Developmentally Responsive Technology-Literacy Use in Education: Are Teachers Helping Students Meet Grade-Level National Technology Standards?

Abstract

The purpose of this mixed-methodology study was to measure technology usage between student and experienced teachers at different grade levels and to determine if usage was in agreement with the International Society for Technology in Education's (ISTE) National Educational Technology Standards (NETS) for Students. One hundred sixty student teachers and 158 experienced teachers from a large urban area completed a Computer Usage Survey; 19 of these participants were interviewed. The Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) and the Decomposed Theory of Planned Behavior (DTPB) provided the theoretical framework for this study. There were statistically significant differences found among technology uses across grade levels; the experience level of the teachers did not contribute to this difference. Findings in this study showed that primary grades conform more than the upper grades to national technology-literacy standards.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Ajzen

(1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In Kuhl

& Beckmann

(Eds.), Action control: From cognition to behavior (pp. 11–39). New York: Springer-Verlag.

Barron

A. E.

Kemker

Harmes

, & Kalydjian

(2003). Large scale research study on technology in K-12 schools: Technology integration as it relates to the national technology standards. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 35(4), 489–507.

Becker

H. J.

(2000). Who's wired and who's not: Children's access to and use of computer technology. The Future of Children, Children and Computer Technology, 10(2), 44–75.

Bennett

(2000/2001). Technology standards for the preparation of teachers. International Journal of Social Education, 15(2), 1–11.

Brent

Brawner

C. E.

, & Van Dyk

(2002). Factors influencing student teachers' use of technology. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 19(2), 61–68.

Constas

M. A.

(1992). Qualitative analysis as a public event: The documentation of category development procedures. American Educational Research Journal, 29(2), 253–266.

Culp

K. M.

Honey

, & Mandinach

(2005). A retrospective on twenty years of education technology policy. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 32(3), 279–307.

Davis

F. D.

(1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13, 319–340.

Davis

F. D.

(1993). User acceptance of information technology: System characteristics, user perceptions and behavioral impacts. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 38, 475–487.

10.

Davis

F. D.

Bagozzi

R. P.

, & Warshaw

P. R.

(1989). User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 35(8), 982–1003.

11.

Davis

F. D.

, & Venkatesh

(1996). A critical assessment of potential measurement biases in the technology acceptance model: Three experiments. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 45, 19–45.

12.

Doering

Hughes

, & Huffman

(2003). Preservice teachers: Are we thinking with technology? Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 35(3), 342–361.

13.

Doll

W. J.

Hendrickson

, & Deng

(1998). Using Davis's perceived usefulness and ease-of-use instruments for decision making: A confirmatory and multigroup invariance analysis. Decision Sciences, 29(4), 839–869.

14.

Drennan

Kennedy

, & Pisarski

(2005). Factors affecting student attitudes toward flexible online learning in management education. The Journal of Educational Research, 98(6), 331–338.

15.

Fishbein

, & Ajzen

(1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Inc.

16.

Hall

(2006). Modeling technology integration for preservice teachers: A PT3 case study. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 6(4), 436–455.

17.

Hendrickson

A. R.

, & Collins

M. R.

(1996). An assessment of structure and causation of IS usage. The DATA BASE for Advances in Information Systems, 27(2), 61–67.

18.

International Society for Technology in Education. (2007a). All children must be ready for a different world. Retrieved April 7, 2008, from http://www.iste.org/Content/NavigationMenu/NETS/ForStudents/NETS_for_Students.htm

19.

International Society for Technology in Education. (2007b). Profile for technology-literate students: Student teaching/internship performance profile. Retrieved April 7, 2008, from http://www.iste.org/Content/NavigationMenu/NETS/ForStudents/1998Standards/Profiles/NETS_for_Students_1998_Profiles.htm

20.

International Society for Technology in Education. (2007c). National Educational Technology Standards for Students. Retrieved April 7, 2008, from http://www.iste.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=NETS

21.

International Society for Technology in Education. (2007d). National Educational Technology Standards for Students. Retrieved April 7, 2008, from http://www.iste.org/Content/NavigationMenu/NETS/ForStudents/2007Standards/Profiles/NETS_for_Students_2007_Profiles.htm

22.

Junco

(2005). Technology and today's first-year students. In Challenging & supporting the first year student: A handbook for improving the first year of college. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

23.

Kalton

, & Schuman

(1982). The effect of the question on survey responses: A review. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 124(1), 42–57.

24.

Karahanna

, & Straub

D. W.

(1999). The psychological origins of perceived usefulness and ease-of-use. Information & Management, 35, 237–250.

25.

Kelly

M. G. P.

, & Haber

(2006). National educational technology standards for students: Resources for student assessment. Eugene, OR: The International Society for Technology and Education.

26.

Logan

D. K.

(2001). Integrating the ISTE national educational technology standards: They are in the bag! The Book Report, 6–8.

27.

W. W. K.

Anderson

, & Streith

K. O.

(2005). Examining user acceptance of computer technology: An empirical study of student teachers. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21, 387–395.

28.

Merriam

S. B.

(1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Inc.

29.

Niederhauser

D. S.

, & Lindstrom

D. L.

(2006). Addressing the NETS for students through constructivist technology use in K-12 classrooms. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 34(1), 91–128.

30.

Niederhauser

D. S.

Lindstrom

D. L.

, & Strobel

(2007). Evidence of the NETS*S in K-12 classrooms: Implications for teacher education. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 15(4), 483–512.

31.

Niederhauser

D. S.

, & Trish

(2001). Teachers' instructional perspectives and use of educational software. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 15–31.

32.

Ong

C. S.

, & Lai

J. Y.

(2006). Gender differences in perceptions and relationships among dominants of e-learning acceptance. Computers in Human Behavior, 22, 816–829.

33.

Pollard

, & Pollard

(2004–2005). Research priorities in educational technology: A delphi study. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 37(2), 145–160.

34.

Smarkola

(2008). Efficacy of a planned behavior model: Beliefs that contribute to computer usage intentions of student teachers and experienced teachers. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(3), 1196–1215.

35.

Szajna

(1996). Empirical evaluation of the revised technology acceptance model. Management Science, 42(1), 85–92.

36.

Stager

(2007). Refreshing the ISTE technology standards. District Administration, 30–36.

37.

Tashakkori

, & Teddlie

(1998). Mixed methodology: Combining qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishers.

38.

Taylor

, & Todd

(1995). Understanding information technology usage: A test of competing models. Information Systems Research, 6(2), 144–176.

39.

U.S. Congress. (2000). Goals 2000 Educational Act. Retrieved October 31, 2005, from http://www.ed.gov/legislation/GOALS2000/theAct

40.

U.S. Department of Education. (2002). No child left behind act of 2001. Retrieved December 7, 2007, from http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/pg34.html

41.

U.S. Department of Education. (2006). National Educational Technology Plan. Retrieved July 31, 2006, from http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/os/technology/plan/2004/site/theplan/edlite-thePlan.html

42.

Yuen

A. H. K.

, & Ma

W. W. K.

(2002). Gender differences in teacher computer acceptance. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 10(3), 365–382.

43.

Zhao

, & Frank

K. A.

(2003). Factors affecting technology uses in schools: An ecological perspective. American Educational Research Journal, 40(4), 807–840.