changing teachers’ beliefs toward classroom technology … · changing teachers’ beliefs toward...

Changing Teachers’ Beliefs toward Classroom Technology Use:

The Potential of Problem-based Learning

Peggy Ann Ertmer

Purdue University

West Lafayette, IN, USA

Sung Hee Park

Ewah Womans University

Seoul, South Korea

Contact Information

Peggy A. Ertmer Purdue University 3144 Beering Hall of Liberal Arts and Education 100 N. University St. West Lafayette, IN 47907-2098 Fax: 765-496-1622 Phone: 765-494-5675 Email: [email protected]

Changing Teachers Beliefs….2

Abstract

Pedagogical beliefs play a significant role in whether/how technology is adopted and

implemented by classroom teachers. Furthermore, because of the relative tenacity of these

beliefs, it is generally agreed that it is difficult to influence or change classroom behaviors

based on these beliefs. This study used a quasi-experimental research design to investigate

the impact of problem-based learning (PBL) on teachers’ beliefs regarding technology use

(as measured by pre- and post-surveys) and on their intended teaching practices (as measured

by pre- and post lesson plans). Participants included 48 preservice teachers enrolled in a 1-

credit introductory educational technology course. Survey results measuring teachers’

pedagogical beliefs toward technology use showed no significant changes. However,

participants in the treatment group, as compared to the control group, significantly shifted

their intended teaching practices to more student-centered practices, as judged by changes in

four components of their lesson plans: 1) students’ role, 2) curricular characteristics, 3)

learning goals, and 4) types of technology use. Comments from preservice teachers suggested

that the instructors’ modeling of PBL influenced the strategies they used in designing their

final lesson plans.


Recent national (CDW-G, 2006) and international (Voogt, 2008) reports paint a

promising picture of classroom teachers’ current efforts to use technology to support student

learning. For example, among the 1000 teachers who responded to the Teachers Talk Tech

survey, 790 teachers (79%) self-reported using computers “to teach students” (CDW-G).

However, other research (Bauer & Kenton, 2005; Project Tomorrow, 2008) suggests that

teachers are not using technology to support the kinds of instruction (e.g., student-centered)

required by today’s learners (International Society for Technology in Education [ISTE],

2008; Partnership for 21st Century Learning, 2007).

Based on survey results, teachers have increased their personal and professional uses

of computers (Project Tomorrow, 2008; van Braak, Tondeur, & Valcke, 2004). In response to

the Teachers Talk Tech survey (CDW-G, 2006), 88% of the teachers reported using

technology for administrative tasks, while 86% reported using technology for communication

tasks. Similarly, 93% of the teachers who responded to the Speak Up 2007 survey (n =

23,756 / 25,544) reported using technology to communicate with colleagues or parents

(Project Tomorrow, 2008).

Along side these increases in teachers’ professional uses are increases in the reported

instructional uses of computers in the classroom (National Education Association, 2008;

Project Tomorrow, 2008). Unfortunately, when we look closer at these data, reported uses

still tend to be “low-level” (Russell, Bebell, O’Dwyer, & O’ Connor, 2003; Maddux &

Johnson, 2006), that is, those that support traditional, teacher-directed instruction (e.g., using

PowerPoint to present a lesson, searching the Web for information resources) or that focus on

the development of students’ technical skills (Tondeur, van Braak, & Valcke, 2007). Based

on the results of the Speak Up 2007 national survey (Project Tomorrow, 2008), 51% of


responding teachers (n = 13027 / 25,544) reported that their primary uses of technology to

“facilitate student learning” comprised 1) asking students to complete homework

assignments using the computer (e.g., writing reports, finding information on the Internet)

and 2) assigning practice work at the computer (e.g., using drill and practice software). This

is verified, to some extent, by the large percentage of students (grades 6-12), taking the same

survey, who reported using technology to 1) write assignments (74%), 2) conduct online

research (72%), and check assignments or grades online (58%).

Technology Integration for 21st Century Learners

It is no longer appropriate to suggest that these types of uses are adequate to meet the

needs of the 21st century learner. Using technology simply to support lecture-based

instruction falls far short of recommended best practice (Lawless & Pellegrino, 2007;

Partnership for 21st Century Skills, 2007). And while survey data may suggest that the

“teaching process is fundamentally changing as professional development is taking teachers

from learning how computers work to using technology to change how they teach” (CDW-G,

2006, emphasis added), current data from classroom observations (Andrew, 2007; Bauer &

Kenton, 2005; Schaumburg, cited in Schulz-Zander, Pfeifer, & Voss, 2008) do not support

this view. Even among teachers who claim to have student-centered, constructivist practices,

technology uses are described as not being particularly powerful or innovative (Cuban,

Kirkpatrick, & Peck; 2001; Hermans, Tondeur, van Braak, & Valcke, 2008).

To achieve the kinds of technology uses required for 21st century teaching and

learning (Lai, 2008; Law, 2008; Thomas & Knezek, 2008), we need to help teachers

understand how to use technology to facilitate meaningful learning (i.e., learning that enables

students to construct deep and connected knowledge). While “technology can make it


quicker or easier to teach the same things in routine ways,” it also makes it possible to “adopt

new and arguably better approaches to instruction and/or change the content or context of

learning, instruction, and assessment” (Lawless & Pellegrino, 2007, p. 581). These latter uses

are precisely the ones that the majority of today’s teachers find most challenging, perhaps

because they require the most amount of change.

Addressing Teacher Beliefs

Empirical evidence has established the significance of pedagogical beliefs [i.e., the

internal constructs that help teachers interpret teaching and learning experiences (Nespor,

1987; Pajares, 1992)] for understanding teacher behavior (Kagan, 1992). Specific to

technology, Niederhauser and Stoddart (2001) described patterns of technology use that were

consistent with teachers’ beliefs about curriculum and instructional practice. According to

Miller and colleagues (2003), teachers’ beliefs about technology are comprised of three

related but independent components: pedagogical beliefs about teaching and learning, self-

efficacy beliefs about technology use, and beliefs about the perceived value of computers for

student learning. In a study by Russell et al. (2003) these three components were the main

predictors of teachers’ classroom technology uses. In this study, these same three

components were used to operationalize “teachers’ beliefs about technology.”

Literature suggests that teachers’ beliefs can be changed through practices that

emphasize reflection on one’ personal beliefs, hands-on experiences, and engagement in

authentic problems (Ertmer, 2005). As one example of an authentic, hands-on teaching

approach, problem-based learning (PBL) offers a potentially effective means for impacting

preservice teachers’ beliefs (Derry, Siegel, Stampen, & the STEP team, 2002). According to

Ertmer and Simons (2006):


In PBL, students’ work is organized around solving a complex, ill-structured

problem that encompasses authentic, discipline-based content. Because students

are introduced to the problem before they have learned the required content

knowledge, they work together to identify their learning needs and to locate

relevant information to address those needs. Throughout the process, the teacher

monitors and guides students’ progress by overseeing the management of

student small groups, keeping students focused on important content, and

providing ongoing formative feedback. Finally, as a way to help students both

deepen and strengthen their understanding of the concepts and skills acquired,

students engage in ongoing reflective activities such as journaling, self-

evaluation, and group debriefings (p. 42).

Given these characteristics, PBL is believed to enhance students’ critical thinking

skills, increase motivation, and improve social skills (Albion, 1999; Duch, Groh, & Allen,

2001). Furthermore, PBL enables preservice teachers to recognize different perspectives and

encourages them to articulate, defend, or change their current beliefs about classroom

practice (Lundberg & Levin, 2003). The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of

problem-based learning on preservice teachers’ beliefs regarding technology use.

Specifically, we asked:

1. What is the impact of problem-based learning on preservice teachers’ beliefs

regarding technology use?

2. How do preservice teachers’ intended teaching practices change after

participating in a technology integration course using a PBL approach?


Methods

We employed a quasi-experimental research design, using pre- and post-surveys, to

investigate the impact of problem-based learning on preservice teachers’ beliefs regarding

technology use. Additionally, pre-and post-course lesson plans were used to investigate

changes in preservice teachers’ intended teaching practices.

Participants and Setting

Of the 50 preservice students enrolled in three sections of a one-credit educational

technology course, 48 students completed the pre- and post-surveys and 46 completed pre-

and post-lesson plans. The course met once a week, for 2 hours, over 8 weeks. Of the three

intact sections, two were assigned to the PBL condition (n = 12 and n = 16) and one to the

control condition (n = 20). For the PBL condition, two video clips featuring a middle school

principal and school superintendent introduced the authentic PBL task: the school district had

recently invested in wireless laptops for both teachers and students and wished to hire new

teachers who could integrate these and other technologies into their classrooms. At the end of

the video clip, the administrators invited the students to apply for one of the new teacher

positions by creating and presenting portfolios of competitive applicants. This, then,

prompted a driving question for the class, “What does it take to be a successful teacher who

integrates technology?” Preservice teachers formed groups according to their disciplines and

developed portfolio artifacts to demonstrate their skills, knowledge, and attitudes towards

technology integration.

Participants in the control group evaluated instructional multimedia K-12 programs

and explored other methods for using technology in the classroom. Students in the control

group completed two lesson plan projects, using web resources and instructional software,


and one digital video development project. The first two course projects were completed

individually while the video development project was completed in small groups.

Participants in both conditions created individual lesson plans during the second and last

weeks of the semester following specific guidelines that required them to describe learners,

goals, uses of technology, assessment methods, resources, and so on.

Data Collection and Analysis Strategies

Pre- and post-beliefs were examined via a 54-item survey (validated during a pilot

study; Park, Ertmer, & Simons, 2005) measuring 1) pedagogical beliefs (n = 35; e.g., “Innate

ability is fairly fixed and some children just can’t learn as well as others,” “Knowledge of the

subject area is the most important part of being an effective teacher”), 2) self-efficacy beliefs

about computer use (n = 7; “I am confident that I can use technology as an effective teaching

tool”), and 3) beliefs about the perceived value of computers for instructional purposes (n =

12; “Computer use promotes student-centered learning and self-discovery”). Students rated

their levels of agreement (from 1- completely disagree to 7- completely agree) on statements

related to these three components.

Pre-and post-course lesson plans were analyzed with a rubric to measure changes in

intended teaching practices. The rubric addressed seven categories: 1) teachers’ roles, 2)

students’ roles, 3) curricular characteristics, 4) learning goals, 5) types of activities, 6)

assessment strategies, and 7) types of technology. Each lesson plan was scored on each

category using a 4-point scale (1 = teacher-centered learning, 4 = student-centered learning).

The seven category scores were added; possible scores ranged from 7 to 28. Two graders

discussed what characterized a score of 1 through 4 while grading ten sample lesson plans.

Following that, each grader independently scored the same 30 lesson plans (30% of all the


lesson plans) and discussed discrepancies. After reaching consensus, each grader graded 31

lesson plans individually, for a total of 62 additional plans and reached 91.47% agreement

following recommended guidelines (Stemler, 2004). Graders were blind to both the

experimental condition and the timing of the lesson plan.

Results

Beliefs Regarding Technology Use

Data from the pre- and post-surveys were used to determine the impact of PBL on

teachers’ beliefs regarding technology use. An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was

conducted, using the pre-survey as a covariate.

Overall, the pre-survey scores were significant as covariates in the ANCOVAs.

However, results of the survey showed no significant differences between treatment groups

on the beliefs survey. This result is not completely unexpected given the relatively short

duration of the course. To change preservice teachers’ beliefs regarding technology use, we

may need to incorporate student-centered learning approaches throughout the teacher

education program. However, it also may be possible that our survey was unable to

adequately capture changes in teachers’ beliefs. As Tatto and Coupland (2003) suggested,

more than one measurement may be needed over time and across different courses, allowing

for triangulation.

Intended Teaching Practices

Data from the pre- and post-course lesson plans were analyzed using the rubric

developed. First, an ANCOVA was conducted, using total scores from the pre-course lesson

plans as a covariate. Results showed a significant difference between groups in the amount of

change measured, F(1, 43) = 8.80, p = 0.004, η2 = .67. Overall, participants in the PBL group


showed greater change than participants in the control group, moving from a teacher-

centered to a student-centered approach.

Second, changes in participants’ intended teaching practices were examined for each

subcategory using a one-way multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA). In addition,

Bonferroni correction procedure was performed to control for Type I error. Each sub-

category was tested at the .007, alpha level (.05 divided by 7). An overall effect of treatment

on subcategories was noted: Hotelling-Lawley Trace = .64, associated F(7, 38) = 3.50, p =

.0054, η2 = .36. Follow-up ANOVAs indicated significantly more student-centered

approaches for PBL students on four subcategories: 1) students’ role (F(1, 44) = 11.37, p

= .0016, η2 = .21), 2) curricular characteristics (F(1, 44) = 14.76, p = .0004, η2 = ..25), 3)

learning goals (F(1, 44) = 12.67, p = .0009, η2 = ..22), and 4) types of technology use (F(1,

44) = 23.29, p < .0001, η2 = .35). The results from each of these categories are described in

more detail.

Students’ roles. At the end of the semester PBL participants showed more changes in

their descriptions of the students’ role than did participants in the control group: F(1, 44) =

11.37, p = .0016, η2 = .21. For example, on the pre-course lesson plans, participants in the

PBL group described situations where students would listen to a teacher’s lecture without

any group work in the classroom. However, on the post-course lesson plans, participants

described how students would work in groups, be given choices for research topics, and

create different products based on collaboration. For example, learning about animals in a

science class, a student’s role was described in the pre-course lesson plan as “get work done”

during classroom activities that included research, presentation, and developing a poster.


However, in the post-course lesson plan, the same participant described the student’s role as

the following:

The students’ role is to work with other students and learn how to be a team player.

Teamwork is an important attitude to learn, as students will be using it for the rest of

their lives. The students also need to be able to split up work evenly, so that work can

be done in an effective way.

Curricular characteristics. Results revealed that PBL participants described

curricular characteristics in a more student-centered way, following treatment, than did

students in the control group: F(1, 44) = 14.76, p = .0004, η2 = .25. On the pre-course lesson

plans, the skills and knowledge in the curriculum were described following a pre-determined

sequence. That is, the curriculum was structured such that all the students followed the same

sequence. However, in the post-course lesson plans, curricula included more project-based

approaches with multiple components ranging from simple-level worksheets to higher-level

products such as essays, reports, and hands-on projects, encouraging students to explore

multiple paths through the learning materials. For example, in a pre-course lesson plan about

learning a computer software program, a participant described how the teacher would

demonstrate the menu in the software and let students follow the linear procedure described

in a handout or manual. However, in the post-course lesson plan, the same participant

described how the teacher would show multiple examples of projects created with the

graphic program, show basic functions of the software, and demonstrate one example. Then,

the teacher would circulate among the groups to offer support as they determined their own

projects. That is, students would choose their own topics and approaches instead of following

a single linear procedure established by the teacher.


Learning goals. Results revealed that PBL participants described learning goals in a

more student-centered way, following treatment, than did students in the control group: F(1,

44) = 12.67, p = .0009, η2 = .22. While focusing primarily on content-based learning goals in

the pre-course lesson plans, participants looked beyond students’ growth in subject content to

problem solving, communication, or decision-making skills in the post-course lesson plans.

For example, the topic of “ink-printing a t-shirt design” was described for an art class. In the

pre-course lesson plan, the participant described how students would start the class using

computers to either design an object to print onto their t-shirts, or finding an object to use

from the Internet. However, in the post-course lesson plan, the participant described an

instructional problem that involved the National Football League searching for a new symbol

to replace the old one. Students were asked to design their own symbols to replace the old

one. The preservice teacher noted that she hoped to stimulate students’ creativity, problem-

solving, and critical thinking skills through this process.

Types of technology use. Results revealed that PBL participants described uses of

technology that were more student-centered, following treatment, than did students in the

control group: F(1, 44) = 23.29, p < .0001, η2 = .35. Some technology uses were described

in the pre-lesson plans, such as using PowerPoint and an LCD projector to deliver a lecture.

For example, to learn mechanics and the history of small engines in a technology education

class, the pre-course lesson plan explained how the teacher would use technology to deliver a

lecture: “Teacher will have prepared an extensive PowerPoint presentation with slides that

show motion and small video clips that last the duration of the first class period.”

As an another example, in a pre-course lesson plan about nutrition, a participant

described how teachers used technology to demonstrate how to use a software program and


students used a spreadsheet program to enter in the cost of various food items found in the

local grocery store. However, in the post-course lesson plan, a greater variety of technology

was used for student learning. For example, after choosing a country or culture, students

would find information about daily meals and then locate recipes for favorite dishes. Students

would use the Internet for research and prepare a presentation based on the results. Although

students would still learn about nutrition, the use of technology was different. While in the

pre-course lesson plans, technology was used solely by teachers to deliver a lecture or

conduct a demonstration, in the post-course lesson plans it was used by students to both

conduct research and to share research results.

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to investigate the impact of problem-based learning on

preservice teachers’ beliefs regarding technology use and on their intended teaching practices,

as captured by detailed lesson plans. Results showed no statistically significant changes on

any measure related to beliefs. However, results supported the hypothesis that PBL could

impact teachers’ intended teaching practices.

The lack of significant results on the beliefs survey may have been due to a number of

reasons. First, the instrument may not have been sensitive enough to capture changes in

preservice teachers’ beliefs regarding technology use. As noted by Richardson (2003) and

others (Kagan, 1992; Pajares, 1992; Pedersen & Liu, 2003), measuring beliefs is intrinsically

difficult because people are often unable or unwilling to represent their beliefs accurately.

Second, the eight-week course may have been too short to impact teachers’ beliefs regarding

technology use. Richardson (2003) warned that trying to change preservice teachers’ beliefs

during an academic course is extremely difficult, especially when the course is not


accompanied by significant involvement in a related field experience. Thus, it is not

surprising that we did not see changes in beliefs following a short, eight-week course.

However, close examination of preservice teachers’ lesson plans demonstrated four

categories that showed a significant shift toward student-centered learning: 1) students’ role,

2) curricular characteristics, 3) learning goals, and 4) types of technology use. We

hypothesize that the preservice teachers’ experiences during the PBL activities and their

observations of the course instructor’s approach impacted their ideas about how they might

approach their own teaching practices. That is, during the semester students participated in

solving an authentic problem, observed exemplary teachers’ practices, and engaged in group

work, discussion, reflection, and presentation. Many of these same activities were included in

students’ post-course lesson plans.

While it is possible that the participants’ lesson plans reflected their “true” beliefs, it

is also possible that they did not. That is, while it appears as though students’ lesson plans

were influenced by the PBL approach in which they participated, this may have reflected

only surface changes and students may have held stronger central beliefs regarding

technology use that remained unaffected. Additional research, including longitudinal

research, is needed to clarify these results.

Conclusion

This exploratory study examined the impact of problem-based learning on teachers’

beliefs regarding technology use and on their intended teaching practices. First, this study

supported the findings from previous research regarding the relative tenacity of preservice

teachers’ beliefs (Bai & Ertmer, 2008; Richardson, 2003). That is, problem-based learning

did not have a significant impact on teachers’ beliefs regarding technology use over an eight-


week period, as measured by a self-report beliefs survey. This suggests that student-centered

learning approaches may need to be implemented over a longer period of time in teacher

education programs in order to see measurable changes in beliefs.

Second, the results of this study demonstrated a significant change, from pre- to post

semester, on preservice teachers’ intended teaching practices among those students who

participated in a PBL course. These results suggest that hands-on activities with a variety of

examples, group work, and PBL modeling activities, have the potential to change preservice

teachers’ intended practices toward student-centered learning approaches. This is similar to

findings by Derry et al. (2002), which demonstrated changes in preservice teachers’ beliefs

after participation in authentic hands-on experiences. It is possible that personal involvement

in PBL activities enables preservice teachers to gain a clearer understanding of how they

might implement student-centered technology use in a classroom setting. This, then, might be

the first step toward changing their future practice as well as their beliefs about effective

technology use. By helping teachers adopt new practices that are successful, the beliefs

associated with these practices may also change.


16

References

Albion, P. R. (1999). Self-efficacy beliefs as an indicator of teachers' preparedness for

teaching with technology. Computers in the Social Studies, 7(4), Retrieved

November 17, 2002, from http://www.cssjournal.com/albion.html

Andrew, L. (2007). Comparison of teacher educators’ instructional methods with the

constructivist ideal. The Teacher Educator, 42(3), 157–184.

Bai, H., & Ertmer, P. A. (2008). Teacher educators’ beliefs and technology uses as

predictors of preservice teachers’ beliefs and technology attitudes. Journal of

Technology and Teacher Education, 16(1), 93-112.

Bauer, J., & Kenton, J. (2005). Toward technology integration in schools: Why it is not

happening. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13, 519–546.

CDW-G (2006). Teachers Talk Tech reveals technology access and professional

development are driving improved teacher and student performance. Retrieved

March 28, 2009, from http://newsroom.cdwg.com/features/feature-06-26-06.html

Cuban, L., Kirkpatrick, H., & Peck, C. (2001). High access and low use of technologies

in high school classrooms: Explaining an apparent paradox. American

Educational Research Journal, 38, 813-834.

Derry, S. J., Siegel, M., Stampen, J, & the STEP Research Group (2002). The STEP

system for collaborative case-based teacher education: Design, evaluation and future

directions. Proceedings of computer support for collaborative learning (CSCL) 2002

(pp. 209-216). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Duch, B. J., Groh, S. E., & Allen, D. E. (Eds.) (2001). The power of problem-based

learning. Sterling, VA: Stylus.


17

Ertmer, P. A. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for

technology integration? Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4),

25-39.

Ertmer, P. A., & Simons, K. D.* (2006). Jumping the implementation hurdle: Supporting

PBL in K-12 classrooms. The Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based

Learning, 1(1), 41-56.

International Society for Technology in Education (2003). Use of NETS by State.

Retrieved April 3, 2009, from

http://www.iste.org/Content/navigationMenu/NETS/ForTeachers/2000Standards/

NETS_for_Teachers_2000.htm

Hermans, R., Tondeur, J. van Braak, J., Valcke, M. (2008). The impact of primary school

teachers’ educational beliefs on the classroom use of computers. Computers and

Education, 51, 1499-1509.

Kagan, D.M. (1992). Implications of research on teacher belief. Educational

Psychologist, 27(10), 65–70.

Lai, K-W. (2008). ICT supporting the learning process: The premise, reality, and

promise. In J. Voogt & G. Knezek (Eds), International Handbook of Information

Technology in Primary and Secondary Education (pp. 215-230). New York:

Springer.

Law, N. (2008). Teacher learning beyond knowledge for pedagogical innovations with

ICT. In J. Voogt & G. Knezek (Eds), International Handbook of Information

Technology in Primary and Secondary Education (pp. 425-434). New York:

Springer.


18

Lawless, K. A., & Pellegrino, J. W. (2007). Professional development in integrating

technology into teaching and learning: Knowns, unknowns, and ways to pursue

better questions and answers. Review of Educational Research, 77, 575-614.

Lundberg, M. A., & Levin, B. B. (2003). Prompting the development of preservice

teachers’ beliefs through cases, action research, problem-based learning, and

technology. In J. Rath, & A. C. McAninch (Eds.), Advances in teacher education

series, 6, (pp. 23-42). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.

Maddux, C. D., & Johnson, D. L. (2006). Type II applications of information technology

in education: The next revolution. Computers in the Schools, 23,(1/2), 1-5.

Miller, S., Meier, E., Payne-Bourcy, L., Shablak, S., Newman, D., Wan, T. W., Casler, E.

C., & Pack, G. (2003, April). Technology as a catalyst for change: A leadership

model for transforming urban teacher programs. Paper presented at the annual

meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.

National Education Association (2008). No Child Left Behind: Issue overview. Retrieved

on March 16, 2009, from http://www.nea.org/lac/esea/index.html. Author.

Nespor, J. (1987). The role of beliefs in the practice of teaching. Journal of Curriculum

Studies, 19, 317-328.

Niederhauser, D. S., & Stoddart, T. (2001). Teachers' instructional perspectives and use

of educational software. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(1), 15-31.

Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy

construct. Review of Educational Research, 62, 307-332.

Park, S. H., Ertmer, P. A., & Simons, K. D. (2005, March). Problem-based learning and

beliefs about technology: Examining the Relationship. Proceedings of SITE 2005.


19

Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education conference, Phoenix, AZ,

1549-1552.

Partnership for 21st Century Learning. (2007). Framework for 21st century learning.

Retrieved April 9, 2009, from http://www.21stcenturyskills.org

Pedersen, S., & Liu, M. (2002). The transfer of problem-solving skills from a problem-

based learning environment: The effect of modeling an expert’s cognitive

processes. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 36, 303-320.

Project Tomorrow (2008). 21st century learners deserve a 21st century education. Selected

National Findings of the Speak Up 2007 Survey. Retrieved March 28, 2009, from

http://www.tomorrow.org/speakup/speakup_congress_2007.html

Richardson, V. (2003). Preservice teachers’ beliefs. In J. Rath & A. C. McAninch (Eds.),

Advances in Teacher Education series, 6 (pp. 1-22). Greenwich, CT: Information

Age.

Russell, M., Bebell, D., O’Dwyer, L., & O’Connor, K. (2003). Teachers’ beliefs about

and use of technology: Enchancing the use of technology for new and veteran

teachers. Boston, MA: Boston College, Technology and Assessment Study

Collaborative. Retrieved October 12, 2004 from

http://escholarship.bc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1018&context=intasc

Schultz-Zander, R., Pfeifer, M., & Voss, A. (2008). Observation measures for

determining attitudes and competencies toward technology. In J. Voogt & G.

Knezek (Eds), International Handbook of Information Technology in Primary and

Secondary Education (pp. 367-379). New York: Springer.


20

Stemler, S. E. (2004). A comparison of consensus, consistency, and measurement

approaches to estimating interrater reliability. Practical Assessment, Research &

Evaluation , 9(4). Retrieved April 5, 2005, from

http://PAREonline.net/getvn.asp?v=9&n=4

Tatto, M. T., & Coupland, D. B. (2003). Teacher education and teachers’ beliefs:

Theoretical and measurement concerns. In J. Rath & A. C. McAninch (Eds.),

Advances in Teacher Education series, 6 (pp. 123-181). Greenwich, CT: Information

Age.

Thomas, L. G., & Knezek, D. G. (2008). Information, communications, and educational

technology standards for students, teachers, and school leaders. In J. Vooght & G.

Knezek (Eds), International Handbook of Information Technology in Primary and

Secondary Education (pp. 333-348). New York: Springer.

Tondeur, J., van Braak, J., & Valcke, M. (2007). Curricula and the use of ICT in

education: Two worlds apart? British Journal of Educational Technology, 38,

962-976.

van Braak, J., Tondeur, J., & Valcke, M. (2004). Explaining different types of computer

use among primary school teachers. European Journal of Psychology of

Education, 19, 407-422.

Voogt, J. (2008). IT and the curriculum processes: Dilemmas and challenges. In J. Voogt

& G. Knezek (Eds), International Handbook of Information Technology in Primary

and Secondary Education (pp. 117-132). New York: Springer.

changing teachers’ beliefs toward classroom technology … · changing teachers’ beliefs toward...

Documents