Teacher Technology Usage

7/28/2019 Teacher Technology Usage

1/20

M easurin g Teachers' Technology Uses:Why Mult iple-Measures Are MoreRevealing

Damian Bebell, Michael Russell, and Laura O'DwyerBos I nil


2/20

In [his paper, we review the several ways in wliich technology use liiis beenmeasured over chc past two decades and then present data that demonst ra te theut iHty of employing mul t ip le measures of teachers ' technology use .L I T E R A T U R E R E V I E W

T h e first large-scale inves t igation o^ ed uc atio na l tech nolo gy occu rred in 198 6w he n Co ngress asked the federal Off ice o t Tech nology Assessment (OT A) tocom pi le an assessment of technolog} ' use in Am er ican schools . Th ro ug h a seriesof- reports (CTIA, 1 988 , 19 89, 1993 ), nat io nal p atter ns ot technology in tegra-t ion an d use were do cu m en ted . In add i t ion, a pr im ary f inding suggested thatthe extent to which technolog) ' is used is lef t largely to the teacher 's discret ion.

Fen years later, Cx)ngress requested OTA "to revisit die issue ot teachers and technol-ogy in K-12 schools in depth" (OTA, 1995). In a 1995 OTA report, the authors notedthat previous rescirch on teachers' use of technology em ployed different definitions ofwh at co nstituted teth no log )' iLse. In m m , these different definitions led to conRiMng ;mdsom etim es c ontrad ictory findings r


3/20

QUANTIFYING TEACHERS' M ODE RN TEC HNO LOG Y USE (1994-2002)Since 1994, the National (.-enter for Hducational Statistics (NCKS) has con-

ducted a series of surveys on public school teachers' access to and use of com-puters and the Internet. In a 2000 report, the NCES differentiated among t)'pesof teachers' technology uses and reported that, although the vast majority ofteachers were using technology for some aspects of their professional activities,non-instrtictivc technology uses were pervasive. For example, the NCF.S re-ported that: 8 5 % of teachers use a com puter to create instructional materials at home and

7 8% do so at school. approximately half of all teachers use comptiters for administrative recordkeeping at school and at home. approximately half of all teachers use e-tiiail to "communicate with col-ieagties' and about a quarter of teachers communicate with parents by e-mail.

approximately 20% of teachers post homework and assignments on theInternet.Recognizing instructional use as a separate facet of technology use, the NCES

also reported that 53% of all public school teachers who have a computer atschool are usitig it for instruction during regular class time. In a summary re-port of the 2000 NCES document, Rowand (2000) articulated several facets ofteacher technology usage that were measured by the NCES survey. These facetsinchided the teacher using technology to/for the following {in descending orderof frequency of use): creating instructional materials keeping administrative records communicating with colleagues gathering information for planning lessons presenting multimedia classroom presentations' accessing research and best practices for teaching communicating with parents or students, and' accessing tnodel lesson plans

Besides the work by the NCES, perhaps the largest recent study of teachers'technology practices was the Teaching, Learning, and Computing (TLC) sur-vey that was conducted in 1998 and has generated nitie full reports, which de-tail the practices and beliefs of a representative sample of United States teachers


4/20

selves tor iion-iiiscructional purposes. In fact, the most frequent uses ot tech-nology across all subject areas was not instructional use but "professional usesof technology related to their day-to-day needs" (Becker, 1999, p. 31 ). O n e ofthe most frequent uses of technology reported by teachers was makine; hand-outs for class (66% ot all teachers reported making handouts at least weekly}.In addition, almost half of the teachers reported using a computer at leastweekly for record keeping and student grading, two-thirds reported using theInternet tor lesson planning, and Gi^'Yo reported using e-mail For communica-tion. In short, the 199S 1"IX.' survey data indicated that the majority of teach-ers were using technology to support ihcir leaching, but much of this use oc-curred outside of class time.

This finding was echoed by Cuban (2001}, whose book OiiersoUandUndcriLH'ei \'\'AS led many to question the impact of limited numbers ol comput-ers in classrooms on teaching and learning. It is unportant to note that whenmaking the connection between technology use and teaching, Cuban separatedtechnology use during class time and out of class time. Despite repeated effortsto distmguish between uses of technology duruig and outside of class tnne,when making the argument that computers are undertised as instructional tools.Cuban employs a definition of technology use that is exclusive of technologyfor communication, lessoti planning and preparation, grading, and record keep-ing. In other words, ('uban addresses the impacts (or lack thereof) ot technol-ogy on instructional practices using a less than complete measure ot what con-stitutes teachers" technology use.

It is clear, both in theoretical and investigative research, tha t defining andmeasuring teachers' use t>f techtiology has increased in cotnplexity as technol-ogy has become more advanced, varied, and pervasive in the educational sys-tem . In actuality, very little has changed since the mid 199()s, when the U.S.Department of Kducaiion raised concern about the different ways in whichtechnology use was being defined and measured. Today, several researchers andorganizations have developed their own definitions and measures of technologyuse to examine the extent of technology use and to assess the impact of tech-nology use on teaching and learning. Without question, instruments such asthose developed by the CF-O Forum and the International Society for Technol-ogy in Education (ISTF,) appear to be effective in spurring reflection amongschool leaders and discussion regarding technology's itnpact in schools. Fre-quently these instruments collect information on a variety of different types ofteachers' technology use and then collapse the data into a single generic "tech-nology use" variable. Unfortunately, the amalgamated measure may be inad-equate both for understanding the extent to which technology is being used byteachers and for assessing the impact of technology on learning outcomes.


5/20

Recognizing the importance of how technology use is both defined and mea-sured, the remainder oi this paper uses data collected as part of the Use, Sup-po rt, and EfTect of Instruc tional Technology (U SEIT) Study to describe effortsto develop multiple measures of teachers' technology use and to provide ex-amples of how a multifaceted approach to meastiring teachers' technology useholds the potential to provide deeper insight into how technology use variesacross settings. Based on the findings described here, implications for futtiredefuiitions and measurement of technology use are discussed. Throughout thepresent work, the term technology refers specifically to computer-based tech-nologies and includes personal computers, LCD projectors, and Palm Pilots.Prior to exam ining technology use, we provide a brief overview of the U SEfrstudy sample and design.SAMPLE AN D METH ODOLO GY

To explore the utilit)- of a m ulti-dimensional definition of technology' use, theanalysis uses data collected as part of the USEIT Study. Working with 22 schooldistricts located throughout Massachusetts, the USEIT Study examines the useof educational technologies by teachers and students, che factors that influencethese uses, and the effect of these uses on student learning. The 3-ycar study be-gan durin g che spring of 2001 and included survey responses from 2,894 K -12mathematics, English/language arts, science, social studies, and elementaryschool classroom teachers from schools across 22 d istricts. As described ingreater detail by Russell, Bebell, and OT^wyer (2003), the sample includes abroad spectrtim of teachers across grade levels and school types (elementary,middle, and high school), with each grade level represented by at least 230teachers. The sample also includes at least 470 teachers from each of the fourmain subject areas as well as 1,279 self-contained elementary school classroomteachers who reported teaching multiple subject areas.The USEIT teacher survey was developed based on ctirrent literature, was de-

signed to focus on a broad range of issues related to teacher and student use oftechnology, and included 45 items that focused on uses of technology both inand outside of the classroom by both teachers and their sttidents. Twelve oftliese items asked teachers about the frequency with which they tised a specificpiece of hardware, such as a desktop computer in their classroom, sharedlaptops, an LCD projector, or a scanner. Because these survey items did notspecify whether it was the teachers or their students using the devices, they areexcluded from the analyses presented below. Thus, these analyses began by fo-cusing on the remaining 33 items, 21 of which were ultimately used to formseven separate scales of technology use.


6/20

riety of purposes. Because an increased value in a teacher's response to each sur-vey item corresponds to more frequent use, the items are sum med to generate acomposite measure that represents the frequency of technology use.A histogram of the summed composite tne;isure of technology use for the sampleof 2,628 teachers is displayed in Figure 1. As seen in Figtire 1, the composite tech-nology use measure is approximately normally distributed (skewness = -.04) withthe majority of respondents clustered in the middle of the distribution and with afiiirly eqtial nimiber of respondents at the respective ends of the distribution.

M O

400

& MO

200

100

0-

J-'HI

' 5 20 75 30 35Sum

*

IIH*-IIIIH-40 45 SC 55 fit)M75 75of Responses

Std. Oev -Mean =N =112844.92628-.04

Figure I: Single composite measurement ofteaeher technology iiseI he second approach to measuring teacher technology use involves examin-ing the specific ways in which teachers make use of technology. In this case,multiple meastires (i.e., scales) for the specific ways that teachers use technologyare constructed from related survey items. As documented in Russell, O'Dwyer,Bebell. & Miranda (2003), principal component analyses were used to developseven separate scales that measure teachers' technology use. These seven scalesare as follows:

Teachers' use of technology for class preparation {Preparation} Teachers' professional e-mail use (Professional E-mail)


7/20

orhau trtnPreparat ion

fw ^r tn a i^ tes icr p w n n j usng We

i te.sche^s r ' ^ r it fl cd

Hjm oftert ' i taj emal stjce rcs' [Wferte

Oal iver lng InsUuct ionse a ompjler Xi ctetvei instnrtun to fom (iassAcco mn io da t i o n

H3 ofte ny x adapt an activity lo sltiderte mcriwxa rets LSiftg a oomptitefK M ofteri'^aj jftpa re w m a rt sn ffPs u jng a twfflputef

S lu d n t U M

ui fig f Inlnmd of CD-RCa( ihts yafOufing dm n N M often sluilenls K crti > group&tusng comM^ts IN$ )arDjnng c^i&inoit orieo siLCe


8/20

As seen in Figure 2, the number of items used to form each category of useranges from one to five. Also note that the distribution of responses and meanresponse varies considerably across the individual items. For example, the distri-bution of responses for the item that asks teachers how often they make hand-outs for students using computers is negatively skewed, with the vast majorityof teachers reporting tha t they do this several times a week or several times anionih. I'or this iteni, the mean response indicates that, on average, teachers usecomputers often to make handouts. In contrast, the distribtition of responsesfor the irem that asks teachers how often they have students perform researchusing the Internet or CD-ROMs during class time has a relatively normal distri-bution with a mean that is just below the mid-point of the scale. In further con-trast, the item that ask.s teachers how often they ask students to prodtice multi-media projects has a large positive skew, with most teachers responding thatthey never have students create these type of projects.

Although examining teacher responses at the item level is informative andmay reveal interesting patterns across items, patterns become easier to identifywhen items that focus on related tises of technology are combined into a singlemeasure. As described above, principal component analyses were used to iden-tlfj' the items that have strong inter-correlations and thus can be combined toform a single measure thai represents a specific category t)f technolog)' use. Ftir-therm ore, because the same five-point response options, which correspond tothe frequency of technology use, were used for all of the items that form theseven categories of technology use, an aggregate score for each category of usewas calculated by summing each teacher's response across the survey itemsforming each category and then dividing by the number of items related to thatcategory. The aggregate scores for each category of technology use are displayedin Figure 3.

As shown in Figure 3, teachers reported that the extent of technology use ishighest for preparaticjn. 1 he next most frequent use is for e-mail, followed byPreparation

GrillingDettvefusg insln-KrlkinAccommodationStutJent Proaudft


9/20

teacher-directed sttidenr use of technology and the use oF technology tor grad-ing. Noic that witli ihe exception ot preparation, teachers (on average) reporttow to moderate levels ot use for each category, with useforaccommodationand for ttie creation of student products occurring least frequently. It is impor-tant to note, however, that the sample of teachers upon which these analyses arebased excludes special education teachers who arc perhaps more likety to de-velop accommodations tor lessons.

Although it is procedtirally easier to form a single composite score by combin-ing responses across all items than it is to form multiple categories ot use, aricher understanding of how technolog)' is and is not being used by teachers re-sults when multiple categories of use are employed. As an example, recall thatthe USEIT sample of teachers was normally distributed on the generic measureof technology use (Figure l).This normal distribtttion indicates that mostteachers are tnaking moderate use of technology and chat relatively few teachersare using technology heavily or not at all. Ihe distribution of responses for theseven separate technology measures, however, suggest that the distribution ofuse varies dramatically across the separate categories of use. As shown in Figure4, the dis tribu tion of teacher use of technology for instruction Is positivelyskewed (skewness - 1.09) rather than nortnally distributed, this indicates chatthe majority of the teachers in this sample do not use technology for instructionvery often. In fact, nearly 900 teachers indicated that they never tise technologyto deliver instruction.

S t dhSkew

DHV -N -

0 911 8725071 09

tmm n narrrvtt m r v *

Figure 4: Histogram of teachers use of technology jar Delivering Instruction


10/20

ing class time {0.11) is relatively normally distributed. Professional E-mail Use(skewness --0.18), however, appears bi-modal, with a large percentage oi teach-ers repo rting frequent use and a large portion of the sample reporting no use.

Std Dov -Mean ^N =SkAwr>eii& -4 02C2B-1 12

Figure 5: Histogram of teachers' use of technology for Preparation

I Ml3 0 9 Mun -ft

4MIU1 9 37070 M1 00

Sh i Ocv -M -

0 6*1 T*A M1 IS

X


11/20

among the seven technology uses are examined via Pearson correlation coeffi-cients, which are presented in Table 1.

Table 1: Correlation Table of the Seven Specific Teacher TechnologyMeasures

Acconi. Delivery Prof. Prep. Student Student GradingE-mail Use Products

Accommodat ionDeliveryProf. E-mailPreparationS tuden t UseStudent ProductsGrading

1.000.260.260.270.320.230.11

1.000.250.260.470.330.17

1.000.350.220.180.15

1000

.00

.27

.33.24100

.00

.46 1.00.07 0.00 1.00Table 1 shows that the correlations among the seven teacher technology usemeasures are all positive, but generally ind icate weak to moderate relationships.The positive inter-correlations suggest that teachers who use technology for onepurpose arc, on average, likely to tise technology for other purposes. Likewise, ateacher who never uses one form of technology is likely to be an infrequent userof other technologies. How ever, the moderate to weak correlations also suggest

that there is considerable variation between the extent to which teachers usetechnology for one purpose atid the extent to which they use technology for an-other purpose.Across the seven categories ot technology use, the median correlation is 0.26.Wtien examining the correlations between any two ot the technology uses, twomeasures have inter-correlation coefficients that are larger than 0.4 (Deliverycorrelated with Sttident Use and Student Use correlated with Student Prod-ucts). Aside from these relationships, there are four examples of correlations

above 0.3 (Accommodation correlated with Student Use, Delivery correlatedwith Student Products, Preparation correlated with Professional F-mail, andPreparation correlated with Student Products). Again, it is logical that there is apositive relationship between these pairs of measures. Yet, the relatively weak tomoderate correlations among each of the uses suggest that each teacher technol-ogy category does represent a separate aspect of technology use.HO W MULTIPLE MEASURES OE TECHNO LOGY USE IMPROVEUNDERSTANDINGAlthough the seven teacher technology use measures are weakly to moderately


12/20

time, (b) leachers who reach in different school types (i.e., elementary versusmiddle/high school), and (c) teachers who teach different subject areas (En-ghsh/language arts, mathematics, social studies/geography, and science). Theseanalyses arc presented to illustrate how our understanding of technology usechanges when a single generic measure t)f use versus multiple specific measuresare used.TECHNO LOGY USE BYYEARS TEACHING

It is commonly believed that as new teacherswho have grown up with andare comfortable using technologyenter the teaching protession, technologyuse in schools will increase {National Center For Education Statistics, 2000).When examining use of teehnology by teachers using a generic measure thatcomprises a variety of types of technology use, it appears that the frequencywith which teachers use technology docs not vary noticeably across the numberof years in the profession. As seen in Eigure 7, teachers who are brand new tothe profession report almost the same amount of use as do teachers who havebeen in the profession for 11 or more years.

1 2VHMIH

O 10 11 ID Mo re ma nVHHtM ymitfM IS yMir

Yflnrs ToacihingFigure 7; Com parison of generic teehnology use measure across the number ofyears teacher has taught

However, when multiple measures of technology use are employed, the pat-tern changes noticeably. As depicted in Figure S, newer teachers report higher


13/20

9(AZi> o9Tec

low use

4 " "

_ .T7..7it-

1L RSK tnan

. . ^ - ._ - ^ - - * -

1 1

Number o(

* - .

- - - * - - -

6-10Years Teach

" - - . , .

ii-ir>r^

(MOffi Ihiin15 yeaia

Figure 8: Comparison of multiple technology measures across the number ofyears teacher has taught.

A similar pattern occurs when examining the relationship between technologyuse and school type. As shown in Figure 9, the frequency with which teachersreport using technology appears to be nearly identical in elementary and inmiddle/high schools based on a generic measure of technology use. However,interesting differences appear when multiple measures of technolog)' use are ex-amined. Although teachers in both settings report about the same amount ofuse for Delivering Instruction, for Professional E-mail, and for Student Prod-ucts, elementary teachers report using technology to accommodate lessons andasking their students to use technology during class time more frequently thando the middle/high school teachers. C'onverscly, the middie/high school teach-ers report using technology for preparation at a higher freqtiency than do the el-ementary school teachers. By far, however, the largest difference in use occursfor grading, with middle/high school teachers report occurring much more fre-quently than their elementary school counterparts.Although the differences are less dramatic across subject areas, the way in whichtechnology tise is defmed also influences our perception of how technology use dif-fers across subject areas. As seen in Figure 10, there appears to be little difference in

the frequency of technology use across English/language arts, social studies/geogra-phy, and science teachers when technolog)' use is defined with a generic measure.


14/20

larger than it is for the generic use measure. However, m athematics teachers appearto use technology to deliver instruction about as frequently as any other g roup andreport noticeably higher levels of use for grading. Although less dramatic, the wayin which technolog)' use differs between the other subject areas also changes whenindividual categories ot use are examined. Perhaps most notably, whereas English,social studies, and science teachers appear similar with respect to the generic mea-sure, Fngiish teachers report using technoiogj' for grading less and use technologyfor accommodations more thati teachers of the other two subject areas.

' '^ Siudaoi U)M

" / Ofilivtry lnm,

/ " AcoomiTKKJallonSlii(I*>1 Pfuxlur.iS

School Environment/TypeFigure 9: Com parison of different technology measures across school type

PreparalionProfessional EmailGrading ..Generic UseStudoni UseStuden l ProductsDelivering InstructionAccommodat ion

o-oar

-0-0


15/20

Although there are many possible reasons that may explain the differences inuse noted above, our purpose here for examining patterns of use is to demon-strate how these patterns differ depending upon how one defines and measurestechnology use. Whereas there appears to be little difference in the frequencywith which teachers use technology based on rhcir years teaching, their schooltype, or across most subject areas (except mathematics) when a generic measureof technology use is employed, important differences appear when technologyuse is examined as a multi-dimensiona l cons truct.DISCUSSION

Investments in educational technologj' have sparked important questionsabout the impact of technology on teaching and learning. In turn, leaders andresearchers at the district, state, and national levels are making efforts to bothincrease use of technology by teachers and students and to examine technologyseffects on student learning. In many cases, however, definitions of technologyuse vary substantially across settings and sttidies, and technology use is often ex-amined in a generic fashion. The analyses presented here demonstrate the valueof conceiving of technology use as multiple categories or types of use ratherthan a single generic constrtLct. Using 21 survey items that focus on specificuses of technology, the analyses presented above demonstrate the following: Separate meastires that represent distinct categories of technology use can beformed" Althotigh these measures are correlated positively with each other, thestrength of the relationships are weak enough to suggest that each categoryrepresents a separate and distinct type of use The use of distmct measures versus a generic meastirc provides a richer, morenuanced understanding of how technology use differs across factors such asteacher tenure, school type, and subject area taught.

The implications of this approach are especially applicable to the future devel-opment of surveys and other research instruments designed to measure teachers'use of technology. Eor example, a district interested in documenting the extentto which leachers are using technology or the extent to which teachers' use oftechnology changes in response to the acquisition of more resources or the pro-vision of professional development are likely to develop a richer understandingby collecting information about the specific types of teachers' technology userather than simply measuring its generic presence or absence.Using a multi-faceted approach to measure teachers' use of technology also


16/20

goes on behind the scenes with lesson preparation, grading, and professional e-mail use rather than instructional use or teacher-directed student use (Cuban,2001; Becker, 1999; Russell, Bebell, O'Dwyer, & O'Connor, 2003). For thisreason, the traditional methodological tool of classroom observations would failto capture these activities in an evaluation or research study. Similarly, studiesthat focus entirely on student-reported data (F.dwards, 2002) would also fail cocapture the most frequent and pervasive teacher uses of technology.

This point is also directly relevant when examining the relationship betweentechnology use and its impacts on student learning. Although several studieshave documented positive effects of technology use on student learning whenthe technology is tised directly by students (see Cioldherg, Russell, & Cook,2003; Kulik, 1994; and Sivin-Kachala, 1998 for meta-analyses of nearly 700studies), the analyses presented above suggest that teacher-directed student useof technology during class time represents just one category of use. Moreover,teacher-directed student use during class time is reported to occur less fre-quently in comparison to teachers' use for preparation or communication. Al-though it is unquestionably important to understand how student use of tech-nology impacts student learning, ir is equally important to examine therelationship between student learning and other uses of technology by teachersthat directly support instruction. (!!learly, this type of analysis can only he con-ducted if multiple measures of technology use are employed.

Finally, it is important to recognize that althotigh we strongly advocate formultiple measures of technology use, we are not suggesting that the uses wehave employed represent a defmitive body of uses or that the items used to formeach measure are exhaustive. To the co ntrary, we believe tha t as researchers an deducators who are familiar with educational technology consider the full rangeof ways in which technology is ctirrently being used, additional categories of usewill be identified. Similarly, as new lechnologies become available and as tihiq-uitous co m putin g becomes more prom inent in schools, specific uses of technol-ogy will emerge and categories ot technology use will expand. Although it mayseem efficient to "bo rrow " surveys or items that have been used for other re-search or evaluations, doing so may fail to capttire the full range in which teach-ers are using existing and recently acquired technologies for a variety ot pur-poses. It is for these reasons that we encotirage schools, districts, and researcherswho will be using surveys lo doctmient technology use, to begin by defining thecategories or types of use ot interest and to then develop items related to eachcategory of use.

As an example, when developing the teacher survey for the USEIT Study, wetheorized that teachers' technology use fell into four categories and developed


17/20

originally were subsumed within another category of use, were found to be In-dependent, As an example, we had originally believed that grading was part ofprofessional use outside of the classroom, and thus would be strongly related tocreating tests, handouts, and using the Internet to prepare tor lessons. Similarly,we believed that teachers' use of technology to deliver instruction and to makeaccommodations were components of technology use during class time. How-ever, our analyses indicate that teachers' technology use for delivery and to ac-commodate lessons operated independently ot teachers asking students to usetechnology during class time and that teachers' use of technology for gradingoperated independently of preparation. Having learned this, before conductingsimilar research in the future, we could increase the reliability of our measuresand the amount of information provided about each category of use by devel-oping additional items to measure the categories of use that have emerged fromour analyses of the USEf I' Survey data.

In closing, durin g the past decades a wide variety of computer-based tech-nologies that can and are being used for educational purposes have emerged.Without question, the variety of technologies and the multiple ways in whichsome technologies can be used for educational purposes complicates efforts todocument technology use and the effect of these uses on teaching and learning.As we have shown using a limited number of survey items, simply conceiving ofa variety of uses of technology as a single generic measure of technology usemasks far more than it reveals.A C K N O W L E D G E M E N T S

Ihis report was supported under the Field Initiated Study Grant Program, PRVAward Number R.3()5TO1OO65, as administered by the Office of Fducational Re-search and Improvement, U.S. Department of Kducatioii. ihe llndings and opin-ions expressed in this report do not reflect the positions or policies of the Office ofEducational Research and Improvement or the U.S. Department of Education.Contributors

Damian Bebell is an assistant research professor at Boston College's LynchSchool of Education and a research associate at the Technology and AssessmentStudy Collaborative. (Address: Damian Bebell, Technology and AssessmentStudy Collaborative, Boston C'ollege, 332 Campion Hall, Chestnut Hill, MA02467; [email protected].)Michael Russell is an assistant professor at Boston College's Lynch School of

Education and the director of theTechnolog}' and Assessment Study Collaborative.Laura O'Dwyer is an assistant professor at the Graduate School of Education


18/20

Becker, H. (1999). hiternet use by teachers: Conditions ofprofessional use andteacher-directed student use. Irv ine , C^A: C^emer for Research on Inform ationTechnology and Organizations.Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold & underused: Computers in the classroom. Cam-

bridge, MA: Hiirviird University Press.Edwards, V. (Ed.). (2002). Technology Counts 2002 [Special Issue]. Educa-tion Week, 2105).Goldberg, A., Russell, M., & Cook, A. (2003). The effect oFcomputers onstudent w riting: A meta-analysis of studies from 1992 to H)^l. Journal of Tech-nology. Learning, and Assessment, 2{\). Retrieved (.)cto be r21 , 2003, from http://www.bc.edu/research/intasc/jcla/journal/v2nl.shtmlKulik. J. (1994). Mera-analytic studies of findings on computer-based in-

struction. In E. Baker & H. O'NeiKJr. (Eds.). Technology assessment in educationand training.Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence F.rlbaum.Eerman.J. (1998). You're got mail: 10 nify ways teachers can use e-mail to ex-tettd kids' learning [OnWnt; (\oc\\mitnt\. Retrieved January 10, 2003, from http://www.electronic-school.com/0398f5.htmlMcNabb, M., Hawkes, M.. & Rouk, U. (1999). Critical issues in evaluating

the effectiveness of technology. Proceedings oi the Secretary's Conference on Edu-cational Technology: Evaluating the Effectiveness oi Technology. RetrievedJanuary 10, 2003. from http://www.ed,gov/Teehnology/lechConf/1999/confsum.htmlNational Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department oi Education.(2000). Teach ers' tools for the 21st Century. A report on teachers' use of technology.Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved January 10, 2003, from http://nces.ed.gov/spider/webspider/2000102.shtml. (Eric Document Reproduction Service No.ED 444599).Office ofTechnology Assessment, U.S. Congress. (1988). Power on! New tools

fo r teaching and learning. Washington, DC: U.S. Covernment Printing Office.Office of Technology As.sessment, U.S. Congress. (1989). Linking and learn-ing: A new course for ed ucation. Washington, DC: U.S. Government PrintingOffice.

Office of Technology Assessment, U.S. Congress. (1995). Teachers and tech-nology: Making the connection, OTA-RHR-616. Washington, DC: U.S. Govern-ment Printing Office.Ravitz, J., & Wong, Y. (2000, April). How teaching philosophies relevant to

computer use originate: Effects of educational background, teaching responsi-bilities, and comptiter experience. In H. Becker (Chair), When does computer me


19/20

use of computers and iofiware. Irvine, CA: Center for Research on InformationTechnology and Organizations.Ravitz, J., Wong, Y., & Becker, H. (2000). Constructivist-compatible and prac-tices among US teachers. Irvine, CA: Center tor Research on Information Tech-

nology and Organizations.Rowand, C. (2000). Teacher use of computers and the Internet in public schoo ls.Stats in brief. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.Russell, M, Behell, D., & O'Dwyer, L. (2003). An overinew of the USFJTstudy and the participating districts. Boston: Technology and Assessment StudyCollaborative, Boston College.Russell, M., Bebell, D., OTJwyer, L., & O'Connor, K. (2003). Examiningteacher technology use: Implications for preservice and inservice teacher prepa-

ration. Journal of Teacher Education, 54{A).Russell, M, O'Dwyer, L., Bebell, D., & Miranda, H. (2003). The USETTstudy technical report. Boston, MA: Technology and Assessment Study Collabo-rative, Boston College.Sivin-Kachala, J. (1998). Report on the effectiveness of technology in schools,1990-1997. Washington, DC; Software Pubhsher's Association.


20/20

Documents

Teacher Technology Usage