacy and
greater quality of technology integration into instructional practices.
21. Future Suggestions
• Consider teachers’ current levels of technology self-
efficacy prior to developing technology training
opportunities.
• Allow teachers to explore relevant examples in order to
demonstrate the value of technology to enhance
instructional outcomes.
• Include TPACK framework as a part of teacher technology
professional development so that technology is not an
isolated facet of instruction, but it is inter-woven with
teaching practices and content area expertise.
22. Future Suggestions Cont’d
• Pre- and Post-test measures can be used to assess
teachers’ efficacy and attitudes upon completion of
technology integration professional development.
• Further research should be done on the consistency with
which the quality of technology integration into teacher’s
lesson plans is assessed.
• Examine teachers’ lesson plans in relationship with
students’ products to determine if students are able to
demonstrate the technology competencies and curricular
objectives identified in the lesson plan.
23. Future Suggestions Cont’d
• Conduct oral interviews and classroom observations of
teachers’ lesson plans in conjunction with survey data and
rubric scores.
• Determine relationship between administrators’
technology attitudes and self-efficacy in conjunction with
teachers’ attitudes and self-efficacy.
When one-way between-groups analysis of variance was conducted to explore the self-efficacy of participants who reported the amount of time spent outside of the district on technology integration professional development as measured by the CTIS, there was no statistically significant difference between participants’ technology self-efficacy. Also, a one-way between-groups analysis of variance was conducted to explore the quality of technology integration into teachers’ lesson plans as measured by the TPACK rubric and the amount of time participants spent outside of the district on technology integration professional development. There was no statistically significant difference between the three groups. Moreover, a one-way between-groups analysis of variance was conducted to explore attitudes towards technology of participants of the three groups for time spent outside of the district on technology integration professional development. There was no statistically significant difference of participants’ attitudes towards technology integration among the three groups.
The data indicated there was no statistically significant difference in technology self-efficacy scores for those who attended the district’s technology professional development (M = 4.29, SD = 1.10) and those who did not attend (M = 4.37, SD = .90); t (72) = .34, p = .73 (two-tailed).There was no statistically significant difference in attitude scores for those who attended the district’s technology professional development (M = 4.90, SD = .79) and those who did not attend (M = 5.01, SD = .70); t (72) = .67, p = .50 (two-tailed).There was no statistically significant difference in scores for those who attended the district’s technology professional development (M = 22.84, SD = 5.84) and those who did not attend the district’s technology professional development (M = 21.81, SD = 5.87); t (72) = -.75 (two-tailed).
