This article describes the development and initial validation of scores from a survey designed to measure teachers’ reported use of technology in their classrooms. Based on data obtained from a sample of approximately 2,000 practicing teachers, factor analytic and correlational methods were used to obtain evidence of the validity of scores derived from responses to the instrument. In addition, analyses of Web and paper versions of the survey suggest relatively minor differences in responses, although the response rates for the paper version were substantially higher. The results were interpreted in terms of the utility of the instrument for measuring the confluence of factors that are critical for inquiry related to technology use in classrooms.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Arnau, R. C., Thompson, R. L., & Cook, C. (2001). Do different response formats change the latent structure of responses? An empirical investigation using taxometric analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 61, 23-44.
2.
Becker, H. J., & Anderson, R. E. (1998). Teaching, learning and computing: A national survey of schools and teachers describing their best practices, teaching philosophies, and uses of technology. Irvine: Center for Research on Information Technology and Organizations, University of California, Irvine.
3.
CEO Forum on Education & Technology. (2000, June). The CEO Forum school technology and readiness report. Section 2: The power of digital learning (pp. 6-13). Washington, CD: Author.
4.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
5.
Cohen, J. (1990). Things I have learned (so far). American Psychologist, 45, 1304-1312.
6.
Dillman, D. (2000). Mail and Internet surveys: The tailored design method (2nd ed.). New York: John Wiley.
7.
Dukes, R. L., Discenza, R., & Couger, J. D. (1989). Convergent validity of four computer anxiety scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 49, 71-86.
8.
Erickson, T. E. (1987). Sex differences in student attitudes towards computers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.
9.
Gardner, D. G., Discenza, R., & Dukes, R. L. (1993). The measurement of computer attitudes: An empirical comparison of available scales. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 9, 487-507.
10.
Guha, S. (2000, February). Digital linkage: Factors related to elementary grade teachers’usage of computers in classroom instruction. Paper presented at the meeting of the Research Association for Minority Professors, Houston, TX. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 438 936)
11.
Kernan, M. C., & Howard, G. S. (1990). Computer anxiety and computer attitudes: An investigation of construct and predictive-validity issues. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 50, 681-690.
12.
Kiesler, S., & Sproull, L. S. (1986). Response effects in the electronic survey. Public Opinion Quarterly, 50, 402-413.
13.
Lockheed, M. E. (1985). Women, girls and computers: A first look at the evidence. Sex Roles, 13, 115-122.
14.
Loyd, B. H., & Gressard, C. (1984). Reliability and factorial validity of computer anxiety scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 44, 501-555.
15.
Maurer, M. (1983). Development and validation of a measure of computer anxiety. Unpublished master’s thesis, Iowa State University, Ames.
16.
National Center for Education Statistics. (1999, December). Teachers’ feelings of preparedness. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
17.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2000a, April). Teacher use of computers and the Internet in public schools, stats in brief. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
18.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2000b). Teachers’tools for the 21st century: A report on teachers’ use of technology. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Educational Statistics.
19.
Ogletree, S. M., & Williams, S. W. (1990). Sex and sex-typing effects on computer attitudes and aptitude. Sex Roles, 23, 703-713.
20.
Quality Education Data. (1999). Internet usage in public school (4th ed.). Denver, CO: Author.
21.
Quality Education Data. (2000). Internet usage in public school (5th ed.). Denver, CO: Author.
22.
Raub, A. C. (1981). Correlates of computer anxiety in college students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
23.
Reed, D., Roberts, L., Lunsford, C., Strassberg, Z., Becker, J., Mann, D., & Shakeshaft, C. (2001, April). Measuring the effects of technology use: What can we say? Symposium presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA.
24.
Richman, W., Kiesler, S., Weisband, S., & Drasgow, F. (1999). A meta-analytic study of social desirability distortion in computer-administered questionnaires, traditional questionnaires, and interviews. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 754-775.
25.
Sandholtz, J., Ringstaff, C., & Dwyer, D. (1996). The Apple Classrooms of Tomorrow evaluation study: Student engagement revisited: Views from technology-rich classrooms (Report to Apple Computer). Los Angeles: UCLA Center for the Study of Evaluation.
26.
Smerdon, B., Cronen, S., Lanahan, L., Anderson, J., Iannotti, N., & Angeles, J. (2000). Teachers’ tools for the 21st century: A report on teachers’ use of technology (NCES Publication No. 2000-102). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Educational Statistics.
27.
Stross, R. E. (2000). Digital divide hooey: Access to the Internet is no black and white issue. U.S. News Online. Retrieved May 22, 2000, from http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/000417/digital.htm
28.
Synodinos, N. E., Papacostas, C. S., & Okimoto, G. M. (1994). Computer-administered versus paper-and-pencil surveys and the effect of sample selection. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 26, 395-401.
29.
White, J., Carey, L., & Dailey, K. (2001). Web-based instrumentation in educational survey research. WebNet Journal: Internet Technologies, Applications and Issues, 3(1), 46-50.
