A Trend Study: Technology Adoption in the Teaching ...heatherallen137.weebly.com/uploads/4/7/6/6/4766997/journal_article.pdf · a trend study: technology adoption in the teaching-learning

A Trend Study: Technology Adoption in theTeaching-Learning Process by Secondary Business

Teachers - 2002 and 2007Donna H. Redmann

Joe W. Kotrlik

AbstractThis study determined Louisiana secondary business teachers' adoption of technologyfor use in instruction. Teachers have increased their technology adoption for use ininstruction over the past five years, although they still do not have access to thetechnology they need to utilize technology fully. Moderate barriers exist that preventthem from integrating technology into their teaching although the technology integrationbarriers have decreased over the past five years. Teachers are experiencing sometechnology anxiety, which appears to be a decline since 2002. Technology availability,barriers to technology integration, andyears teaching experience are strong predictorsof their adoption of technology in instruction.

IntroductionTechnology continues its accelerated rate of change as it influences all facets

of society including personal lives and careers. Technology affects businessteachers more than most teachers. They strive to remain on the cutting edge,both in technology use and in what they teach. However, in the last fiveyears, have business teachers' changed their adoption of technology for usein instruction? Do technology anxiety and training explain business teachers'technology usage? Do business teachers perceive that barriers continue to existthat prevents their use of technology?

The benchmark technology adoption study was conducted as a part of theauthors' study of technology integration in 2002. The study addressed all fourlevels of the Kotrlik-Redmann Technology Integration Model (02002); namely,Exploration, Experimentation, Adoption, and Advanced Integration. The currentstudy focuses on whether business teachers have changed their adoption ofinstructional technology.

PurposeThe study's purposes were: 1) to determine secondary business teachers'adoption

of technology for use in instruction, and 2) to determine if technology adoptionand perceived barriers to technology adoption as reported in 2007 differed fromthe 2002 study. In this trend study, different people from the same population weresurveyed at different times (five years apart) (Ary, Jacobs & Razavieh, 2002). Theobjectives were to describe:1) respondents' characteristics;2) the extent to which technology has been adopted in teaching-learning;3) teachers' perceptions of barriers to technology adoption;4) the technology anxiety of teachers;Dr. Donna H. Redmann znd Dr. Joe W. Kotriik are professors in the School of Human Resource Education &Workforce Development at Louisiana State University, 142 Old Forestry Building, South Stadium Drive, BatonRouge, LA 70803-5477T

Volume L, No. 2, Sp?inglSummer, 2008. 77

DONNA H. REDMANN AND JOE W. KOTRLIK

5) if teachers' adoption of technology, perceived barriers to technology

integration for use in instruction, and technology anxiety had changed over

the last five years; and6) if selected variables explain technology adoption levels.

Literature ReviewOne technology enhancement initiative is the Enhancing Education Through

Technology Act of 2001 which is Title -I, Part D, of the No Child Left Behind Act

(2001). Resources to integrate technology in instruction were provided under this

legislation to improve academic achievement through the use of technology (II.

D. Sec. 2402, b, 1). A second initiative is the National Educational Technology

Standards (NETS) for teachers (International Society for Technology in Education,

2004). By 2004, almost all of the states ".... had adopted, adapted, aligned with, or

otherwise referenced at least one set of standards in their state technology plans,

certification, licensure, curriculum plans, assessment plans, or other official state

documents" (p. 1).Concurrently, additional investments are being made in instructional technol-

ogy. The National Center for Education Statistics reported that Internet access has

increased from 35% in 1994 to 94% in 2005, and the ratio of students to instruc-

tional computers with Internet access has dropped from 12.1 to 1 in 1998 to 3.8 to

I in 2005 (Wells & Lewis, 2006).Trend studies of business educators' use of technology have not been

conducted, although technology use studies in secondary education exist.

Vannatta and Fordham (2004) reported that the best predictors of technology use

were commitment of time to teaching, willingness to change, and the amount of

technology training. On a broader scale, Thomas, Adams, Meghani, and Smith's

(2002) national study of the effects of Internet usage in schools with career and

technical education programs found that the Internet was a transformative agent.

Thomas et al. found that Internet usage enhanced professional development

opportunities for teachers, equalized opportunities for students, altered social

status, changed learning, and modified the teaching-learning system.

Roblyer (2005) indicated that technological change occurs so fast that it is hard

to ". . . build a body of findings over time on any given application" (p. 193).

How quickly individuals adopt change is related to whether they see the value

of the new approach when compared to their existing approach (Rogers, 2003).

As individuals adopt changes, it is usually accomplished through a complex

process that includes three stages - adoption, implementation, and continuation

(Fullan, 2001). Teachers need time to merge their improved knowledge into their

instructional practice as a basis for the acceptance of innovations, according to

Fullan.

Variables Related to Technology AdoptionTechnology Training and Teaching Experience. "Spending on hardware and

software generally dominates K-12 technology budgets, while money for support,

training and professional development does not keep pace" (Hofer, Chamberlin &

7ke Delta Pi Epsilon journal78

A TREND STUDY: TECHNOLOGY ADOPTION IN THE TEACHING-LEARNING PROCESS

Scot, 2004, ¶9). Vannatta and Fordham (2004) found that the amount of technologytraining was one of the best predictors of technology use. The British EducationalCommunications and Technology Agency (BECTA, 2003) also reported that therewas a lack of training focused on integrating technology in the classroom ratherthan simply teaching basic skills. Another issue is that technology integration isrelated to teaching experience according to Mumtaz (2000) and Smerdon et a].(2000).

Technology Adoption Barriers. Teachers frequently fail to build on thepotential offered by technology due to several barriers (Brinkerhoff, 2006)including institutional and administrative support, attitudinal or personalityfactors, resources, and training and experience. BECTA (2003) defined barriersto the use of information and communications technology in teaching as "...any factor that prevents or restricts teachers' use of technology in the classroom"(51). BECTA reported that teacher-level barriers included lack of time, lackof the knowledge necessary, and lack of self-confidence in using technology.Administrative-level barriers included lack of equipment, access to equipment,technical support, availability of up-to-date software, and institutional support.Mumtaz (2000), BECTA (2003), and Kotrlik and Redmann (2004) found thattechnology unavailability was an important factor preventing teachers' technologyuse.

Technology Anxiety. Providing technology to teachers without appropriateteacher training and consideration of curricular issues has produced high levelsof teacher anxiety (Budin, 1999). Technology anxiety has explained variancein technology adoption, technology experimentation, and advanced technologyintegration of career and technical education teachers (Kotrlik & Redmann,2004); as technology anxiety decreased, technology adoption, technologyexperimentation, and advanced technology integration increased. However,Redmann and Kotrlik (2004) found that technology anxiety did not explainsubstantial variance in technology integration.

Need for the StudyA trend study was needed to determine if technology adoption had progressed

beyond the level documented in 2002. The authors concluded in their 2002benchmark study of technology integration (Redmann & Kotrlik, 2004) thatLouisiana business teachers have adopted technology and were exploring newways to incorporate technology into their instruction; however, some did nothave access to the latest technology for use in their classrooms and labs. Teacherswere experiencing minor barriers in their technology integration efforts and wereexperiencing some anxiety when using technology in instruction. This trend studydetermined business teachers' current technology adoption and if the adoptionprocess has resulted in a higher adoption level, with technology adoption definedas "Instructors have adopted the regular use of technology in the instructionalprocess."

Volume L, No. 2, Spring/Summer, 2008. 79


MethodRandom Samples

The study utilized random samples (2002: N= 289- 2007: N= 182) of Louisiana's

secondary business teachers (2002: N = 930; 2007: N = 853). The return rates

were: 2002: N= 144/289-49.89%; 2007: N= 101/182 - 55.5%. The sample sizes

were based on Cochran's formula (Snedecor & Cochran, 1989); a smaller sample

size was used in 2007 because the population of business teachers is smaller and

the estimated standard deviation was overestimated when the sample size was

calculated in 2002.

InstrumentationThe scales and items were developed according to Gable and Wolf's (1993)

guidelines for instrument development. The face/content validity of the instrument

was evaluated by an expert panel. Cronbach's alpha coefficients revealed that

all scales possessed exemplary reliability according to Robinson, Shaver and

Wrightsman's (1991) standards: Technology Adoption Scale - .93 (2002)/.91

(2007), Barriers to Technology Integration Scale - .87 (2002)/.82 (2007), and

the Technology Anxiety Scale (2007)- .92. The Technology Anxiety Scale was not

included in the 2002 study. The Technology Adoption and Barriers to Technology

Integration scales were identical in 2002 and 2007.

Data CollectionIdentical procedures were used for data collection in 2002 and 2007 -- two

mailings and a fdllow-up of a random non-respondent sample. Inferential t-tests

comparing scale means for the mail and telephone respondents for both the 2002

and 2007 studies revealed no statistically significant differences. It was concluded

that the data represented the respective populations and the follow-up data were

combined with the mailed data.

FindingsThis article reports a trend study. The findings from the 2002 study were

previously reported (Redmann & Kotrlik, 2004). Therefore, this study reports

the findings from the 2007 study plus the comparisons of the specified variables

between the 2002 and 2007 study.

Personal CharacteristicsMost business teachers inthe 2007 study were female (89,88.1%) with an average

age of 44 years (M=44.4, SD=9.9) and an average of 16 years teaching (M=16.2,

SD=12.3). Regarding technology training, all reported they were self-taught (101,

100.0%), with most utilizing workshops (95, 94.1%), courses (80, 79.2%), and

peers (80, 79.2%). Most (98, 97.0%) had a school email account while few (10,

9.9%) indicated their students had school email accounts. Their technology use

included digital cameras (67, 66.3%), laser disc players or standalone DVD or

CD players (61, 60.4%), interactive DVDs or CDs (61, 60.4%), video cassette/

CD/DVD players (58, 57.4%), digital video cameras (37, 36.6%), personal digital

assistants (14, 13.9%), and global positioning systems (6, 5.9%).

90 7The Delta Pi Epsilon Journal


Nearly all had Internet connections at school (100, 99.1%) and at home (96,95.0%), an increase since 2002 when 57% had school Internet access and 87% hadhome Internet access (Redmann & Kotrlik, 2004). Most (96, 95.0%) had enoughcomputers in a classroom or lab for all students to work by themselves or with oneother student, while most (94, 93.1%) had classrooms or labs with Internet.

Technology AdoptionTeachers responded to the 15 stat6ments in the Technology Adoption Scale. The

scale reliability was excellent (a = .91) (Robinson et al., 2001). The scale rangedfrom 1 (Not like me) to 5 (Just like me). The technology adoption mean was4.34 (SD = .57) which indicated that technology had not been adopted for usein instruction at the highest level. The statement with the highest mean was, "Iemphasize the use of technology as a learning tool in my classroom or laboratory"(M = 4.68, SD = .56). The statement with the lowest mean was, "I incorporatetechnology in my teaching to such an extent that my students use technology tocollaborate with other students in my class during the learning process" (M =3.70, SD = 1.21). (Table 1).

Table 1.Technology Adoption in the Teaching/Learning Process in 2007 by Teachers

Statement N M SDI emphasize the use of technology as a learning tool in my classroom 101 4.68 .56or laboratory.

I assign students to use the computer to do content related activities J01 4.62 .84on a regular basis.

I incorporate technology in my teaching to such an extent that it has 101 4.57 .74become a standard learning tool for my students.

I design learning activities that result in my students being 101 4.53 .72comfortable using technology in their learning.

I have made physical changes to accommodate technology in my 101 4.51 .88classroom or laboratory.

I expect my students to fully understand the unique role that 101 4.50 .69technology plays in their education.

I expect my students to use technology to enable them to be self- 101 4.44 .79directed learners.

I expect students to use technology to such an extent that theydevelop projects that are of a higher quality level than would be 100 4.44 .85possible without them using technology.

I expect my students to use technology so they can take on new 101 4.36 .81challenges beyond traditional assignments and activities.

I discuss with students how they can use technology as a learning 101 4.33 .72tool.

Volume-L, No. 2, Spring/Summer, 2008. 81


Table 1. (continued)Technology Adoption in the Teaching/Learning Process in 2007 by Teachers

Statement N M SD

I use technology to encourage students to share the responsibility 101 4.29 .88

for their own learning.

I regularly pursue innovative ways to incorporate technology into 101 4.26 .76

the learning process for my students.

I am more of a facilitator of learning than the source of all 101 4.03

information because my students use technology.

I use technology based games or simulations on a regular basis in 101 3.95 1.06my classroom or laboratory.

I incorporate technology in my teaching to such an extent that my

students use technology to collaborate with other students in my 100 3.70 1.21

class during the learning process.

Note. Scale Mean = 4.34 (SD = .57). Scale: 1 = Not Like Me, 2 = Very Little Like Me, 3

= Some Like Me, 4 = Very Much Like Me, and 5 = Just Like Me. The Kotrlik-Redmann

Technology Adoption Scale (TIS)c is based on the Kotrlik-Redmann Technology Integration

Model (02002). Cronbach's alpha = .91.

BarriersTeachers responded to the Barriers to Technology Integration Scale that assessed

the "magnitude of barriers that may prevent you from integrating technology into

the teaching/learning process." Scale reliability was excellent (a = .82) (Robinson

et al., 1971). The perceived barriers were rated on a scale that ranged from 1

(No barrier) to 4 (Major barrier). The scale mean was 1.70 (SD = .63) which

indicated teachers were experiencing minor technology integration barriers. The

teachers rated six of the barriers statements as "Minor Barrier" while rating only

one as "Not a Barrier." Their highest barrier was having "Enough time to develop

lessons that use technology" (M= 2.18, SD = 1.04), while their lowest barrier was

"My ability to integrate technology in the teaching/learning process" (M= 1.36,

SD =.67) (Table 2).

Table 2.BarriersReported in 2007 ThatMay Prevent TeachersfromAdopting Technologyin the Teaching/Learning Process

Statement N M SD

Enough time to develop lessons that use technology. 97 2.18 1.04

Availability of technical support to effectively use instructional 100 2.05 1.03technology in the teaching/learning process.

nhe Delta Pi Epsilon journal82

A TREND STUDY: TECHNOLOGYADOPTION IN THE TEACHING-LEARNING PROCESS

Table 2. (continued)BarriersReported in 2007That May Prevent TeachersfromAdopting Technologyin the Teaching/Learning Process

Statement N M SDAvailability of effective instructional software for the courses 1 100 1.75 .93teach.

Scheduling enough time for students to use the Internet, computers, 99 1.61 ý96or other technology in the teaching/learning process.

Availability of technology for the number of students in my 100 1.58 1.02classes.

Administrative support for integration of technology in theteaching/learning process.

My ability to integrate technology in the teaching/learning 100 1.36 .67process.

Note. Scale Mean = 1.70 (SD = .63). Scale: 1 = Not a Barrier, 2 = Minor Barrier,3 = Moderate Barrier, and 4 = Major Barrier. Cronbach's alpha = .82.

Technology AnxietyTeachers responded to the Technology Anxiety Scale (12 statements) on a scale

ranging from 1 (No anxiety) to 5 (Very high anxiety). The scale reliability wasexcellent (a = .93) (Robinson et al., 1971). The mean was 1.63 (SD =.59) whichindicated the teachers were experiencing "Some Anxiety." They reported theirlowest level of technology anxiety in response to the question, "How anxious doyou feel when you think about using technology in instruction?" (M = 1.25, SD= .61). The highest level of anxiety was on the item, "How anxious do you feelwhen you cannot keep up with important technological advances?" (M= 2.22, SD= 1.03). (Table 3).

Table 3.Teachers" Perceptions of the Technology Anxiety They Experience as TheyAttempt to Integrate Technology in Their Instruction, as Reported in 2007

Statement N M SDHow anxious do you feel when you cannot keep up with important 99 2.22 1.03technological advances?

How anxious do you feel when you hesitate to use technology for 9 1.78 .98fear of making mistakes you cannot correct?

How anxious do you feel when you avoid using unfamiliar 98 1.77 .84technology?

How anxious do you feel when you are not certain what the options 100 1.69 .86on various technology will do?

How anxious do you feel when you are faced with using new 100 1.67 .77technology?



Table 3. (continued)Teachers' Perceptions of the Technology Anxiety They Experience as They

Attempt to Integrate Technology in Their Instruction, as Reported in 2007

Statement N M SD

How anxious do you feel when someone uses a technology term 100 1.67 .67

that you do not understand?

How anxious do you feel when you try to understand new 100 1.64 .75

technology?

How anxious do you feel when you try to learn technology related 100 1.49 .72

skills?

How anxious do you feel when you fear you may break or damage 99 1.46 .81the technology you are using?

How anxious do you feel when you try to use technology? 100 1.41 .65

How anxious do you feel when you think about your technology 100 1.37 .61

skills compared to the skills of other teachers?

How anxious do you feel when you think about using technology 100 1.25 .61in instruction?

Note. Scale Mean = 1.63 (SD = .59). Scale: 1 = No Anxiety, 2 Some Anxiety, 3= Moderate Anxiety, 4 = High Anxiety, and 5 = Very High Anxiety. Cronbach's

alpha = .93.

Changes between 2002 and 2007 in Technology Adoption,Perceived Barriers and Technology Anxiety

Independent t-tests were used to compare technology adoption in 2002 (M

4.09, SD = .74, N = 147) to the level reported in 2007 (M = 4.34, SD = .57, N

= 101). Technology adoption was significantly higher in 2007 when compared

to 2002 (t = 2.92, P = .004, d =.38). The Cohen's d value of .38 (Cohen, 1988)

indicates that the difference represents a small effect size.Independent t-tests were also used to compare the technology integration barriers

experienced by teachers in 2002 (M = 2.04, SD = .72, N = 147) to the barriers

reported in 2007 (M= 1.70, SD = .63, N = 101). The barriers were significantly

lower in 2007 when compared to 2002 (t = 3.89, P < .00 1, d =.5 1). The Cohen's

d value (Cohen, 1988) of .51 indicates that the difference represents a mediumeffect size.

A single item was used to measure technology anxiety in the 2002 study.

The Technology Anxiety Scale was developed after the 2002 results appeared to

indicate that technology anxiety was a valid construct and the results from this

scale are presented in the previous section. One of the items in the Technology

Anxiety Scale is the item that was used to measure technology anxiety in the 2002

study, "How much anxiety do you feel when you think about using technology in

instruction?" This was the only technology anxiety measure that could validly be

used to compare technology anxiety of business teachers between 2002 and 2007.

The Delta Pi Epsilon Journal84


Teachers reported their lowest level of anxiety with this item when compared tothe other 11 items in the Technology Anxiety Scale (Table 3). Independent t-testswere also used to compare the responses to this item in 2002 (M= 1.51, SD = .67,N = 188) to the 2007 responses (M = 1.25, SD = .61, N = 100). The technologyanxiety that teachers felt when they thought about using technology in instructionwas significantly lower in 2007 than in 2002 (t = 3.22, P = .001, d =.40). TheCohen's d value (Cohen, 1988) of .40 indicates that the difference represents asmall effect size.Explaining Technology Adoption

Multiple regression based on the guidelines by Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson,and Tatham (2006) determined if selected variables explained the variance intechnology adoption. The dependent variable was the Technology Adoption Scalemean. Potential explanatory variables included the scale means of the technologyadoption, barriers to technology integration, and technology anxiety scales;gender; years teaching experience; technology availability; and training sources.

Three variables explained a substantial amount of the variance in technologyadoption (Total R2= .34): technology availability (R2= .22), barriers to technologyintegration (additionalRl? 2 .08), and years teaching experience (additionalR 2= .04).Technology anxiety, gender, and training sources used did not enter the model.Technology adoption increased as technology availability and years experienceincreased, and barriers to technology integration decreased. The overall modelrepresents a large effect size (Cohen, 1988), while a moderate effect size existedfor technology availability and a small effect size existed for both barriers totechnology integration and years teaching experience (Table 4).

Table 4.Multiple Regression Analysis of Technology Adoption Scale Scores

Source SS Df MS F PRegression 9.57 3 3.19 14.86 <.001

Residual 18.89 88 .22

Total 28.46 91

Adjusted Change StatisticsModel R R2SE Sg

R2

R2

Change F Change Chang

1. .46 .22 .21 .50 .22 24.65 <.001

2b .54 .30 .28 .47 .08 10.19 .0023c .58 .34 .31 .46 .04 5.39 .023

"Predictors: Technology availability; bPredictors: Technology availability, barriers

to technology integration, cPredictors: Technology availability, barriers totechnology integration, years teaching experience. Variables excluded: technologyanxiety, gender, training sources.

ConclusionsAs technology has continued to evolve, business teachers have demonstrated

their willingness to meet the challenges created by this change in technology.This study found that business teachers are striving to remain on the cutting edgeof technology.



Training. Business teachers use a variety of training sources to develop theirtechnology skills. All business teachers use self-study to learn about using newtechnology and most also use workshops, courses, and peers as technologytraining sources. These data reflect increases in the use of all four training sourceswhen compared to 2002 (Redmann & Kotrlik, 2004). Since Vannatta and Fordham(2004) reported that amount of technology training was one of the best predictorsof technology use, the teachers' increased use of all training sources appears to be

an indicator that teachers are committed to seeking training.

Technology Availability. Virtually all teachers have the Internet at schooland most have several newer technologies such as digital cameras, laserdisc or

DVD/CD players, and interactive DVDs/CDs. Many are just starting to obtaintechnologies such as digital video cameras, personal digital assistants, and global

positioning systems. Teachers' access to a variety of technology may be the resultof the Internet functioning as a transformative agent that results in modificationsto the teaching-learning system, as suggested by Thomas et al. (2002).

Limited comparisons can be made between technologies available to teachersin 2007 versus 2002 since technology continues to evolve with new technology

products. Substantial increases have occurred in teachers with Internet connectionsat home and school, schools with classrooms or labs with Internet connections,and schools possessing other teaching technologies. This supports the findings ofthe National Center for Education Statistics (Wells & Lewis, 2006).

Technology Adoption. Even though there has only been a small increase intechnology adoption since 2002 (Redmann & Kotrlik, 2004), teachers have

adopted technology for use in instruction at a high level. Business teachers havedone quite well in adopting technology for use in instruction; however, someteachers could still improve. This potential improvement may be more likelywhen more technology is made available to teachers.

Barriers and Technology Anxiety. Although teachers are experiencing sometechnology anxiety, they are not experiencing substantial barriers in their efforts tointegrate technology. A medium size decrease in perceived barriers to technologyintegration has occurred over the past five years (Redmann & Kotrlik, 2004). Fourof the "Minor Barriers" statements address issues with administrative support and

the availability of technology, which supports the conclusions drawn in previousliterature that a lack of administrative support is a key barrier to technologyadoption (BECTA, 2006; Mumtaz, 2000).

Explaining Variance. Three variables explain a substantial proportion ofthe variance in technology adoption; namely, technology availability, barriers

that prevent integration, and years teaching experience. Technology adoptionincreases as technology availability and years experience increase and asbarriers to technology integration decrease. These conclusions support the study

by Kotrlik and Redmann (2004) in which technology availability and barriers

The Delta Pi Epsilon journal86


to technology integration explained technology adoption by selected careerand technical education teachers. Technology anxiety was not an explanatoryvariable for business teachers in 2002 (Redmann & Kotrlik, 2004) but did explaintechnology adoption by selected career and technical education teachers (Kotrlik& Redmann, 2004). In this study, technology anxiety does not explain technologyadoption by business teachers in 2007.

Implications for PracticeThe technology adoption trend for business teachers is clearly positive.

Training providers such as universities, school boards, professional organizations,and vendors should continue to provide support for teachers' technologicaldevelopment. The introduction of new technologies will make this support criticalto business teachers' future professional development.

Research should continue documenting business teachers' adoption of the latesttechnology as well as addressing barriers to the instructional implementation oftechnology. One thing is clear - the continued introduction of newer and bettertechnology is on the horizon. There is a need to continue this trend study in 2012and to initiate similar trend studies.

The instructional use of technology has changed from occasional to regular use.In the past, technology meant desktop computers and theInternet; today, technologyincludes traditional computers plus other technologies including personal digitalassistants, global positioning systems, digital video and photo cameras, andinteractive DVDs. Administrators and business teachers must proactively studytrends and forecasts to identify technology needed by business teachers, whichmay be different from teachers in other disciplines. Then, administrators must beinnovative in obtaining the technology identified as necessary to empower businessteachers to be progressive. Schools must change to this proactive approach forobtaining newer technology for business teachers rather than continuing the trendof reacting to the technology that has been introduced in the workplace.

Business teachers have continued their instructional technology leadership;however, they must continue to pursue the highest and most effective use oftechnology so they can stay on the forefront of instructional technology use. Ifschools provide the technology necessary for business teachers to be progressive,then teachers must pursue technology training and implement technology intotheir instruction so they can provide leading edge programs. Teachers currentlyuse self-study, workshops, courses, and peers as training sources. Self-study hasbeen shown to be an efficient method and will become more so as advances aremade in online instruction. Teachers must continue to develop the mentor/peerrelationship with colleagues as they refine their technology skills. However,individuals who now serve as peers may also serve as mentors. Also, the numberof individuals in peer groups may substantially expand with advances in onlineinstruction, e.g., the recent introduction of blogs as a medium of informationexchange. Concurrently, teachers must continue to use workshops, courses, andconferences for training. They must also use these venues as opportunities toshare their cutting-edge expertise.



ReferencesAry, D, Jacobs, L. C., & Razavieh, A. (2002). Introduction to research in education

(6 t1 ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.

Brinkerhoff, J. (2006). Effects of a long-duration, professional development

academy on technology skills, computer self-efficacy, and technology

integration and beliefs. Journal of Research on Technology in Education,

39(1), 22-43.British Educational Communications and Technology Agency (BECTA). (2003).

What the research says about barriers to the use of ICT in teaching. Retrieved

on January 27, 2007, from http://www.becta.org.uk/research/ictrn/

Budin, H. (1999). The computer enters the classroom. Teachers College Record,

100(3), 656-669.Cohen, 1. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2 nd ed.).

Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Fullan, M. (2001). The new meaning of educational change (3' ed.). New York:

Teachers College Press.

Gable, R., & Wolf, M. (1993). Instrument development in the affective domain:

Measuring attitudes and values in corporate and school settings (2nd ed.).

Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Hair, J.F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2006).

Multivariate data analysis (6Oh ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice

Hall.Hofer, M., Chamberlin, B., & Scot, T. (2004). Fulfilling the need for a technology

integration specialist. T.H.E. Journal, 32(3). Retrieved January 28, 2007,

from http:H www.thejoumal.com/the/printarticle/?id=16981International Society for Technology in Education. (2004). National educational

technology standards (NETS) and the states: Use of NETS by state.

Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved on April 23, 2007, from http://cnets.iste.

org/docs/states_using-nets.pdfKotrlik, J. W., & Redmann, D. H. (2004). Analysis of technology integration

in the teaching-learning process in selected career and technical education

programs. Journal of Vocational Education Research, 29(1), 3-26.

Mumtaz, S. (2000). Factors affecting teachers' use of information and

communications technology: Areview of the literature. Journal oflnformation

Technology for Teacher Education, 9(3), 319-342.

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub L. No. 107-1105. (2001).Washington, DC:

U. S. Congress.Redmann, D. H., & Kotrlik, J. W. (2004). Technology integration into the

teaching-learning process by business education teachers. Delta Pi Epsilon

Journal, 46(2), 76-91.

The Delta Pi Epsilon Journal.88


Robinson, J. P., Shaver, P. R., & Wrightsman, L. S. (1991). Criteria for scaleselection and evaluation. In J. P. Robinson, P. R. Shaver, & L. S. Wrightsman(Eds.). Measures ofpersonality and social psychological at..des (pp. 1-16).New York: Academic Press.

Roblyer, M. D. (2005). Educational technology research that maýkes a difference:Series introduction. Contemporary Issues in Technology and TeacherEducation, 5(2), 192-201.

Rogers, E. (2003). Diffusion of innovation (5 th ed.). New York: The Free Press.Smerdon, B., Cronen, S., Lanahan, L., Anderson, J., lannotti, N., & Angeles, J.

(2000). Teachers' tools for the 21st century: A report on teachers' use oftechnology. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, U.S.Department of Education.

Snedecor, G., & Cochran, W. G. (1989). Statistical methods (81 ed.). New York:Wiley.

Thomas, R., Adams, M., Meghani, N., & Smith, M. (2002). Internet integration inhigh schools: Patterns, opportunities, and barriers. St. Paul, AIN: NationalResearch Center for Career and Technical Education. (ERIC DocumentAccession #: ED 476 034). Retrieved on May 24, 2007, from http://www.nccte.org/publications/infosynthesis/r&dreport/Intemet_Integration.pdf

Vannatta, R. A., & Fordham, N. (2004). Teacher dispositions as predictors ofclassroom technology use. Journal of Research on Technology in Education,36(3), 253-271.

Wells, J., & Lewis, L. (2006). Internet access in U.S. public schools andclassrooms: 1994-2005 (NCES 2007-020). Washington, DC: National Centerfor Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department ofEducation. Retrieved on April 1, 2007, from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2007020


COPYRIGHT INFORMATION

TITLE: A Trend Study: Technology Adoption in theTeaching-Learning Process by Secondary BusinessTeachers - 2002 and 2007

SOURCE: Delta Pi Epsilon J 50 no2 Spr/Summ 2008

The magazine publisher is the copyright holder of this article and itis reproduced with permission. Further reproduction of this article inviolation of the copyright is prohibited. To contact the publisher:http://www.dpc.org

Documents

A Trend Study: Technology Adoption in the Teaching ...heatherallen137.weebly.com/uploads/4/7/6/6/4766997/journal_article.pdf · a trend study: technology adoption in the teaching-learning