Home PublicationsJRTEPast IssuesVolume 33 Number 5

	Edited by Dr. David J. Ayersman, Mary Washington College, and Dr. W. Michael Reed, New York University
formerly Journal of Research on Computing in Education

Volume 33 Number 5 Summer 2001

Technology-Using Teachers
Comparing Perceptions of Exemplary Technology Use to Best Practice, part I

Peggy A. Ertmer, Sangeetha Gopalakrishnan, and Eva M. Ross
Purdue University

Abstract
In this exploratory study, we compared characteristics and teaching practices of teachers perceived to be exemplary technology users with descriptions of exemplary users provided in the literature. Using a qualitative case-study design, we examined the pedagogical beliefs and classroom practices of 17 exemplary technology-using teachers. Findings suggest that exemplary technology use, as perceived and practiced by teachers, does not readily match descriptions of best practice provided in the literature. Rather, exemplary use reflects teachers’ personal beliefs about teaching and learning as well as their specific teaching contexts.

Educators today are confronted with a number of alternative, often opposing, views of what technology is and what purposes it should serve within instructional settings. Although studies have shown that most teachers today recognize the importance of using technology in their classrooms (Beichner, 1993; Fulton, 1993), they often lack a clear vision of how technology can be used to support educational best practices (Roblyer, 1993). Not only do the tools themselves continue to change at a rapid pace, but so does the prevailing wisdom on how teachers should use these technologies in schools—from teaching programming, to encouraging individualized drill and practice, to building computer literacy, to participating in electronic communities. Given the evolving nature of technology best practice, it is quite possible that today’s practitioners and researchers have very different beliefs about what constitutes exemplary classroom technology use. Based on the assumption that teachers behave in concert with their beliefs (Erickson, 1986), this study was designed to examine the pedagogical beliefs and classroom practices of exemplary technology-using teachers and to determine the extent to which their beliefs correspond with educational best practice as described in the literature.

According to Dexter, Anderson, and Becker (1999), “The research on technology-using teachers characterizes different ways teachers employ technology in instruction. Data from this literature suggest that technology-using teachers range along a continuum of instructional styles from instruction to construction” (p. 221). Becker and Riel (1999) noted that teachers at the instruction end of the continuum “define teaching as a process of successful implementation of a set of frameworks or standards established by others” (p. 4). In contrast, teachers at the construction end define teaching as “a process of continual, reflective inquiry” (Becker & Riel, p. 4). The President’s Panel on Educational Technology (PPET, 1997) noted that constructivist teachers place “the locus of initiative and control largely within the student, who typically undertakes substantial, authentic tasks, presented in a realistic context, that require the self-directed application of various sorts of knowledge and skills for their successful execution” (p. 34).

Although we can find examples of technology-using teachers who fall at every point along this instruction-construction continuum, the literature on exemplary technology use suggests that expert technology-using teachers (do or should) reside on the constructivist side of the continuum (Becker, 1994; Dede, 1998; Dexter et al., 1999; PPET, 1997). Recent literature on classroom practice in general (Brown, 1997; Bruer, 1994; Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt, 1997) and technology use within that practice (Becker,1994; Berg, Benz, Lasley II, & Raisch, 1998; Hadley & Sheingold, 1993) has tended to define exemplary in terms of the extent to which teachers’ practices embrace a constructivist teaching philosophy. For example, the PPET stated:

While the Panel is unable to make a confident and definitive statement regarding the superiority of the constructivist approach, it believes there to be a high likelihood that many or all of the essential elements of this approach could play a major role in improving the quality of our nation’s elementary and secondary schools. Although technology is likely to find use within a number of more traditional instructional roles as well, it seems likely (though not yet certain) that the student-centered constructivist paradigm may ultimately offer the most fertile ground for the application of technology to education. (p. 35; emphasis in original)

Grabe and Grabe (1996) and others (Hooper & Rieber, 1995; Jonassen, Peck, & Wilson, 1999) have outlined the primary differences between traditional and constructivist classroom environments (Table 1). In general, the literature on technology-using teachers describes exemplary use as that which supports the type of activities and approaches noted on the right side of the table. Thus, technology best practice would incorporate the following practices outlined by Becker and Riel (1999) in their description of constructivist teaching:

1. designing activities around teacher and student interests rather than in response to an externally mandated curriculum,
2. having students engage in collaborative group projects in which skills are taught and practiced in context rather than sequentially,
3. focusing instruction (and assessment) on students’ understanding of complex ideas rather than on definitions and facts,
4. teaching students to self-consciously assess their own understanding, and engaging in learning in front of students, rather than presenting oneself as fully knowledgeable. (p. 9)

Table 1. Attributes of Traditional and Integrated Classroom Environments
Categories of Classroom Practice	Traditional Setting		Integrated Setting
Classroom focus	•	Teacher centered (didactic)	•	Learner centered (interactive)
Teacher role	•	Present information	•	Guide discovery
	•	Manage classroom	•	Model active learning
			•	Collaborator (sometimes learner)
Student role	•	Store information	•	Create knowledge
			•	Collaborator (sometimes expert)
Curricular characteristics	•	Breadth	•	Depth
	•	Fact retention	•	Application of knowledge
	•	Fragmented knowledge and disciplinary separation	•	Integrated multidisciplinary themes
Classroom social organization	•	Independent learning	•	Collaborative learning
	•	Individual responsibility for entire task	•	Social distribution of thinking
Assessment practices	•	Fact retention	•	Applied knowledge
	•	Product oriented	•	Process oriented
	•	Traditional tests	•	Alternative measures
	•	Norm referenced	•	Criterion referenced
Role for technology	•	Drill and practice	•	Exploration and knowledge construction
	•	Direct instruction	•	Communication (collaboration, information access, expression)
	•	Programming
Technology content	•	Basic computer literacy with higher-level skills building on lower-level skills	•	Emphasis on thinking skills and application
Note. Adapted from Grabe & Grabe (1996).

In general, the teaching and learning practices that occur in constructivist classrooms are considered to be both student centered and student directed. That is, though activities and content are designed to engage students in authentic learning contexts (points 1–3 above), students are also encouraged to use self-regulatory learning processes to achieve both greater and deeper learning (points 4–5). These last two points, specifically, are geared toward facilitating development of students’ self-regulation, that is, the ability and motivation to implement, monitor, and evaluate learning strategies for the purpose of facilitating knowledge growth (Ertmer & Dillon, 1998). As suggested by Becker and Riel (1999), teachers who adhere to a constructivist teaching philosophy are likely to promote these self-regulatory, student-directed practices within student-centered classrooms.

It is unclear whether these descriptions from the literature are consistent with the perceptions and practices of technology-using teachers, specifically those who identify themselves as exemplary users. Becker (1994) classified exemplary users based on standards that “suggest a classroom environment in which computers were both prominent in the experience of students and employed in order that students grow intellectually and not merely develop isolated skills” (p. 294). In the Bank Street study (Hadley & Sheingold, 1993), exemplary practitioners were described as directly addressing curricular goals by:

• having students use a wide variety of software including simulations, programming languages, spreadsheets, database programs, graphing programs, logic and problem-solving programs, writing tools, and electronic bulletin-board communications software and
• exploiting intellectual tools for writing, analyzing data, and solving problems.

How well do these conceptions of how teachers should use technology align with the ways in which exemplary teachers actually use technology in their classrooms? L. Williams (personal communication, February 1, 1999) noted that there is an “enormous chasm between conversations occurring in higher education and practices in schools—even in exemplary cases.” If this is the case, it may be important to discern the extent to which practitioners’ views and practices differ from those being prescribed by researchers and university educators.

When practitioners are asked to identify exemplary technology-using teachers or to describe exemplary classroom practices, their responses suggest that they do not necessarily use the same criteria as those used in the literature. For example, when teachers in the Berg et al. (1998) study rated their most important uses of technology, they “agreed that research, writing, and uses related to their own instructional planning were among the most important uses for technology in the classroom” (p. 116). Yet, these activities do not necessarily support the kind of high-level uses advocated in the literature. In fact, the authors noted that “less frequent in use, despite shared belief in importance by coordinators and teachers in this study, were Internet applications, problem-solving, basic-skills practice, and student use of multimedia authoring programs” (Berg et al., p. 119). Interestingly, three of these applications represent practices that are more likely to occur within constructivist classrooms. The results of the Berg et al. study suggest that, although exemplary practitioners believe these types of uses are important, they do not consistently, or frequently, incorporate them into their practice.

There is some indication that technology-using teachers will, given enough time, evolve into constructivist teachers (Fisher, Dwyer, & Yocam, 1996; Hadley & Sheingold, 1993; Sandholtz, Ringstaff, & Dwyer, 1997). The assumption is that technology use actually prompts teachers to change their practices toward more student-centered approaches. Dexter et al. (1999) noted that if this were true then, “This makes the issue one of time. That is, given enough time, the variety of approaches to using technology will homogenize into a constructivist approach” (p. 222).

Yet, Miller and Olson (1994) and others (Hativa & Lesgold, 1996; Kerr, 1996) disagreed with this viewpoint, suggesting that traditional teachers do not become constructivist just because they have new tools at their fingertips. Pedagogical beliefs go deeper than technological capability or accessibility; beliefs define how teachers teach both with and without technology. Furthermore, changing beliefs is neither quickly nor easily accomplished (Cuban, 1993; Ertmer, 1999; Ertmer & Hruskocy, 1999; Kerr). As noted by PPET (1997):

In order to optimally cultivate this ground, schools will need to make changes that extend far beyond the mere installation of a network of computers. While some benefits may be obtained by using information technologies to pursue existing curricular objectives or by adding new material to an existing course, the richest harvest is likely to accrue from a fundamental restructuring—at least at the level of the individual course, and ideally, across boundaries. Such fundamental restructuring, however, is likely to prove complex, difficult, expensive, and time-consuming, and may encounter resistance from parents, educators, and the general public, particularly to the extent that such changes conflict with commonly held beliefs about the nature of knowledge and learning. (pp. 35–36)

Is it realistic to expect teachers to use technology in ways currently being advocated by best practice? Given that teachers themselves have not yet reached consensus on whether a traditional or constructivist teaching model is “best” (Center for Research on Information Technology and Organizations, 1999), is it reasonable to expect that exemplary users of technology, will, by definition, all adhere to a constructivist philosophy?

Purpose

This exploratory study was designed to examine the pedagogical beliefs and classroom practices of a group of technology-using teachers who considered themselves to be exemplary users. Through this research, we hoped to identify the beliefs and practices that were common as well as those that were distinct across teachers and then to compare our findings to best practice, as described in the literature. Specifically we asked:

1. To what extent do the characteristics of teachers who perceive themselves to be exemplary technology users compare to characteristics of exemplary users described in the literature?
2. How do teachers define exemplary technology practice? What are their visions of exemplary use, and how are these visions translated into practice? What role has technology played in either enabling or changing teachers’ beliefs and practices?
3. How do teachers’ perceptions and implementation of exemplary technology practice compare to best practice? To what extent are teachers enacting both student-centered and student-directed curricula?

Methods

Overview

We used a qualitative case-study design to examine teachers’ perceptions of their own exemplary technology practice, including the pedagogical beliefs supporting classroom use. Through a series of written responses, telephone and e-mail conversations, and extended face-to-face interviews and classroom observations, we examined how teachers defined and implemented exemplary practice in their classrooms. Following this, we considered the extent to which teachers’ beliefs and practices aligned with the constructivist pedagogy advocated by current educators.

Background

This research was conducted in conjunction with the development of VisionQuest, a CD-ROM teacher development tool designed to highlight the classroom practices and pedagogical beliefs of exemplary technology-using teachers (Ertmer, Gopalakrishnan, & Ross, 2000). Teachers who wished to be considered for inclusion on the CD-ROM were required to complete an Application Form for Identifying Exemplary Technology-Using Teachers (Appendix). Teachers used this form to describe classroom technology resources, to enumerate their professional and instructional uses of technology, to characterize a successful use of technology in their classrooms, and to share their visions of a “wholly integrated classroom.” The application form allowed participants to apply their own definitions of the term “exemplary.” This enabled us to examine teachers’ individual perceptions of exemplary technology classroom practice, to compare perceptions across teachers, and to examine how these perceptions corresponded to best practice.

Role of the Researchers

The research team consisted of a faculty member and seven students enrolled in an advanced educational technology research course at a large university in the Midwestern United States. Students had varied background experiences, in both corporate and K–12 classrooms, and were seeking master’s (n = 3) or doctoral degrees (n = 4) in educational technology. This study resulted from the need to select, from a pool of 22 applicants, six technology-using teachers to be featured on the VisionQuest CD-ROM. As the first step in the development process, the instructor and students collaboratively examined the beliefs and practices of the 22 teachers who, by virtue of their applications to the project, comprised our purposeful sample. Graduate researchers participated in all aspects of the selection process—examining application forms, interviewing teachers, and conducting classroom observations.

Selection and Description of Participants

We initiated the participant selection process by soliciting nominations of exemplary technology-using teachers from 358 school principals located within an hour’s drive of the university. Principals were asked to present the solicitation letter, a description of the CD-ROM project, and an accompanying application form to teachers in their buildings who might be appropriate for inclusion on the CD-ROM. Twenty-two teachers, representing 17 different classrooms (8 teachers constituted 3 teacher teams), completed the application form. Informed consent was also obtained from each teacher. Seventeen teachers were available for in-depth interviews and classroom observations during the fall semester (including all three teams). Interviewed teachers represented a range of subject areas, classroom contexts, and levels of access to technology (Table 2) and were not considered significantly different from those who were not interviewed.

Table 2. Demographics of Exemplary Technology-Using Teachers

Name

Years Teaching

School Size

School Location

Ethnic Makeup (%)

Public/ Private

Grade Level

Content Taught

Classroom and Lab Computer Resources

Special Features

Jamie

8

6

Midsize city

0

Private

6–12

All

3 Macintoshes, 1 Toshiba, 1 Apple IIe

Cross-age students

Melissa

5

917

Urban fringe of midsize city

8.4

Public

1

All subjects

4 IBMs, 1 IBM lab (30 stations)

Bev

23

800

Urban fringe of large city

45

Public

6–8

Music Communication skills

6 Macintosh G3s, 3 Macintosh labs (26 stations in each)

Lindsey

5

505

Small town

3.8

Public

4

All subjects

1 Power Macintosh, 1 Macintosh LCII, Library Media Center (34 stations)

Teresa

3

400

Urban fringe of large city

DK

Private

PK–8

Computers

Computer lab with 26 Pentium stations

School for gifted; primarily white

Vivian

17

527

Urban fringe of midsize city

3.8

Public

4

All subjects

4 IBMs, 1 IBM lab (30 stations)

Sam

30

2,000

Midsize central city

10

Public

9–12

Biology

15 Macintosh G3s, 2 Power Macinctoshes

Team taught; block 8 schedule; 45 students/hour

Annie

6

Connie

10

Mary

21

863

Midsize central city

13.6

Public

6–8

Music

15 Power Macintoshes

Team planning

Joe

29

Maribeth

14

Emilie

5

DK

Urban fringe of large city

Private

6–8

Computers

Computer lab with 17 Power Macintoshes

Kate

21

DK

Urban fringe of large city

Private

PK–5

Computers

Computer lab with 10 iMacs (140 computers in lower school)

Don

10

395

Large city

24.6

Private

9–12

Science; computers

17 older PCs, 2 Pentium PCs, 1 IBM lab (36 stations)

Joan

6

600

Urban fringe of large city

20

Public

1–2

Science themes

8 Pentiums, 2 computer labs: 1 Macintosh, 1 IBM (28 stations in each)

Looping; job sharing; science & technology magnet school

Jessie

12

Note. Names are pseudonyms.

Our interview sample included teachers from two high schools (Grades 9–12), one Grades 6–12 cross-age school, five middle schools (Grades 6–8), one PK–8, and six elementary schools (Grades 1–5). Five of the 17 teachers taught at private schools. The high school teachers (a 3-teacher team and a single teacher) taught science, four middle school teachers (a three-teacher team and a single teacher) taught music, and three teachers (one elementary, one middle school, one PK–8) taught computer skills in a lab setting. The remaining teachers taught in self-contained elementary or cross-age (Grades 6–12) classrooms. Classroom technology resources ranged from student:computer ratios of 1:1 to 12:1. The majority of each school’s population was White; ethnic minority students accounted for 0% to 45% of each school’s enrollment (Table 2).

Data Collection

Teachers’ applications to the VisionQuest project comprised our initial data set, detailing teachers’ instructional and professional uses of technology, their visions for an integrated classroom, and examples of successful classroom uses of technology. In respect to this last item, teachers were asked specifically “to include information about the roles you, your students, and the technology played; how students were grouped; the goal of the activity; its relevance to the curriculum; and the manner in which you assessed outcomes.” By considering “successful use” from the teachers’ point of view, we hoped to gain valuable insights into teachers’ definitions of exemplary use, as well as the kind of technology visions toward which they were oriented. Furthermore, the specific information included in their examples helped us identify the extent to which their practices incorporated the characteristics of an integrated classroom outlined in Table 1 (Grabe & Grabe, 1996).

Based on teacher and researcher availability, 17 teachers were interviewed and observed in their classrooms during the fall 1998 semester. Eight teachers were interviewed two times; nine teachers were interviewed once. Scheduling constraints limited observations of four teachers to one time each; all other interviewed teachers were observed two or more times. Observations were conducted over a one- or two-hour time period; interviews lasted approximately an hour. Interview questions were geared toward obtaining more detail about teachers’ educational and technology backgrounds as well as their visions for future use. Specifically, we asked teachers to describe their personal journeys of technology integration—how they got started, the obstacles they encountered, and their reasons for persisting. Through subsequent classroom observations we witnessed the manner and the extent to which teachers’ visions were translated into practice. Field notes were taken during each observation; interviews were audiotaped and transcribed.

Data Analysis

Early analysis focused on participant and classroom characteristics commonly thought to relate to teachers’ exemplary technology use (e.g., years of teaching, technology training experiences, access to resources). Following this, open-ended questionnaire, interview, and observation data were analyzed and coded using both within- and cross-case analyses (Patton, 1990). We began by searching for recurring words and themes that captured each teacher’s beliefs about classroom practice and, more specifically, their technology use relevant to that practice. For example, we examined teachers’ descriptions of the connections they promoted between students’ technology use and the classroom curricula. Did technology serve to supplement, enhance, or transform current curricula? In addition, we examined teachers’ visions to determine the extent to which they emphasized students’ attainment of basic skills, content knowledge, or higher-level thinking skills.

Using the categories outlined in Table 1, we created profiles of each teacher. Following this, we used cross-case analyses to compare teacher profiles, identifying both common and unique patterns of beliefs and practices related to technology use. Secondary data obtained through telephone and e-mail conversations, and teacher and student artifacts (lesson plans, technology projects) were used to support or negate tentative themes, or profiles, that emerged in early analysis stages. For example, whereas Table 1 depicted only two points along a teaching continuum (traditional versus integrated practice), we found, as might be expected, that teachers rarely used teaching practices that fell solely into one category. Thus, we expanded the table to include a “mixed-model” that captured teachers’ hybrid approaches. For example, teachers’ assessment practices were examined to determine the extent to which they emphasized facts or skills in isolation (traditional), facts or skills within specific content areas (hybrid), or the application of facts and skills within authentic project-based work (integrated). The results of these analyses, then, provided the bases for our comparison to best practice and allowed us to consider the extent to which teachers’ perceptions of exemplary technology practice aligned with criteria used in the literature.

Issues of Validity and Reliability

Three data sources—applications, interviews, and observations—were used to triangulate findings and thus increase reliability. Reliability was also increased through the use of consistent data collection methods; interviews and observations were conducted using semi-structured guides developed by the researchers. Themes noted across data sources were discussed and compared in classroom discussions and further validated through co-researcher visits to multiple classrooms. In most cases, either the instructor, a co-researcher, or both paid follow-up visits to classrooms assigned to individual researchers.

Interpretation of Results

In this section, we present findings that highlight the variety of situations in which teachers achieve technology integration as well as the range of visions and beliefs that support teachers’ efforts to achieve exemplary use. Although high levels of confidence and innovativeness were common among participants, other characteristics varied widely.

Comparison of Participant Characteristics to Literature-Reported Characteristics

Teaching and Technology Experiences

According to Becker (1994), exemplary technology-using teachers tend to have both extensive teaching and computer training experiences. In this study, exemplary teachers had from 3 to 30 years of teaching experience, with an average of 13 years. Whereas Hadley and Sheingold (1993) reported that 75% of their sample had 13 or more years of experience, 59% of the teachers in this study (n = 10) had fewer than 13 years, with 6 teachers having 6 years or less. Becker also noted that exemplary technology-using teachers tend to have accumulated significantly more credits and degrees than other computer users (50 to 75% of exemplary users compared to 10% of other users). In this study, only six of the 17 teachers (35%) had earned master’s degrees. Three teachers had computer endorsements (as part of their bachelor’s [n = 2] or master’s [n = 1] degree programs); two teachers were obtaining endorsements.

In general, the exemplary teachers in this study were relatively less experienced than those described by Becker (1994) and Hadley and Sheingold (1993). This difference may reflect recent changes in teacher training programs that now incorporate an increased emphasis on technology training. Perhaps newer teachers are entering the workforce having already achieved high levels of competency. However, a report by the U.S. Department of Education (1999) discounts this idea, noting that “relatively few teachers (20%) report feeling well prepared to integrate technology into classroom instruction” (p. iii). Still, new teachers are more likely to have mastered basic computer skills before entering the classroom, a pattern that Hadley and Sheingold would not have observed. Perhaps just having these basic skills gives new teachers a jumpstart compared to their more experienced colleagues who have had to acquire technology skills on their own time.

Levels of Confidence and Innovativeness

Another characteristic of exemplary technology-using teachers, noted in the literature (Marcinkiewicz, 1993–1994), relates to levels of confidence and innovativeness. All of the teachers in this study expressed high levels of confidence for using technology. Given that the teachers volunteered to participate in this project, it is fairly safe to assume they felt confident that their technology practices were, indeed, exemplary. Teachers’ confidence was also manifest in a no-nonsense approach to common integration barriers. Teachers in this study were not deterred by lack of resources, knowledge, or time; they found or invented ways to obtain needed resources. It was not that they did not encounter barriers; they did, yet all managed to work around constraints that have typically halted others’ efforts (Ertmer, 1999; Ertmer & Hruskocy, 1999).

Within the context of their teaching practices, all of these teachers had initiated and sustained innovative approaches to teaching. Our participants were considered innovative by their building principals and often by their peers as well (e.g., many had received prestigious teaching awards). Clearly, all of these teachers had taken risks and sacrificed personal time and energy to achieve current levels of technology integration. Yet, innovativeness, like exemplary use, is a slippery construct that tends to be defined in relative terms. Compared to their immediate peers, all of our teachers had achieved innovative technology practice, yet compared to best practice, a number of discrepancies were noted. We revisit this point later when we address our third research question.

Support and Resource Availability

Becker’s (1994) study suggested that exemplary technology-using teachers work in school districts that have made large investments in staff development and on-site support. This was confirmed by the majority of our participants. All but two teachers interviewed noted that they had many opportunities to participate in professional development experiences, including computer training. Yet, similar to results reported by Hadley and Sheingold (1993), almost all of our participants had achieved their technical skills on their own by accessing a wide range of available resources, including, but not limited to, professional development opportunities. For the most part, these teachers were responsible for providing rather than receiving training. Teachers in this study (n = 10) perceived that they had helped create collaborative working environments, specifically related to technology integration, within their schools. Furthermore, they noted that they had brought colleagues on-board by providing training, collaboration, and ongoing emotional support.

To achieve technology integration, teachers also need a considerable amount of technical support (Becker, 1994). This includes on-the-spot troubleshooting as well as ongoing system maintenance. Twelve teachers in our study had technology support staff available on-site, while four received additional district-level support. Three teachers received assistance at the district level only. Troubleshooting was completed primarily by the teachers themselves; many also helped with systems maintenance.

Access to computers, in terms of both location and numbers, is a major determinant of teachers’ success in integrating technology into instruction (Hoffman, 1996; Means & Olson, 1997). Although five teachers taught in classrooms or computer labs with a 1:1 student-computer ratio, others had student:computer ratios that ranged anywhere from 3:1 to 12:1. Teachers got around this resource barrier by using effective organization and management strategies. For example, Joan and Jessie used a station approach in which students rotated through various activities; the computer station was just one of many possibilities. High school biology teacher Sam’s students self-determined when to complete activities. Not all of them completed computer activities at the same time.

Read more...

Copyright © 2001, ISTE (International Society for Technology in Education). All rights reserved.