To date, there is a paucity of empirical research documenting the essential environmental conditions that must exist before teachers of the gifted will integrate technology into their instruction. To establish baseline data documenting the frequency with which teachers of the gifted use technology for instructional purposes and to build theory describing the critical environmental conditions that support technology integration, researchers administered the Perceptions of Computers and Technology (PCT) survey to 255 teachers of the gifted. This survey measured teachers’ self-reported use of technology and other factors that contributed to computer integration. Results suggested five conditions (general school support, infrastructure, professional development, teacher attitude, and teacher personal use) are necessary for teachers of the gifted to create a classroom digital ecosystem. In this model, personal use accounted for the greatest amount of unique variability. Conclusions are drawn, new lines of inquiry are posed, and implications are discussed.
BesnoyK. D. (2006). How do I do that? Integrating web sites into the gifted education classroom. Gifted Child Today, 29(1), 28-34.
2.
BesnoyK. D. (2007). Creating a personal technology improvement plan. Gifted Child Today, 30(4), 44-49.
3.
BesnoyK. D.HousandB. C.ClarkeL. W. (2008). Changing nature of technology and the promise of educational technology for gifted education. In KarnesF. A.StephensK. (Eds.). Methods and materials for teaching the gifted (3rd ed., pp. 783-802). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
4.
BurgerJ. (2007). Protective sustainability of ecosystems using department of energy buffer lands as a case study. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health: Part A, 70, 1815-1823.
5.
BybeeR. W.Loucks-HorsleyS. (2000). Advancing technology education: The role of professional development. The Technology Teacher, 60(2), 31-34.
6.
ChanLinL. (2007). Perceived importance and manageability of teachers toward the factors of integrating computer technology into classrooms. Innovation in Education and Teaching International, 44(1), 45-55.
ClarkeL. W.BesnoyK. D. (2010). Connecting the old to the new: What technology-crazed adolescents tell us about teaching content area literacy. Journal of Media Literacy Education, 2(1), 47-56.
9.
DettmerP.LandrumM. (1998). Staff development: The key to effective gifted education programs. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
EgbertJ.PaulusT. M.NakamichiY. (2002). The impact of CALL instruction on classroom computer use: A foundation for rethinking technology in teacher education. Language Learning & Technology, 6, 108-126.
12.
Eshet-AlkalaiY.ChajutE. (2010). You can teach old dogs new tricks: The factors that affect changes over time in digital literacy. Journal of Information Technology in Education, 9(4), 173-181.
13.
HogartyK. Y.LangT. R.KromreyJ. D. (2003). Another look at technology use in classrooms: The development and validation of an instrument to measure teachers’ perceptions. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 63, 139-162.
14.
HoldenH.RadaR. (2011). Understanding the influence of perceived usability and technology self-efficacy on teachers’ technology acceptance. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 43, 343-367.
15.
KahveciA.SahinN.GencS. (2011). Computer perceptions of secondary school teachers and impacting demographics: A Turkish perspective. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 10, 71-80.
16.
KarnesF. A.ShaunessyE. (2004). The application of an individual professional development plan to gifted education. Gifted Child Today, 27(3), 60-66.
17.
ManingerR. M.HoldenM. E. (2009). Put the textbooks away: Preparation and support for a middle school one-to-one laptop initiative. American Secondary Education, 38(1), 5-33.
18.
MioduserD.NachmiasR.LahavO.OrenA. (2000). Web-based learning environments: Current pedagogical and technical state. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 33(1), 55-76.
19.
MouzaC. (2011). Promoting urban teachers’s understanding of technology. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 44(1), 1-29.
20.
NunnallyJ.BernsteinI. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
21.
PalakD.WallsR. T. (2009). Teachers’ beliefs and technology practices: A mixed-methods approach. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 41, 417-441.
22.
RathsD. (2012). Are you ready for BYOD?T.H.E. Journal, 39(4), 28-32.
23.
ReisS. M.SullivanE. E. (2009). Characteristics of gifted learners: Consistently varied; refreshingly diverse. In KarnesF. A.StephensK. (Eds.). Methods and materials for teaching the gifted (3rd ed., pp. 3-36.). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
24.
ShaunessyS. E. (2007). Attitudes toward information technology of teachers of the gifted: Implications for gifted education. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51, 119-135.
25.
SiegleD.MitchellM. S. (2011). Learning from and learning with technology. In Van-Tassel-BaskaJ.LittleC. A. (Eds.). Content based curriculum for high ability learners (2nd ed.). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
26.
SouthernW. T.SpickerH. H. (1989). The rural gifted on line: Bulletin and electronic curriculum. Roeper Review, 11, 199-202.
27.
StaplesA.PugachM. C.HimesD. (2005). Rethinking the technology integration challenge: Cases from three urban elementary schools. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 37, 285-311.
28.
SubhiT. (1999). Attitudes towards computers of gifted students and their teachers. High Ability Studies, 10(1), 69-84.
van BraakJ.TondeurJ.ValckeM. (2004). Explaining different types of computer use among primary school teachers. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 19, 407-422
31.
VoogtJ.AlmekindersM.van den AkkerJ.MoonenB. (2005). A blended inservice arrangement for classroom technology integration: Impacts on teachers and students. Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 77-86.
32.
ZhaoY.FrankK. A. (2003). Factors affecting technology used in schools: An ecological perspective. American Educational Research Journal, 40(4), 807-840.
33.
ZhengR.PerezJ.WilliamsonJ.FlygareJ. (2008). WebQuests as perceived by teachers: Implications for online teaching and learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24, 295-304.
