Teacher Technology Usage 1

Running head: TEACHER TECHNOLOGY USAGE

A Survey of Technology Training, Knowledge, Usage, and Attitudes

of Southern California Primary and Secondary School Teachers

Richard Wainess

University of Southern California

Teacher Technology Usage 1

Abstract

Competence with and use of technology, inside and outside the classroom, is becoming a requirement for primary and secondary school teachers. Federal and state educational departments are requiring teachers to learn and use technology, universities have begun to offer technology courses to their educational students, and staff development courses in technology are being offered to inservice teachers, yet it is unclear whether these training programs are effective. Research has shown that effective training requires diversity, contextualized training or information, peer communication, and convenient and ongoing instruction. The purpose of this study is to discover, through a survey instrument, whether teachers are receiving the training they need to become comfortable using technology for administrative purposes and teaching with, or teaching, technology.

A Survey of Technology Training, Knowledge, Usage, and Attitudes

of Southern California Primary and Secondary School Teachers

The availability of computers for student use in public schools has changed significantly in recent years. In the last decade, the student-to-computer ratio has moved from 26.7:1 to 5.7:1, and it is estimated that, since 1991, $19 billion has been spent on creating the information technology infrastructure for the nation’s public schools (Dorman, 2001). As society continues to rely more and more on computers, current and future educators must keep up-to-date with technology, to provide meaningful educational experiences for their students (McCannon & Crews, 2000). However, despite the growing access to technology, only 20 percent of the nation’s 2.5 million public school teachers are comfortable with using computers in the classroom (Dorman, 2001). Adding to this problem, students today often know more about computers and technology than their teachers (Clifford, 1998). “Clearly, the need for teacher training in the use of information technology is crucial in all schools” (Lanier & White, 1998, p. 2).

Most technology planning concentrates on hardware and software, not on staff development (Benson, 1997), yet without proper training and motivation, the technology will probably not be used. Staff development must be factored into school technology plans (Clifford, 1998). Currently, 38 states have technology requirements in their teacher preparation programs (Hornung & Bronack, 2000). For example, Title 5 Regulation, in Section 44161.7 of the California Education Code (California State Legislature, 1997), requires preservice and inservice teachers to take an educational computing course. These courses are typically designed to teach basic computing skills as well as integration of computers into the classroom (Yildrim, 2000). However, according to Smith (2000), today’s teachers are not entering the classroom well prepared to use technology. Many teachers feel they’ve received inadequate training, even though most schools already have some form of technology and those same teachers are expected to be competent in its use for delivery and support of instruction (Clark, 2000). Technology education has not kept pace with the rapid changes in computer technology and many teachers find their experience with the practical use of computers is lacking. Adding to this problem, Hornung and Bronack (2000) state that many educational faculty do not receive the training they themselves need to model proper or effective use of technology. They often do not understand the impact of technology on K-12 classrooms, and have not adjusted their own teaching methodologies to reflect those changes. This lack of modeling is detrimental to teacher technology training (Hornung & Bronack, 2000).

Background

For students to benefit from technology, they must have teachers who are trained in the use of those technologies for education. Teachers must integrate technology into the curriculum as a tool for students to use for information gathering, data manipulation, problem-solving, and critical thinking (Tinson, 1996). However, where technology training does exist, its design is often inadequate to support teachers’ needs (McCannon & Crews, 2000). Research has shown that effective teacher technology training requires a blend of up-to-date technology instruction (McBrath & Kinze, 2000) that supports students with diverse levels of prior computer knowledge and abilities (Yildirin, 2000), contextual and best practice resources for applying technology to a wide range of subjects and classroom situations (Linnell, 2000), ongoing peer communication (Jones, 2001a), and convenient and ongoing delivery of instruction (Hornung & Bronack, 2000). If current and future teachers are to value technology and help students become comfortable with its use, teachers must have access to appropriate training, resources, and activities (Linnell, 2000). Milbrath and Kinzie (2000) have shown that course exposure and frequent use of technology lead to increased comfort levels as well as embracing of technology in the classroom.

Teacher preparation programs must provide their students with many and varied experiences (Clifford, 1998). TERC, a nonprofit educational research and development organization, has found that, to support teacher integration of tools and technology-related content into their classrooms, training must embrace a broad and comprehensive approach to professional development that incorporates pedagogical objectives and is responsive to individual teacher needs (Grant, 1999). Krueger, Hansen, and Smaldino (2000), too, state that teachers must know more than just how to use technology. They must know how to use technology to enhance learning. For example, one fifth-grade classroom used a spreadsheet to plan a party within a budget (Grant, 1999).

According to Benson (1997), schools are finding that traditional models of staff development, particularly one-time inservice training, are ineffective for teaching computer use and for helping teachers develop methods to integrate computers as instructional tools. Staff development programs must meet teachers' diverse, ongoing, and ever-changing technology needs (Benson, 1997). To support varying student needs, Yildirim (2000) suggests assessing teachers computer competency levels before they enroll in courses. Even with an effective training program, though, many teachers have not adopted technology as a tool for use in their curriculum simply because they do not have time to attend classes(Hornung & Bronack, 2000). One solution is to provide instruction online (Jones, 2001a). In addition, to support learning and application of technology, effective staff development for teachers should allow teachers to interact with one another for technical support and classroom ideas (Jones, 2001a).

As an added benefit to technology training, research shows that as computer knowledge increases, anxiety levels decrease and comfort levels increase (Barker, 1994; Laffey & Musser, 1998; McCannon & Crews, 2000; Shick, 1996), and classroom use increases (Larner & Timberlake, 1995; McCannon & Crew, 2000).

Statement of the Problem

While teacher technology training exists, there is little information regarding its effectiveness in teaching teachers, its affect on teachers’ comfort levels in using technology, and how teachers are using the knowledge they’ve gained. In addition, little research has been conducted on the differences between the training delivered to inservice and preservice teachers. Furthermore, with the rapidly changing nature of technology, it is imperative to evaluate current teachers and their knowledge and use of current technology, so schools will know if teachers are capable of using or teaching current systems and are keeping pace with their students.

Since the advent of technology, educational institutions have struggled with how to embed technology into the teaching process and how to train teachers in the use of those technologies as teaching tools and to prepare students for the workplace (Yildirim, 2000). While federal, local, and district mandates exist, the implementation of solutions to those mandates appears to be inconsistent and often flawed. Many teachers are not learning what they should. Many teachers are learning to use the tools but not how to apply them to the classroom (Grant, 1999; Jones, 2001a, 2001b). Many teachers feel alone and unsupported in their technology education, with no place to turn for guidance or support. And many teachers do not have the time to travel to or attend technology courses (Grant, 1999; Jones, 2001b).

It is unclear whether the current training models are effective—whether teachers are learning what they need to know to use technology and to incorporate it into the classroom. From the current research, it appears there is little or no training available that incorporates all of the necessary elements of an effective technology training program: up-to-date training that supports diverse levels of prior knowledge and experience, contextual support and resources, peer communication, on-going support, and convenience. The first step to creating a new, effective program is to analyze the results of current systems, to determine whether teachers feel they have received the training they need to use technology, to teach with technology, and to teach technology.

Purpose of the Study

This study will investigate the attitudes teachers have regarding technology and the comfort levels of teachers with regards to their ability to use technology inside and outside the classroom. This study will collect data from teachers in several southern California school systems, to determine the effectiveness of current technology training and to determine whether the training across districts and among schools is comparable, combining both quantitative and qualitative approaches.

Significance of the Study

While technology training currently exists, it is unclear whether it is effective and whether it meets all the requirements of effective technology instruction. This study will assess teachers from multiple districts who have been exposed to technology training, to determine if training practices, or which training methods, have been effective in preparing educators to use, teach with, and teach technology, whether comfort levels are associated with specific training methods, or whether current practices are lacking. No study, to date, has compared the effectiveness of training programs across districts or from multiple training sources, or how different programs might result in varied comfort and usage levels. This study will provide insight into the possible need to establish more defined training requirements and more consistent training practices.

Research Hypotheses and Questions

  1. How comfortable are teachers using technology on the job?

H1: Different training methods will result in different comfort levels.

H2: All training methods will result in reduced anxiety levels toward computer usage.

  1. How useful do teachers consider technology for their job?

H3: Teachers who have received technology training will perceive technology as more useful than those who have not received technology training.

H4: There is a relationship between a teacher’s age and the teacher’s attitude toward the usefulness of technology.

  1. Do contextually based training experiences increase the likelihood that teachers will use technology in the classroom?

H5: There is a positive relationship between the willingness of a teacher to use technology as a teaching tool and how much contextual training or information the teacher has received.

  1. What is the effect of technical support on a teacher’s willingness to use technology?

H6: There is a positive relationship between a teacher’s willingness to use technology on the job and the availability of qualified technical support.

  1. What is the role of convenient training (e.g. online training) on a teacher’s willingness to access technology instruction?

H7: There is a positive relationship between training convenience and a teacher’s willingness to learn technology.

  1. What is the effect of peer communication on a teacher’s use of and attitude towards technology in education?

H8: The greater the peer communication, the more likely a teacher is to use technology as a teaching tool.

H9: There is a positive relationship between peer communication regarding technology and comfort with technology.

Overview of the Method

This study will use a survey instrument administered to 900 teachers from three school districts (Los Angeles, Long Beach, and Orange Unified School Districts) to assess attitudes of teachers regarding their abilities to use technology, deliver technology-based instruction, and teach technology, based on how the technology was learned, the teacher’s access to contextually based training or information, his or her age, his or her experience with peer communication, and the availability of technical support. It will also assess perceived usefulness of and comfort levels toward technology, as well as to determine if teachers would be more likely to access learning opportunities if the training were more convenient. Using random sampling and stratified random sampling method, the 900 participants will represent 45 schools: 5 each of elementary, middle, and high schools from each of the three districts. Teachers will be sent the survey with an explanation of its purpose and a letter of support from their district’s school board. Teachers will be asked to complete the form and return it using the enclosed, self-addressed stamped envelope. Teachers will be informed their responses will remain confidential and results will be reported by district and by school type (e.g. elementary schools), but not by school. The survey contains demographic questions, including number of years teaching. The majority of the survey consists of questions about preservice and inservice training experiences: where and how software training was administered, frequency of software use (from never to daily), and comfort level (strongly uncomfortable to strongly comfortable) using the software for different academic purposes (administrative, as a teaching tool, or to teach the software). In addition, questions have been included to assess teachers’ attitudes toward the usefulness of computers and teachers’ comfort or anxiety levels regarding technology.

Assumptions

It is assumed that participants will be honest in their responses to the survey. It is assumed that the teachers surveyed will be representative of the population of teachers in the three school districts surveyed. It is assumed that, due to size of the sample (900 surveys will be sent), those surveyed will represent a diversity of training experiences, a diversity of technology attitudes, and a diversity of technology usage.

Limitations

There are three obvious limitations to this study. First, only southern California teachers will be assessed, and one of the three districts (Orange) represents more affluent, primarily white communities, which might have resulted in better implementation and support of technology in its classroom. Second, the assessment is based on self-evaluation, which relies on potentially biased self-opinion. Third, while based heavily on a prior high-validity/reliability instrument, the complete assessment instrument for this study is currently untested for validity and reliability. The partial instrument used for the pilot study contains two sections, and only the second section has been tested for reliability (alpha = 0.8701).

Delimitations

There are many individual differences that can affect computer acceptance, adoption, and use, such as type of prior computer experience (e.g. programming, multimedia authoring, spreadsheet use, database development, or word processing). Each of these variants of use has been shown to affect attitudes toward computer use (Reed, Oughton, Ayersman, Ervin & Giessler, 2000). In this study, type or degree of prior computer experience will not be evaluated. Therefore, results will not account for these types of effects. Because the study surveys teachers in three southern California school districts, the results might only be generalizable to those three districts.

Review of the Literature

In the next decade, the United States will need over 2.2 million new teachers (Smith, 2000) and technology training is now a critical component in learning (Clifford, 1998). National and state teacher accreditation agencies have taken notice of this need (Smith, 2000), yet research shows that “traditional professional development activities are often short term, devoid of adequate follow up, and do not address school contexts” (Jones, 2001a, p. 2), and traditional programs are fragmented and unconnected to real classroom experiences (Jones, 2001a). According to Vojtek and Vojtek (2000), “while there is wide agreement about the importance of technology in classroom instruction, learning about technology is not central to teacher preparation programs” (p. 1). In addition, current technology training is usually about learning technology and not about applying those skills to educational content or pedagogy, leaving teachers with the task of determining on their own how to adapt what they’ve learned to the classroom (Vojtek & Vojtek, 2000).

A number of federal, state, and local programs have been created to either establish teacher technology training or to offer funding to such programs. In 1997, the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) formed a task force to determine what knowledge and skills new teachers should have with regards to technology. In 1999, the United States Department of Education began the Preparing Tomorrow's Teachers to Use Technology (PTTT) program that, in its first year of funding, provided 75 million dollars to colleges and universities across the country through various grants (Smith, 2000). Jones (2001) reports that PTTT has requested $150 million to provide technology training for new teachers. The University of Northern Iowa (UNI) Teacher Education Faculty has developed and adopted Preservice Teacher Technology Competencies, which is based on standards from several national agencies including the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE; Krueger et al., 2000). The CEO Forum on Education and Technology, a partnership between industry and education leaders, developed the Teacher Preparation STaR Chart: A Self-Assessment Tool for Colleges of Education which enables schools, colleges, and departments of education to assess their level of readiness in preparing tomorrow's teachers to use technology (Smith, 2000; Vojtek & Vojtek, 2000). Other states are developing similar partnerships (Smith, 2000). Case studies, which highlight how various colleges of education are integrating technology tools in teacher curriculum and exposing prospective teachers to technology-rich K-12 classroom environments, can be seen at (Smith, 2000, p. 4). Online resources for teachers include 21st Century Teachers ( Jones, 2001a, p. 2) for teachers seeking technology help, the 21st Century Teacher Network ( Jones, 2001b, p. 1), which enables teachers to exchange technology ideas with peers from around the world, and Classroom Connect ( Jones, 2001a, p. 2) for K-12 teachers to interact in online discussions and to obtain expert advice.