Perceptions of Teacher Laptop Training

Michael V. Weaver

About

• Participants volunteered to answer 10 statements using a 5 point Likert scale about perceived effectiveness of laptop training.

• All participants were faculty and administration that have taken part in the first year of a 1:1 laptop immersion program.

Reasoning

• Training is key in laptop initiatives– Teachers must know how to integrate, not

just ‘use’ technology.

• Very little research done on training. Most done on effectiveness of program (overall end results)

Process

• Step 1: Create instrument– Could not find an existing instrument– Try to keep statements focused

• Step 2: Administer survey– Used surveymonkey.com– Sent e-mail to all possible participants– Left survey open for 2 weeks

Process

• Step 3: Collect data– Very easily done with surveymonkey

• Step 4: Organize data– Started with Excel– Scaled items according to responses– Imported items into SPSS

• Step 5: Run data in SPSS

Results

• Reliability– 1st analysis yielded a Cronbach’s

alpha of .721– ‘Respectable’ according to the

DeVillis Scale– Reviewed the Item-Total Statistics

• Recomputed three times• Ended up with 7 items and an alpha

of .856 = ‘Very Good’ on DeVillis Scale

Results

• Factor Analysis– Done to reaffirm reliability.

• 2 analyses run– First on original data– Second on data with statements 4, 5, and 9

removed

Results

Component

Initial EigenvaluesExtraction Sums of Squared

LoadingsRotation Sums of Squared Loadings

Total% of

VarianceCumulative

% Total% of

VarianceCumulative

% Total% of

Variance Cumulative %

1 4.011 40.113 40.113 4.011 40.113 40.113 3.831 38.312 38.312

2 1.518 15.176 55.289 1.518 15.176 55.289 1.618 16.183 54.495

3 1.158 11.581 66.870 1.158 11.581 66.870 1.237 12.375 66.870

4 .877 8.771 75.641

5 .679 6.785 82.426

6 .608 6.080 88.507

7 .407 4.068 92.575

8 .338 3.376 95.950

9 .259 2.594 98.545

10 .146 1.455 100.000

ResultsComponent

1 2 3

LT2 .850 .039 .047

LT1 .815 .121 .297

LT8 .807 -.205 -.108

LT6 .803 .081 -.234

LT10.671 -.384 .370

LT7 .658 -.328 -.186

LT4 .200 .786 -.124

LT5 -.222 .695 .143

LT3

LT9

.352 -.401 .676

.225 -.189 -.645

Results

Component Initial EigenvaluesExtraction Sums of Squared

LoadingsRotation Sums of Squared

Loadings

Total% of

VarianceCumulative

% Total% of

VarianceCumulative

% Total% of

VarianceCumulative

%

1 3.864 55.197 55.197 3.864 55.197 55.197 3.087 44.104 44.104

2 1.114 15.914 71.112 1.114 15.914 71.112 1.891 27.008 71.112

3 .763 10.907 82.018

4 .433 6.188 88.206

5 .394 5.623 93.830

6

7

.264 3.769 97.599

.168 2.401 100.000

Results

Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

1

Regression 234.434 1 234.434 11.014 .003(a)

Residual 553.424 26 21.286

Total 787.857 27

• ANOVA Summary Table for Linear Regression– Comparison of F1 and statement 10– F1 = combination of statements 1 - 9

Results• The resulting R-Square is .298.

– F1 accounts for 29.8% of the responses to statement 10.

Model R R Square Adjusted R Square

Std. Error of the Estimate

1 545(a) .298 .271 4.61362

Questions?