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.
Changing Teachers Beliefs….3
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
Changing Teachers Beliefs….4
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
Changing Teachers Beliefs….5
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):
Changing Teachers Beliefs….6
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?
Changing Teachers Beliefs….7
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,
Changing Teachers Beliefs….8
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
Changing Teachers Beliefs….9
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
Changing Teachers Beliefs….10
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.
Changing Teachers Beliefs….11
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.
Changing Teachers Beliefs….12
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
Changing Teachers Beliefs….13
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
Changing Teachers Beliefs….14
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-
Changing Teachers Beliefs….15
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.
Changing Teachers Beliefs….16
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.
Changing Teachers Beliefs….17
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.
Changing Teachers Beliefs….18
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.
Changing Teachers Beliefs….19
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.
Changing Teachers Beliefs….20
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.