How Teachers Integrate Technology and Their Beliefs About ...teachers integrate technology are a more precise, albeit pro-tracted, measurement. In this study 32 classroom teachers

JI. of Technology and Teacher Education (2006) 14(3), 581-597

How Teachers Integrate Technology and Their BeliefsAbout Learning: Is There a Connection?

EUGENE JUDSONCRESMET at Arizona State University

Tempe, AZ USAeugene.judson @ asu.edu

Research indicates that teachers who readily integrate tech-

nology into their instruction are more likely to possess con-

structivist teaching styles. Evidence suggests there is a paral-

lel between a teacher's student-centered beliefs about in-

struction and the nature of the teacher's technology-integrat-

ed lessons. This connection between the use of technology

and constructivist pedagogy implies constructivist-mindedteachers maintain dynamic student-centered classrooms

where technology is a powerful learning tool. Unfortunately,

much of the research to date has relied on self-reported data

from teachers and this type of data too often presents a less

than accurate picture. Versus self-reported practices, direct

observations that gauge the constructivist manner in which

teachers integrate technology are a more precise, albeit pro-

tracted, measurement. In this study 32 classroom teachers

completed a survey to measure their beliefs about instruc-

tion, but they were also directly observed and rated with the

Focus on Integrated Technology: Classroom Observation

Measurement (FIT:COM). The FIT:COM measures the de-

gree to which technology integrated lessons are aligned with

constructivist principles. Analysis did not reveal a significant

relationship between practices and beliefs. Although most

teachers identified strongly with constructivist convictions

they failed to exhibit these ideas in their practices.

*Note: This material was partially supported by the National Science Foundation un-

der Project Pathways grant No. EHR 0412537. Any opinions, findings, and conclu-sions or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author and do

not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation. The author

thanks Dr. Marilyn Carlson for her support of this research.

Judson

Current educational reform movements in different disciplines empha-size the importance of a student-centered classroom (AAAS, 1993; NationalCouncil for the Social Studies, 1994; National Council of Teachers of En-glish, 2000; National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 2000). Manyschool administrators now advocate that teachers put aside notions of tradi-tional teaching in favor of developing learning environments where studentsshare ideas, grapple with the meaning of new information, and defend diver-gent thinking. This type of student-centered and student-active learning isoften called constructivism. Leaders in educational technology have alsothrown support to the idea of moving away from linear direct instruction andtoward constructivist classrooms. Notably, the International Society forTechnology in Education (ISTE) endorses technology integration that is stu-dent-centered and emphasizes teacher facilitation (ISTE, 2000).

The use of technology in K-12 education has grown steadily since theinception of classroom computers in the 1970s (National Governor's Asso-ciation, 1999; Puma, Chaplin, & Pape, 2000). Today, it is commonplace todiscover teachers using technology for a variety of purposes, includingrecord-keeping, accessing lesson plans, creating study guides, and communi-cating with parents. Students too, are found busy employing technology tocompose reports, analyze data, communicate with experts, and perform re-search. Few argue that technology will not continue to become even moreembedded in student experience. However, classroom visitors often seetechnology integrated in a variety of ways. Some teachers maintain tightcontrol and use technology only for presentation purposes. Other teachers,with the same resources and access, allow students nearly full reign of tech-nology decisions. Why do such varied pedagogical styles exist for technolo-gy integrated lessons? It is, of course, possible that these classroom practic-es mirror the teachers' nontechnology integrated lessons and what is ob-served is a reflection of what the teachers believe constitute quality instruc-tion. That is to say, a teacher who firmly believes the best way for studentsto learn content is through informative teacher-delivered lectures will givelittle consideration to the idea of using technology as a means for student ex-ploration. Likewise, it appears logical that a teacher who firmly believes inexploratory learning is not going to be an advocate for drill and practicesoftware. Another possibility is that teachers use technology in a way theythink is aligned with their beliefs, but on close inspection the teachers' les-sons are misaligned or incongruous with the teachers' convictions. This lat-ter possibility is especially credible in light of the fact that teacher percep-tions of how often and how effectively technology is used for student-cen-tered purposes differs dramatically from student perceptions (BellSouthFoundation, 2003).

582

How Teachers IntegrateTechnology and Their Beliefs

Finally, it is possible that a poor attitude toward technology or a fear of

using technology causes teachers to implement lessons that are different

from their nontechnology lessons. If this is true then a student-centered

teacher may pull in the reins and deliver instruction that is atypically linear.

Likewise, a didactic teacher may detach himself from the technology to the

point where students in his class finally have genuine participation. So an is-

sue emerges of whether or not teachers use technology in a way that is

aligned with their beliefs about learning or if their attitudes toward technolo-

gy are superseding these beliefs about quality instruction.

Teachers possess tremendous authority to implement adoptions and ad-

here to classroom reforms with fidelity. This type of power is not limited to

educational technology; when establishing any classroom innovation, it is

the teacher who is the key determinant of implementation. When it comes to

technology, teachers cannot deny the existence of technology in schools, yet

how often the technology is used and how the technology is used is heavily

dependent upon individual teachers. A primary research question is simply

how is technology being used? Once that question is answered, a researcher

can delve further and ask why is the technology being used in that particu-

lar way?How technology is used in classrooms has been examined by numerous

studies (Moursund, 1999; National Center for Education Statistics [NCES],

2000; Solmon, 1999; U.S. Department of Education, 2000). These studies

emphasized an inventory approach by counting computers, calculating stu-

dent to computer ratios, and tallying computer time. These how studies were

more literally focused on how much. This type of accounting of hardware

and computer activity time does not argue for, nor disprove, whether tech-

nology integration is aligned with any particular pedagogical style. Existing

data of how technology is used in classroom settings relies primarily on two

sources: (a) self-reporting of teachers, and (b) inventory records kept by

state and district personnel (Anderson & Ronnkvist, 1999; CRITO, 1998;

Quinones & Kirshstein, 1998; Smerdon et al., 2000; Solmon, 1999). Miss-

ing from these sources is evaluative data obtained from uniform observa-

tions of technology integration. Coupled with this dilemma of reliance on

self-reported practices, is a lack of understanding of how teacher beliefs

about instruction and attitudes toward technology affect the routine of inte-

grating technology. Correlating classroom observations of technology inte-

gration to epistemological beliefs about the nature of instruction and atti-

tudes toward technology is a logical step toward understanding classroomuse of technology.

The second question of why technology is used in a particular way in-

volves determining if teacher practices are aligned with instructional beliefs

583

Judson

or if poor attitudes toward technology are resulting in uncharacteristic les-sons. Examining the link between technology integration practices with be-liefs and with attitudes can help us understand why some teachers choose tomaintain very tight control over student actions, specifying specific studentproducts and even keystrokes, while other teachers feel more comfortableallowing students to delve independently into projects and to select softwareaccording to student needs.

BACKGROUND

To date, most studies related to teachers and their use of technologyhave focused on cataloging computer skills and availability of technologywithin schools and have reported that the availability has grown substantial-ly (Anderson & Ronnkvist, 1999; Puma et al., 2000; Smerdon et al., 2000).However, there is much less research on how frequently and in what mannerthese technologies are being used. Findings of the U.S. Department of Edu-cation suggest that as availability of technology has grown, the manner ofhow teachers teach has not dramatically changed (Smerdon et al.). The Na-tional Center for Education Statistics (NCES) revealed that only half of thepublic school teachers who had computers or the Internet available in theirschools used them for classroom instruction. Word processing and the cre-ation of spreadsheets was the most often cited task assigned to students(61%) and 50% of teachers stated they had students use computers to prac-tice drills (Smerdon et al.).

Acknowledging a continued low ratio of frequent technology usersamong classroom teachers, other researchers have focused on determiningthe confluence of factors prevalent among teachers who are frequent tech-nology users (Becker & Ravitz, 2001; Becker & Riel, 2000; Ravitz, Becker,& Wong, 2000; Riel & Becker, 2000). Three significant findings underscorethe differences among those teachers more likely to give frequent assign-ments involving computer work. First, the relatively few teachers whosepedagogy involved a small number of topics covered in great depth weretwice as likely as those reporting a large number of topics to assign comput-er activities. Secondly, teachers with five to eight computers in their class-room, compared with teachers with access to computers limited to computerlabs, were twice as likely to give students frequent computer experience. Fi-nally, teachers with greater technical knowledge use computers more (Beck-er & Ravitz).

Specific to the relationship between technology integration practices andteacher beliefs, research is limited. Researchers at University of California

584


provided some evidence that computer use among teachers is related to

more constructivist practices and to changes in practice.in a more construc-

tivist-compatible direction (Ravitz & Becker, 2000). Based on surveys, a

strong correlation was found to exist between computer use and a construc-

tivist view of learning. This suggests that computers may be one factor that

enables teachers to carry out their constructivist philosophies. In addition,

teachers who reported more extensive use of computers also reported great-

er change in their practice in a constructivist direction. Those who reported

an increase in computer use over the last five years also reported substantial

increases in constructivist practice (Ravitz et al., 2000). These findings were

culled from a survey questionnaire returned by 4,083 classroom teachers.

However, surveys are not always considered effective measures of technolo-

gy integration (Willis, Thompson, & Sadera, 1999). Willis et al. contended

too much educational technology research has relied upon surveys, "[survey-

ing] being easy to do, however, does not mean it is always important as a

means of advancing the field. We may not need another attitude survey...

that shows that teachers have positive thoughts about telecommunications"(p. 38).

Additionally, survey data have proven to be unreliable; beginning

teachers particularly have reported to hold reform-minded views of instruc-

tion and describe their practices as very student-centered while observation

shows the contrary (Simmons et al., 1999). Although teachers profess stu-

dent-centered beliefs, studies have revealed inconsistent practices (Brown,

1969; Mayer & Goldsberry, 1987: Raymond, 1993; Simmons et al., 1999;

Weiss, 1997). This misalignment between teachers' stated convictions and

observed classroom practices can be interpreted two ways, (a) the teachers

provide obliging responses on survey questionnaires, or (b) the teachers'

perception of their teaching practices is truly and markedly different from

actual practice. Some research has shown teachers' beliefs about best teach-

ing practices are prone to be in weak agreement with their own philosophic

beliefs underlying those practices. Consequently teachers fail to use aligned

practices in the classroom (Brown, 1969). Even though there may be school,

district, or national support for student-centered classroom practices, incon-

sistencies persist regarding actual implementation (Mueller & Zeidler, 1998;

Weiss, 1997).This study sought to actually observe teachers integrating technology

and to correlate these observations with stated beliefs and attitudes of the

teachers. Two research questions were posed, 1) how do teacher beliefs

about instruction relate to the practice of integrating technology, and 2) how

do teacher attitudes toward technology relate to the practice of integrating

technology?

585

Judson

METHODOLOGY

Participants and setting. Thirty-two classroom teachers participated inthis study. These teachers were volunteers and represented grade levels fromprimary to secondary. There was no bias toward any particular subject area.The criteria for selection was the teachers' schools had technology availablefor integration, and the teachers had taken at least one university course ordistrict supported workshop related to the use of technology in the class-room. Though school settings varied, all of the schools were capable of pro-viding at least one multimedia computer with an accompanying projectionsystem in the classrooms and provided teachers access to a computer lab.

All classroom observations were scheduled in advance with the teacher.The researcher specified beforehand an interest in observing technology-in-tegrated lessons considered by the teacher to be good examples of learning.Observations were no less than 30 minutes and lasted the duration of whatthe teacher stated was the lesson. Each teacher was observed either once(n=14) or twice (n=18). Some teachers were observed once because theyused technology minimally and/or indicated that the lesson observed wasvery reflective of all their technology integrated lessons. Some teachers wereobserved a second time because they either informed the researcher that thelesson spanned more than one day and, in order to get a true sense of the les-son, consecutive visits were necessary. Other teachers were visited a secondtime because the teacher indicated their use of technology varied and a sec-ond observation would provide a better overall sense of their practices.

Measurement of teachers' beliefs and attitudes. The Conditions thatSupport Constructivist Uses of Technology (CSCUT) survey (Ravitz &Light, 2000) was used to measure teachers' beliefs and attitudes. As indicat-ed, the intent of the survey was to measure teachers' beliefs about what con-stitutes quality instruction and to measure teachers' attitudes toward technol-ogy. Teachers completed the survey unmonitored and returned it by mail.The CSCUT survey was based on the Teaching, Learning, and ComputingSurvey (CRITO, 1998). Developers of the CSCUT survey analyzed theTeaching, Learning, and Computing Survey data and maintained pertinentand reliable items resulting in the synthesized and economical CSCUT sur-vey. CSCUT developers chose items that were most closely associated withteaching believed to be consistent with constructivist-based reforms andwith the accompanying uses of technology (Ravitz & Light, 2000).

The CSCUT survey is arranged into four categories, (a) Teaching Phi-losophy, (b) Computer Use Attitudes, (c) Computer Use Objectives, and (d)Computer Knowledge and Skills. The emphasis of this study was to examine

586


the relationship among teachers' beliefs about instruction, attitudes toward

technology, and the practice of integrating technology. The first category of

the survey addresses the objective of eliciting teacher convictions about in-

struction while the second category reveals attitudes toward technology. The

third and fourth categories were retained to maintain the integrity of the

original survey and to assure participants did not have deficient technologyskills.

Measurement of classroom practice. To measure constructivist teach-

ing practice when technology is integrated into instruction, the Focusing on

Integrating Technology: Classroom Observation Measurement (FIT:COM)

was used. The development of the FIT:COM was based on educational tech-

nology standards (ISTE, 2000) as well as teaching standards from various

disciplines (National Council for the Social Studies, 1994; National Council

of Teachers of English, 2000; National Research Council, 1996; National

Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 2000). A validity study found the

FIT:COM to be a sound instrument supported by significant inter-rater reli-

ability (r=-.9, n=8, p < .001) and internal consistency measures (Cronbach-

alpha = .9, n=40, p < .05 [Judson, 2002]).

Variables. The independent variables for this study were derived from

the teacher survey. These variables were Teaching Philosophy and Comput-

er Use Attitude. Succinctly, the variables were beliefs about instruction and

attitudes toward technology. The mean of total scores a teacher obtained on

the FIT:COM was the dependent variable of concern. Within this variable

were other dimensions (subsections of the FIT:COM) that were considered.

The dimensions of (a) Design of Technology Integration, (b) Class Dynam-

ics, (c) Meaning and Purpose of the Technology Integration, (d) Nature of

Content and Knowledge, and (e) Technology as Tools, were all examined.

The limit of the scope of this study did not promote subsection factors to be

treated as independent variables. Yet, emerging patterns among these factors

were documented and noted for future study.

Procedures. During observations, the researcher recorded notes regard-

ing teacher practices, student engagement, characteristics of the technology

integration, and other related occurrences. Following the lesson, the re-

searcher completed the FIT:COM observation form. Scores obtained from

multiple observations were averaged to determine a mean score to reflect the

nature of each teacher's practice of integrating technology. The teachers

were aware that an observation instrument was being employed, but were

uninformed as to the contents of the FIT:COM. Participants were provided

587

Judson

with the teacher survey and instructed to either mail their responses or ar-range to have it picked up from their school.

FIT:COM cumulative scores may range from zero to 100 with lowerscores indicating inferior constructivist technology integration and higherscores indicating quality constructivist technology integration. A correlationanalysis was conducted to determine if there were any significant interac-tions between independent and dependent variables. Regression analysisyielded Pearson product moment coefficients (r) as a measure of thestrength of linear relationships between variables.

FINDINGS

Teaching Philosophy and Computer Use Attitude sections of theCSCUT survey gauged teachers beliefs and attitudes respectively. Highscores in the category of Teaching Philosophy indicate a constructivistteacher. High scores in the Computer Use Attitude section indicate theteacher considers technology useful for teaching and learning. Additionally,the CSCUT survey contains a Computer Use Objective section and a Com-puter Knowledge and Skills section. High scores in the Computer Use Ob-jective section indicate the teacher has grand goals for student use of tech-nology (e.g., expressing themselves in writing, presenting information to anaudience). High scores in the Computer Knowledge and Skills section of thesurvey indicate the teacher reports to be expert in breadth and depth of tech-nology. Table 1 summarizes results of the teacher survey.

Table 1Teacher Survey Results

TP CUA CUO K&S

Grade K- 4 (n = 7)M 78.7 82.9 96.4 92.9

SD 11.8 14.3 4.5 7.5Grade 5- 8 (n = 7)

M 78.1 96.2 92.1 95.7SD 4.9 10.1 2.3 5.4

Grade 9 - 12 (n = 18)M 72.5 95.2 90.0 94.4

SD 13.5 7.2 11.9 5.2Overall (n = 32)

M 75.1 92,7 91.7 94.4SD 11.9 10,8 9.5 5.6

Note. TP = Teaching Philosophy; CUA = Computer Use Attitudes;CUO = Computer Use Objectives; K & S = Computer Knowledge and Skills

588


Correlation analysis was conducted to determine relationships between

observed teaching practices and beliefs about instruction and between teach-

ing practices and attitudes toward technology. Teaching practices, as mea-

sured by the FT:COM, did not significantly correlate to teachers' reported

philosophy, as measured by the Teaching Philosophy section of the CSCUT

instrument (n=32, r=.151, p=.410). Additionally, teaching practices did not

significantly correlate to teachers' attitudes toward technology, as measured

by the Computer Use Attitude section of the CSCUT survey (n=32, r-.157,

p=.3 9 2 ).Two research questions prompted this study. The first of these ques-

tions led to investigating the relationship between teachers' beliefs about in-

struction and the observed practice of technology integration. A strong rela-

tionship would have found teachers with strong student-centered beliefs also

enacting constructivist-based practices when integrating technology. The

second question accounted for the possibility that teachers might have poor

attitudes toward technology and this would lead to technology integrated

lessons representing attitudes about technology and not beliefs about in-

struction. As the Computer Use Attitudes data reported in Table 1 indicate,

teachers included in this study had good attitudes toward technology and

viewed technology as a valuable instructional aid. This finding demonstrates

teachers in the sample were not inclined to be inhibited by technology and

implemented technology integrated lessons as they saw fit. Because teachers

in the study were volunteers willing to allow researchers to observe their

technology integrated lessons and had participated in technology related

professional development, this finding about their amenable attitudes is not

surprising. Attitudes about technology were agreeable and not prohibitive.

The high attitude scores leads to greater emphasis on the first research ques-

tion-are beliefs reflected in practice?

Considering the idea of teachers' beliefs manifesting in practice, prior

research provided no clear indication of expected results. Some research, re-

lying on self-reported data, suggested direct relationships between teachers'

use of technology and constructivist held beliefs. Yet other research warned

of the unreliable nature of self-reported data and the incongruity between

stated beliefs and observed practice.Among the 32 teachers, a wide array of teaching strategies was ob-

served. These strategies included projecting lecture notes, instructing stu-

dents to enter lab data into spreadsheets, having students complete multime-

dia presentations (with and without a teacher-made template), and allowing

students to conduct sociological research of personal interest related to the

ethical use of biotechnology. A range of normally distributed teaching prac-

tices resulted, with FIT:COM scores ranging from 8.0 to 91.5 (M=47.7, SD

589

Judson

=18.9, n=32 ). However, correlation analysis of FIT:COM scores and re-ported beliefs about instruction failed to yield significant relationships. Putsimply, the researchers stepped into the classrooms with a constructivist lensand found there was no significant correlation between teachers' reportedbeliefs about instruction and their actual practice of integrating technology.

DISCUSSION

Beginning a discussion when the point to consider is lack of correlationis arguably more difficult than deliberating on variables with high correla-tion. Yet, data indicate there ýis no significant correlation between teacherpractices and teaching philosophy (i.e., beliefs) or between teacher practicesand attitudes toward technology. Careful consideration of the results sug-gests these data do not just indicate a lack of correlation, but may hint atdeeper dynamics. Previous studies indicate the results of this study are bothexpected and unexpected. Apparent is the dilemma of why observed practic-es did not match teachers' beliefs. Several researchers have found self-re-ported data unreliable, particularly in the case of teacher practice (Brown,1969; Mayer & Goldsberry, 1987; Mueller & Zeidler, 1998). Simmons et al.(1999), encountered a similar pattern in a study of teachers who reported tohold reform-minded views of instruction and indeed described their practic-es as very student-centered. Nonetheless, observation of teaching practicesdiffered sharply with self-reported data (Simmons et al.).

Other research indicates significant correlation to be expected betweenthe dependent variable of teaching practices and the independent variable ofbeliefs. Most notably, the Technology Counts research project and resultingreports argue there is a causal relationship between the beliefs a teacherholds about instruction and how technology is integrated into a lesson (Rav-itz, 2000; Ravitz & Becker, 2000; Ravitz et al., 2000). Those studies pro-vide evidence that computer use among teachers is related to the teacher'sconstructivist character. This study does not support that conclusion. Ravitzand Becker (2000) also suggested computers may be one factor that enablesteachers to carry out their constructivist philosophies. On that point, thisstudy can offer lukewarm support. Certainly in some cases, computers didenable observed teachers to carry out constructivist coni'ictions, but comput-ers also enabled teachers to carry out traditional routine as well.

It is not likely teachers were deceitful when reporting their convictions.Instead, it is assumed teachers answered questions regarding beliefs and atti-tudes with honesty. Given this assumption, trying to understand why the re-sults of this study show a lack of correlation between what a teacher believes

590


constitutes good instruction and what is observed in a classroom leads to

generating a new hypothesis. A possible explanation resides in the field of

research dealing with teacher expertise. It is proposed that what is vexing

the results are the varying degrees of expertise included in the sample.

Among the 32 teachers, when gauged as constructivist technology users,

there are likely experts, advanced beginners, and novices.

We know experts behave differently and are commonly more efficient

with classroom tasks (Berliner, 1986). Experts make inferences and do not

literally report what they see whereas novices tend to hold literal views of

objects and events (Berliner, 1986). For example, to the novice, a picture of

groups of students in a classroom is just that. To the expert, inferences are

made that the picture depicts small group discussion or possibly project

work. Additionally, there are differences in the emotional state displayed by

teachers at various levels of expertise (Berliner, 1986). In a study in which

teachers of varying levels of expertise planned and then taught a lesson, the

novices were quite happy about their performance, although it was not rated

highly by external evaluators (Berliner, 1988). Contrary, experts in the same

study were disappointed with their performance, although evaluators rated it

more highly.

Why would teachers perceive their own instruction with such variabili-

ty? What is likely occurring is that teachers of varying expertise are identify-

ing different salient features of their teaching and these salient features often

differ from those identified by an expert observer. For example, consider a

novice who has read literature indicating that a constructivist classroom in-

volves group assignments, hands-on activity, and projects. This novice

might view his own classroom as very constructivist if indeed students were

assigned to work as groups and all students were busily completing assign-

ments at the computers. For the novice the salient features of the lesson are

the perfunctory group assignments, existence of group tasks, and the actual

typing at the keyboards. For the expert, the salient features of the same les-

son are quite different. An expert would identify the extent to which students

learned from other group members, whether students formed genuine sche-

ma that related to past experiences, and if the use of technology was actually

aiding students' ability to construct new understanding. The idea of salient

features thus becomes a decisive factor in understanding teacher responses

regarding attitudes and beliefs. This expertise hypothesis warrants further

study. Subsequent studies should examine expertise as a factor influencing

teachers' perceptions of their own technology integration. Controlling for

expertise may yet lead to correlation between what teachers consider effec-

tive teaching and what is observed in classrooms.

591

Judson

IMPLICATIONS

This study demonstrates that teachers' beliefs about instruction do notnecessarily resonate in their classroom practices when integrating technolo-gy. However, most teachers would state that they do indeed maintain a class-room embodying constructivist tenets. An implication here is that profes-sional development must be constructed that is attentive to these points.Teachers say they conduct student-centered classrooms; observation of thepractice of integrating technology differs with this view. Professional devel-opment must be specific to the goal of integrating technology in a construc-tivist manner. Typically, professional development related to constructivismis disjoined from professional development related to technology integra-tion. The emphasis of such professional development should focus on the ra-tionale of constructivism, not on forcing the use of technology.

Noting the implication for the need to unite professional development inthe areas of constructivism and technology integration, a warning is extend-ed. Uniting these two items is not the same as hitching one to another. Con-structivist theory and technology integration have both long been taggedwith the reform label. Despite a review of literature, how technology inte-gration became wedded to reform instruction is not clear. Likely, becauseboth the use of educational technology and the implementation of reformedteaching methods are often considered maverick, the two have become en-twined in thought. Technology integration is not necessarily a pillar of re-formed instruction. However, hasty assumptions have indiscriminatelythrown technology integration under the umbrella of reform. It is dangerousto assume both constructivism and technology integration would fit nicelyinto a workshop entitled Reform Methods-the inference being that any-thing seeming new and avant-garde falls under the nomenclature of "re-form." Constructivism is a theoretical framework leading to classroom meth-ods; technology integration is better represented as a method stemming fromnearly any ideology. Utilization of technology is not a goal of constructiv-ism. However, the use of technology may very well enable the dynamics ofstudents constructing personal meaning, learning from one another, learningfrom experts, and creating unique interpretations. Professional developmentmust enable teachers to access technology in ways that support their pro-claimed (and likely deeply felt) student-centered intentions. The suppositionis for professional development in the area of technology integration tomove beyond training teachers to use specific hardware and software. Thegoal is for professional development to take better aim at the target of estab-lishing constructivist practices. Technology is not a mechanism that enables

592


constructivism, it is a device best used at the moment when it enables stu-

dents to gain deeper understanding. Technology as tools-this is the impli-cation.

Results of this study are contrary to reports of some larger scale studies.

However, those larger scale studies were conducted without the mechanism

of classroom observation. For even the least inquisitive, the question is sure-

ly whether this small scale study simply suffers from a lack of magnitude or

if the larger scale studies missed a most crucial piece of data. This study dis-

covered a misalignment between beliefs and practices. An alternate title for

this study might have been The Virtual Reality of Integrating Classroom

Technology: Where Intention Meets Practice.

References

American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). (1993).American Association for the Advancement of Science: Benchmarks for

science literacy: Project 2061. New York: Oxford University Press.

Anderson, R.E., & Ronnkvist, A. (1999). The presence of computers in

American schools. Teaching, learning, and computing: 1998 national

survey (Report No. 2). Irvine, CA: Center for Research on InformationTechnology and Organizations.

Becker, H.J., & Ravitz, J.L. (2001, March). Computer use by teachers: AieCuban's predictions correct? Paper presented at the annual meeting of

the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA.Becker, H.J., & Riel, M.M. (2000). Teacher professional engagement and

constructivist-compatible computer use (Report No. 7). Irvine, CA:

Center for Research on Information Technology and Organizations.BellSouth Foundation (2003). The growing technology gap between schools and

students. Report from the BellSouth Foundation Power to Teach Program.Retrieved February 3, 2006, from http://www.bellsouthfoundation.orgIpdfs/pttreport03.pdf

Berliner, D.C. (1986). In pursuit of the expert pedagogue. Educational Re-searcher, 15(7), 5-13.

Berliner, D.C. (1988, April). Memory for teaching as a function of exper-

tise. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Associa-tion, New Orleans, LA.

Brown, B.B. (1969). Congruity of student teachers' beliefs and practiceswith Dewey's philosophy. Education Forum, 33(2), 163-168.

Center for Research on Information Technology and Organizations (CRI-TO). (1998). Teaching, learning and computing: 1998. Center for Re-

search on Information Technology and Organizations. Retrieved Feb-ruary 3, 2006, from http://www.crito.uci.edu/tlc/html/tlc_home.html

593

Judson

International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE). (2000). Nationaleducational technology standards for students: Connecting curriculumand technology. Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology inEducation (ISTE).

Judson, E. (2002). Relationships among instructional beliefs, attitudes to-ward technology, and constructivist practices of technology integra-tion. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Arizona State University.

Mayer, R.H., & Goldsberry, L. (1987, April). The development of the be-liefs/practice relationship in two student teachers. Paper presented atthe annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association,Washington, DC.

Moursund, D. (1999). Will new teachers be prepared to teach in a digitalage: A national survey on information technology in teacher education.Santa Monica, CA: Milken Exchange on Education Technology.

Mueller, J.C., & Zeidler, D.L. (1998, April). A case study of teacher beliefsin contemporary science education goals and classroom practices. Pa-per presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Re-search in Science Teaching, San Diego, CA.

National Council for the Social Studies. (1994). Expectations of excellence:Curriculum standards for social studies. Retrieved February 6, 2006, fromhttp://www.socialstudies.org/standards

National Council of Teachers of English. (2000). Standards for the Englishlanguage arts. National Council of Teachers of English. RetrievedFebruary 3, 2006, from http://www.ncte.org

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and stan-dards for school mathematics. National Council of Teachers of Mathe-matics. Retrieved February 3, 2006, from, http://standards.nctm.org

National Governor's Association. (1999). Transforming learning throughtechnology (Policy Roadmap for the Nation's Governors). St. Louis,MO: National Governor's Association.

National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards.Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) (2000). Teachers' toolsfor the 21st century: A report on teachers' use of technology (NCES2000-102). Jessup, MD: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Edu-cational Improvement and Research.

Puma, M.J., Chaplin, D.D., & Pape, A.D. (2000). E-rate and the digital di-vide: A preliminary analysis from the integrated studies of educationaltechnology. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

Quinones, S., & Kirshstein, R. (1998). An educator's guide to evaluatingthe use of technology in schools and classrooms. Washington, DC:U.S. Department of Education.

Ravitz, J. (2000). Conditions that support constructivist uses of technologysurvey. Profiler. Retrieved February 3, 2006, from http://www.bie.org/Ravitz/cilt project/ciltsurvey.html

594


Ravitz, J., & Becker, H.J. (2000, April). Evidence for computer use being

related to more constructivist practices and to changes in practice in a

more constructivist-compatible direction. Paper presented at the annual

meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Or-

leans, LA.

Ravitz, J., Becker, H.J., & Wong, Y. (2000). Constructivist-compatible be-

liefs and practices among U.S. teachers. (Teaching, Learning, and

Computing: 1998 National Survey Report). Irvine, CA: Center for Re-

search on Information Technology and Organizations.

Ravitz, J., & Light, D. (2000). A tool for assessing conditions that support

educational technology reforms among U.S. teachers. Center for Inno-

vative Learning Technologies, Assessment Theme Team. Retrieved

February 3, 2006, from http://www.bie.org/Ravitz/cilt-project

Raymond, A.M. (1993, October). Unraveling the relationships between be-

ginning elementary teachers' mathematics beliefs and teaching prac-

tices. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the North American

Chapter of the International Group for Psychology of Mathematics Ed-

ucation, Monterey, CA.

Riel, M., & Becker, H. (2000, April). The beliefs, practices, and computer

use of teacher leaders. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the

American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.

Simmons, P.E., Emory, A., Carter, T., Coker, T., Finnegan, B., Crockett,

D., et al. (1999). Beginning teachers: Beliefs and classroom actions.

Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(8), 930-954.

Smerdon, B., Cronen, S., Lanahan, L., Anderson, L., Iannotti, N., & Ange-

les, J. (2000). Teachers' tools for the 21st century: A report on teach-

ers' use of technology (Statistical Analysis Report NCES 2000-102).

Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

Solmon, L. (1999). Results from a study of 27 states' district technology

coordinators. Milken Family Foundation. Retrieved February 3, 2006,

from http://www.mff.org/publications/publications.tafU.S. Department of Education. (2000). Progress report on educational

technology (state by state profiles). Washington, DC: Office of Educa-

tional Technology.Weiss, I.R. (1997). The status of science and mathematics teaching in the

United States: Comparing teacher views and classroom practice to na-

tional standards, [NISE Brief]. National Institute for Science Educa-

tion. Retrieved February 3, 2006, from http://www.wcer.wisc.edu/

NISE/Publications/Briefs/Vol_lNo_3/Willis, J., Thompson, A., & Sadera, W. (1999). Research on technology

and teacher education: Status and future directions. Educational Tech-

nology Research and Development, 47(4), 29-45.

595

Judson

Note

This material is based upon research supported by the Center for Researchon Education in Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Techn6logy(CRESMET) at Arizona State University. Any opinions, findings, and con-clusions or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of theauthor and do not necessarily reflect the views of CRESMET. The authorwould like to express gratitude to Dr. Marilyn Carlson, director of CRES-MET, for her support and guidance.

APPENDIX

FIT:COM Sample Items

Never VeryOccurred Descriptive

2) Technology was a means for supporting curricular 0 1 2 3 4objectives, as opposed to being a separate curricularfocus.

8) Interaction with technology provided students with a 0 1 2 3 4sense of independent control and mastery over anenvironment.

15) Students used technology to solve problems and make 0 1 2 3 4informed decisions.

23) Students used technology to construct models, 0 1 2 3 4increase productivity, and produce creative work.

From the FIT:COM Evaluator's Guide:

2. Technology was a means for supporting curricular objectives, asopposed to being a separate curricular focus.

If technology use is designated as an entity divorced from the goals ofthe lesson (e.g. "computer time"), then actual integration has notoccurred. Integration of technology should occur because it is a timelyand useful tool to support learning.

8. Interaction with technology provided students with a sense ofindependent control and mastery over an environment.

A key to student motivation can be a feeling of autonomy. If thestudent interaction with technology results in sustained and intense

596


effort that would likely otherwise occur, then it can be said that thestudent-to-technology partnering yields a greater cognitive enterprise.

15. Students used technology to solve problems and makeinformed decisions.

A shared cognition develops as students utilize technology to helpsolve problems. If student use of technology leads to unquestionedanswers, this item would be scored low. If students instead accesstechnology in order to gather information and this allows them tothoughtfully consider decisions and draw conclusions, the item wouldbe rated high.

23. Students used technology to construct models, increaseproductivity, and produce creative work.

Effective technology use is seen as freeing the students fromlaborious tasks and enhancing learning by acting as a productivitytool.

597

Scoring rubric for item 23

0 - No such activity occurred.

1 - Very limited technology access for students. May only view a teacher presentation.

2- Students are accessing technology but it remains questionable as to whether theuse of technology is yielding greater results than alternate methods.

3- The technology use is now a necessary component of the lesson. The technologyintegration is enhancing the learning. Teacher and students may still falter and notutilize "technology as tools" to full capability.

4- Productive student activity that seamlessly incorporates technology to achievegoals is distinctive of this lesson

COPYRIGHT INFORMATION

TITLE: How Teachers Integrate Technology and Their BeliefsAbout Learning: Is

SOURCE: Journal of Technology and Teacher Education 14 no32006

PAGE(S): 581-97WN: 0600305884010

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.

Copyright 1982-2006 The H.W. Wilson Company. All rights reserved.

Documents

How Teachers Integrate Technology and Their Beliefs About ...teachers integrate technology are a more precise, albeit pro-tracted, measurement. In this study 32 classroom teachers