Amy

Galowich, P. (1999). //Learning Styles, Technology Attitude and Usage: What Are the Connections for Teachers and Technology in the Classroom?// This study attempted to find a correlation between attitude towards technology, technology use outside of school, learning styles and the willingness to teach with technology surveyed teachers from 5 schools in a Large California school district. Results base on 74 of the original 120 surveys.

Holden, H. (Summer2011). Understanding the Influence of Perceived Usability and Technology Self-Efficacy on Teachers’ Technology Acceptance. //Journal of Research on Technology in Education//, //43//(4), 343-367. This study focuses on the user/teachers perception of the usability of technology and their self efficacy assessments as predicting factors for teaching with technology. The research was based on the Technology Acceptance Model (Davis,1989) in which both perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use were influencing factors towards actual use of technology. This research expanded the perceived ease of use evaluation by adding metrics to measure teachers’ perceived technology usability. The computer self efficacy (CSE) assessment was measured and compared with more general Technology self efficacy assessments and impacts on perceived usability. The focus, for this study, was on technology that was already being used instead of measuring intent to use. The study was conducted with K-12 teachers from two rural Virginia school districts. Technology was readily available to students and teachers. There is a strong belief in the value of technology for learning improvement with booth administrators and teachers. The classrooms had varying levels of technology use for instruction. There was a 26.2% return of survey responses. The results, of this study, support that perceived usability has a impact on the users acceptance of technology and their decision to use it for instruction. The results also show that CSE did not have as big an impact on perceived usability as did the more general TSE. In summary, those teachers with higher Technology Self Efficacy assessments had higher opinions of technology usability for instruction and were more likely to be utilizing technology in the classroom.

The target of this study was a sampling of teachers that were high technology and low technology integrators from elementary and secondary school levels. They were given questionnaires that focused the characteristics of the teachers an not just their perceived barriers to technology integration. The characteristics investigated included the following areas:


 * **Computer integration**: how often computers used in the classroom? How often were they used as an instructional tool? How often used for activities like on-line research, tool-based software, communications and assessment?
 * **Comfort with computers:** Used 5 point Likert scale
 * **Computer use**: Both at home and at work. Frequency for various activities (ie. Entertainment, office tools…)
 * **Computer Training:** Number of workshops attended
 * **Attitudes towards computers:** Instructional vs. Motivational
 * **Experiences with computer technology** using the Computer Experience Questionnaire (CEQ) (wood, 2005): including questions such as how many times does a colleague come to you for help with technology at school?
 * **Teacher Efficacy:** using modified Teacher Efficacy Scale (TES) (Hoy & Woolfolk, 1993).
 * **Teaching philosophy:** Using the teaching beliefs survey (TBS) Benjamin 2003.
 * **Attitudes towards work:** using Work Preferences inventory (WPI) (Amabile, Hill, Hennessey, & Tighe, 1994**)**

Results showed that the most distinguish characteristics the separate low form high technology integrators was experience with and attitudes towards technology. Elementary high technology integrators also scored high on the WPI scale but this was not a distinguishing factor for teachers at the secondary level.

One of the more interesting findings was that years of teaching experience were not a distinguishing characteristic between high and low integrators.

Positive classroom, technology experience was the biggest influence on technology integration. The conclusion of this study discusses how mentoring and observation are key for technology professional development.

This study focused on the variables of lack of training, support and time to learn as influences on technology integration success. Four, diverse, Mississippi middle schools were selected, by the US department of Education, to receive a technology innovation challenge grant and participate in the CREATE program. The position of educational technologist was created and filled at these schools. Four ‘core’ teachers were chosen to be technology focal points and were expected to work with the educational technologists, disseminate technology to school and staff, receive additional professional development and one hour of “release” time to focus on technology initiatives.

The role of Educational technologist was filled differently at each of the schools. The core teacher release time was also managed differently at each school. Interviews, observations and other evidence (like lessons plans) were collected and analyzed for this study.

The results showed that the educational technologists were more effective and developed a stronger relationship when their background was similar to the teachers and administrators at the schools. Close proximity to staff was also significant predictor to efficacy.

This study focuses on categorizing schools based on structural and cultural variables and then evaluated the levels of technology integration success between the categorized schools. Specific characteristics investigated include: **Structural:** **Cultural** A questionnaire was created to investigate both the level of technology integration in the classroom as well The results supported the researchers’ beliefs that schools could be categorized by common structural and cultural characteristics and that those “profiles” are linked to the level of technology integration. In addition, it was discovered that schools which were strong structurally, tended to also have a technology supportive culture.
 * Technology Planning
 * Technology support
 * Availability of infrastructure
 * Innovativeness – staffs attitude towards educational innovations
 * Goal orientedness – Well defined goals accepted and followed by all staff members
 * Leadership – Principal actions and beliefs



This article is the recount of a personal experience of the technology coordinator for Mt. Lebanon School District in Pittsburgh. She observed that classroom technology integration was most successful when she was able to work closely with the teachers in authentic classroom scenarios. The issue was that she was the only technology coordinator and she was unable to support all of the teachers in the district at the level she believes would have the most impact.

To resolve this problem she approached the Director of Instructional Technology at Duquesne University. Together, they developed an internship program that filled the technology support gap as well as providing valuable experiences for pre-service teachers.

The authors of this article have outlined, what they believe, are the important areas of consideration when integrating technology into a districts curriculum. They have a defined 5 specific areas of consideration:
 * “Visionary Leadership” – Clear, well defined, proactive technology vision that is shared by teachers, administrators and students.
 * “Digital age learning culture” – Shift from teachers as disseminators of knowledge to facilitators’ of learning with technology as an integral tool.
 * “Systemic Improvement” – Technological advancement is the responsibility of a personal in the district. All parties need to listen to each other and work together to fulfill the technology vision. Policies and procedure also need to be aligned to the technology vision. Constant revaluation is also necessary to verify that the vision is staying on track.
 * “Excellence in Professional Practice” : Professional development needs to meet the needs of the teachers. It needs to be ongoing, consistent, encourages and supportive.
 * “Digital Citizenship” – Policies need to clearly define the appropriate use of technology. Administrators, Teachers, and students need to understand the appropriate use of technology and how it should be used to further learning. Educate don’ t isolate!

“ If we want our children to be competitive on a global level in the 21 st century, we need to be visibly using and talking about these tools for learning and teaching”

This article recounts the experiences and lessons learned through a 5 year technology initiative for disadvantaged schools. This program provided twelve schools with technology support/assistance and professional development. The lessons learned were categorized into 8 variables.:


 * **Leadership**: Focused at the school level, the principal is the key leader in the technology integration initiatives. If the principal is technologically focused and leads by example, the staff will be more apt to follow. The principal must be supportive and provide incentives for undertaking additional work and embracing change.
 * **Technology Plan:** With out a well-defined plan, many technology initiatives flounder and never make progress. Any technology plan should include input from educators and be focused on learning goals. (***this article contains a nice outline for technology plan development***).
 * **Patience and resources:** Technology integration can be slow especially when the support resources are not available or accessible.
 * **Professional development:** Technology training must be developed with the teachers needs in mind. Teachers are adults, following the philosophies of adult learning theory will increase the effectiveness of any professional development. Focuses on the educational impacts of technology integration will win the buy-in of teachers and will motivation for knowledge acquisition.
 * **Change in teaching strategy**: Move from disseminator to facilitator. Learner focused and project based learner.
 * **Access to support resources:** “ teachers need on-site and on-demand technical assistance with both the technology and the integration of technology into teaching and learning.” Technology support cannot be solely provided by part-time efforts of another full time teacher. Investment in technical personnel or mentoring programs is a more effective way to facilitate technology integration.
 * **Physical Resources:** The infrastructure must support technology tools. The facilities must have appropriate electrical, security and logistical systems to support any technology initiative.
 * **Evaluation:** Constant evaluation will allow for adjustment and refocusing of initiatives to support changing learning goals. Measuring success can support continue expansion a growth of programs with beneficial learning outcomes.

This research focused on developing the leadership required for facilitating technology integration. Specifically, technology focused professional development of principals. The hypothesis is that the principals who receive technology training are more likely to lead by example and the schools that they administer will have a more technologically integrated curriculum.

Principals who are inexperienced and unfamiliar with technology and its potential impact on learning initiatives are likely to make bad decision with allocations of budget dollars for hardware software and professional development. They will also not understand the work required by the teachers to not only learn new skills and development new lessons but potentially even change their approach to teaching. If the principals do not have this understanding, technology plans may be poorly designed or non-existent. Teachers will most likely not have the support and encouragement for technology related initiatives,

Types of training, amount of training, principal demographics, school level, school size were all variables considered in this study

Results showed that demographics were a distinguishing variable – specifically age. Principals age 41-55 seem to have the most influential effect on technology integration in their schools. Sex and years of administrative experience were not significant factors. School level and school size was also not determined to be influencing factors for technology integration. With regards to training, the amount of training __was__ correlated to the level of technology integration. The principals with 51 + hours of training in the previous twelve months, administered schools with high levels of technology integration. In addition, principals who received training focused on curricular integration as opposed to basic skills were more likely to be administrators of higher tech schools.