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

The Role of InTech Training in the Integration of Technology into Instructional Practices Among Georgia Middle School Teachers

Fritzie Sheumaker
Valdosta State University

John R. Slate
University of Texas at El Paso

Anthony J. Onwuegbuzie
Valdosta State University

Abstract
The Georgia Framework for Integrating Technology in the Student-Centered Classroom (InTech) was created as a staff development program to prepare teachers to successfully integrate technology, student learning, and academic goals. A causal-comparative research design was used in this study to determine whether any relationship existed between InTech training and middle school teachers’ integration of technology. Analysis of findings from a survey completed by 68 middle school teachers, 10 with InTech training and 58 without InTech training, revealed statistically significant differences between the two groups of teachers in two areas. InTech teachers showed increases over non-InTech teachers in student use of technology in classrooms and teacher use of presentation software. The results of this study are an indication that InTech training is beneficial to teachers, but more research is needed at all grade levels on the effectiveness of InTech. (Keywords: staff development, technology integration.)

Throughout the United States, educational technology is receiving unprecedented support and funding. Committed to the belief that technology offers effective ways for students to learn, the state of Georgia invested more than $200 million toward technology for classrooms from 1994 to 1999 and budgeted more than $66 million for classroom computers for fiscal year 2000 (Georgia Department of Education, 1999). Nevertheless, integrating technology into curricula in meaningful ways requires more than investing in computer equipment and software. If this investment is to have significant benefit for student achievement, teachers must have the skills necessary to incorporate technology into their classrooms. To address the need for teacher skill, Georgia educators created the Georgia Framework for Integrating Technology in the Student-Centered classroom (InTech) as a staff development program to prepare teachers to integrate successfully technology, student learning, and academic goals. However, the extent to which teachers who undergo InTech training integrate technology in their classrooms is unknown. Thus, our study assessed the effect of InTech training on middle school teachers’ integration of technology into their instructional practices.

Review of the Literature

Use of technology must coincide with teaching practices based on how students learn best (National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education [NCATE] Task Force on Technology and Teacher Education, 1997). Strommen and Lincoln (1992) asserted that constructivist learning theory formed the rationale for effective strategies in teaching with technology. Constructivists see computers as powerful tools to engage students in the active learning processes and to help them explore, research, and build new ideas (McKenzie, 1998).

An examination of the literature showed that educational technology must be an integral part of both content and instructional strategies. Based on this constructivist view, the presence of computers in the classroom is not as important as the manner in which they are used (Strommen & Lincoln, 1992). When technology integration is successful, students learn “through computers, not about them” (Dockstader, 1999, p. 3). Eisenberg and Johnson (1996) supported the idea that competent use of technology skills must relate to a content area, and the skills themselves must fit together in a systematic instructional model. The learning environment also should engage students in active inquiry and problem solving. Holzer (1994) stressed that the potential effect of computers on learning and teaching could only be realized if the learning environment promoted active learning and opportunities for students to construct knowledge in meaningful contexts.

Researchers contend that the teacher is the key that makes learning work (Mergendoller, 1997; Soloway, 1996; Wenglinsky, 1998). Teachers must assume active roles in helping students learn with and about technology, and they must be an integral part of any plan for merging computers with curriculum. Lundeberg, Coballes-Vega, Standiford, Langer, and Dibble (1997) used constructivist theory when they found that teachers who were committed to “project-based learning in a technology-rich environment” (p. 61) believed students could use technology to build concepts from existing knowledge and to obtain information from a variety of sources. In assessing the effective use of computers to challenge student learning, Bracey (1994) found that technology-using teachers considered learning to be an active process, with knowledge viewed as something students must construct rather than receive passively.

Espinosa and Chen (1996) noted that teacher confidence integrating technology into curriculum increased after specialized training. Other researchers (Anderson & Harris, 1997; Follansbee, Hughes, Pisha, & Stahl, 1997; MacArthur et al., 1995; Whelan, Frantz, Guerin, & Bienvenu, 1997) supported the view that teachers need inservice education on specific technology applications to integrate computers into the curriculum in meaningful ways. Becker (1999) found that formal staff development was important in increasing teacher computer usage—especially Internet use. Also, he observed that the value of staff development increased when teachers got together informally to discuss teaching practices and project ideas.

Because the effect of technology depends on how teachers actually use it in classrooms, professional development is critical if teachers are to take advantage of the instructional opportunities possible with computers. Given this emphasis on preparing teachers to use technology effectively, $75 million of the $698 million national technology investment by the U.S. Congress in 1999 was allocated for funding teacher training (Latham, 1999). In Georgia, approximately $21 million of the total $308 million technology budget is allocated for training teachers to connect instruction with technology (Georgia Department of Education, 1999), and InTech is the primary means of delivering technology training.

InTech originated with 75 teachers in 1996 by Dr. Traci Redish and Ms. Linda Whitacre of Kennesaw State University (KSU; KSU Educational Technology Center, 1999), This constructivist, train-the-trainer model is now delivered statewide through regional technology centers and state institutes of higher learning (Kennesaw State University, 1999). The rationale statement for InTech affirms that integrating technology into curriculum can positively affect the nature of the learning process. InTech’s staff development framework document stresses the active role of teachers in providing technology-based learning activities (Holmes, Rodish, Whitack, Bennett, &Talley, 1998). Within each of its three phases (i.e., integration, infusion, and innovation), the training is designed not only to introduce teachers to a variety of appropriate technologies but also to encourage the constructivist shift from teacher-centered to student-centered learning.

As middle school teacher teams complete InTech training, more research is needed to determine whether teachers transfer what they learn through InTech into increased ability in integrating technology in their classrooms. This is the goal of the present study. Specifically, the purpose of this investigation is to determine which specific abilities and teaching strategies, if any, are affected by InTech training.

Methods

Subjects

Teachers at two southwest Georgia middle schools were asked to participate in this study. These two schools were similar in curriculum, organizational pattern, and student demographics. The middle school staff members included 120 teachers, 91 (76%) of whom were female. Teacher assignments included 77 (64%) who taught in the content areas, 14 (12%) who were special education teachers, 6 (5%) who taught gifted education, 14 (12%) who were exploratory teachers, and 9 (8%) who were physical education teachers. Content-area teachers were responsible for language arts, math, science, and social studies, whereas exploratory teachers taught non-academic courses such as choral music, band, and art. Of the teachers at both schools, 10 had completed InTech Phase One training, and 5 more began training in late spring. The teachers who had completed training had not begun the formal redelivery process by which they train other staff members. Of the 120 available subjects, 68 actually participated in the study, a 57% response rate.

Instrument

Loyd and Loyd (1985) found it possible to collect reliable data about teachers’ technology use by means of a survey. Therefore, the instrument used in this study was a modified version of the Instructional Questionnaire: Teacher Survey (IQTS) developed by the second author. He developed the instrument to assess InTech effectiveness for participants in another south Georgia county. The survey is designed to elicit demographic information and participants’ assessment of their technology integration abilities. Although the original version contained three items related to phonics instruction, this was not a focus of the present study. As a result, those three items were replaced with questions related to journal writing, differentiated instructional strategies, and reading in the content areas—all topics related to InTech instructional activities intended for teachers to use with students.

Of the 22 survey items, 13 elicited responses related to the teachers’ instructional strategies, and 9 related to specific technology applications. On 16 items, participants framed their responses using an 8-point Likert-type scale of “Always, Almost Always, Almost Never, Never” or “Strongly Agree, Agree, Disagree, or Strongly Disagree.” On one item, respondents chose all that apply from a list of seven instructional strategies. Space was provided for teachers to write in additional strategies. A similar item related to specific technology applications. All items were scored by assigning numerical values to the responses. Positively worded responses were interpreted as evidence of teachers’ self-reported ability in integrating technology.

Procedure

Permission to contact the middle school teachers was obtained from the county school superintendent and each school’s principal. Upon approval from the institutional review board at the institution with which the researchers were affiliated, the first author or a designee visited the schools during a scheduled staff meeting. Teachers were told that input regarding their abilities with technology was needed to assess current competence and to plan future staff development opportunities. Those teachers who chose to participate signed an informed consent form. Participants were instructed to complete the IQTS, enclose it in an envelope provided, and return it to the first author or to a designated contact at each school. All completed surveys were collected, and responses on each questionnaire coded for statistical analysis.

Results

For the purposes of the study, the responses indicating agreement (i.e., agree and strongly agree) and some degree of usage (almost and almost always) were combined and compared to responses suggesting no agreement (i.e., disagree, strongly disagree) and no usage (i.e., almost never, never). A series of Pearson’s chi-squares was conducted, comparing teachers with InTech training to those without InTech training with respect to each of the items on the IQTS.

Of the 33 items analyzed, 31 chi-squares indicated no significant differences between the two groups of teachers. However, the results from two responses were statistically significant based on a significance level of p < .002, using Bonferroni’s adjustment technique. Specifically, a statistically significant chi-square, c ² (4) = 13.20, p < .002, was obtained for survey statement 8 (Table 1), “My students use technology in the classes I teach.” Moreover, whereas 60% of the InTech teachers indicated their students always used technology in class, only 23% of non-InTech teachers responded similarly. The value of Cramér’s V for this item was .44, which indicates a medium effect, based on Cohen’s (1988) criteria.

Analysis of survey statement 11, for which a “yes” or “no” response was required for the statement “I have used presentation software … in making presentations in class,” also resulted in a statistically significant chi-square, c ² (1) = 15.77, p < .002. All of the InTech-trained teachers indicated they used presentation programs in contrast to 32.8% of the non-InTech teachers. Cramér’s V for this variable was .48, indicating a medium effect size (Cohen, 1988).

Table 2. IQTS: Percentage Summary for Yes/No Items
	InTech Teacher					Non-InTech Teacher
Questionnaire Item Summary	Yes		No			Yes		No
9. Used Internet in class	90.0		10.0			65.5		34.5
10. Used Internet for class projects	100.0					82.8		17.2
*11. Used presentation software	100.0					32.8		67.2
12. Used Internet outside of class for school purpose	100.0					91.2		8.8
*Significant chi-square obtained, p <.002.

Discussion

In an overview of educational technology research, Bracey (1994) found that computers were powerful tools in promoting new teaching strategies and making student learning more active and creative, but computers must be used appropriately to be capable of transforming learning and increasing student performance. InTech teachers showed increases over non-InTech teachers in student use of technology in classrooms and teacher use of presentation software. Therefore, the present findings suggest that InTech training is beneficial to teachers in promoting technology integration.

Responding InTech and non-InTech teachers in this study had at least a limited proficiency in basic computer use and personal applications. An examination of the percentages reveals that on many of the variables for which the relationship between InTech and non-InTech teachers’ responses was not statistically significant, both groups’ positive responses were high. For example, differences in teacher familiarity with word processing (survey item 14, Table 3), teacher familiarity with Internet access (survey item 15, Table 3), and teacher use of Internet outside class for a school purpose (survey item 12, Table 2) between the InTech and non-InTech groups were not significant because 90%–100% of each group responded positively. Although a teacher’s personal proficiency with computers is necessary (Becker, 1999), what students actually do with technology is critical to technology’s influence on student learning outcomes (Wenglinsky, 1998). Whereas 100% of the teachers in both groups indicated agreement that it is important for students to use technology (survey item 13, Table 3), the InTech teachers reported a significantly greater amount of student use of technology in the classroom (survey item 8, Table 1).

Table 3. IQTS: Percentage Summary of Agree/Disagree Items
	InTech Teacher					Non-InTech Teacher
Questionnaire Item Summary	Strongly Agree to Agree		Strongly Disagree to Disagree			Strongly Agree to Agree		Strongly Disagree to Disagree
3. Variety of instructional activities used	100.0					96.6		3.4
4. Students complete projects	90.0		10.0			84.4		15.5
5. Students have positive attitude about subject	90.0		10.0			91.3		8.6
6. Students work in groups	100.0					91.3		8.6
13. Important for students to use technology	100.0					100.0
14. Familiar with word processing	100.0					96.5		3.5
15. Familiar with Internet access programs	100.0					98.2		1.8
16. Familiar with search engines	100.0					68.4		31.6
17. Familiar with downloading	90.0		10.0			64.9		35.1
18. Increased differentiated instruction	100.0					84.2		15.8
19. More journal writing	100.0					86.0		14.0
20. More reading	80.0		20.0			76.8		23.2

The significant difference between InTech and non-InTech teachers’ use of presentation software (survey item 11, Table 2) was an indication that InTech teachers were incorporating technology into instructional activities. However, without findings related to what students do with presentation software, teachers using it may simply be, according to Watson (1999), “automating the status quo” (p. 7). Nevertheless, the InTech teachers’ significantly greater use of technology with students and use of presentation software supports previous findings (Anderson & Harris, 1997; Espinosa & Chen, 1996; Follansbee et al., 1997; Gilstrap, 1997; MacArthur, et al., 1995; Whelan, et al., 1997) that professional staff development improves teachers’ use of instructional technology.

Implications of Findings

Based on the results, all middle school teachers responding to the survey have a positive attitude about the importance of students using technology. Most respondents also report personal proficiency in using computers and related applications. Mergendoller (1997) observed that, although computer technology can expedite the acquisition and use of information, teachers structure the effect of technology on student learning. The presence of significant findings related to InTech teachers, especially in the area of promoting student use of technology, supports participation in the InTech staff development program as a means for enabling middle school teachers to integrate technology with instruction.

Caution should be exercised in interpreting the findings of this research. Opportunities for practice and discussions with coworkers about computer applications may affect the abilities of both InTech and non-InTech teachers. This provides a threat to internal validity via history and to external validity by treatment diffusion (Gay & Airasian, 1999). In addition, the initial selection of InTech participants by each school may have favored those already comfortable with technology, threatening both internal validity (i.e., differential selection of subjects) and external validity (i.e., population validity). Although not statistically significant, the percentages of self-reported technology use in the year before InTech training (Table 4) suggested the presence of preexisting differences between InTech and non-InTech teachers. Furthermore, the lack of random sampling and the relatively small sample size from a geographically restricted area threaten external validity (i.e., population validity and ecological validity), possibly limiting the generalizability of the findings.

Table 4. IQTS: Percentage Summary for Yes/No Items on Previous Year’s Technology Use
		InTech Teacher					Non-InTech Teacher
		Yes		No			Yes		No
21.	Last year used:
	• Hands-on activities	90.0		10.0			93.0		7.0
	• Cooperative learning	100.0					78.9		21.1
	• Investigative activities	80.0		20.0			52.6		47.4
	• Group projects	70.0		30.0			59.6		40.4
	• Web-based activities	60.0		40.0			26.3		73.7
	• Research projects	80.0		20.0			57.1		42.9
22.	Last year used:
	• Internet	80.0		20.0			56.1		43.9
	• World Wide Web	70.0		30.0			28.1		71.9
	• Word processing	90.0		10.0			61.4		38.6
	• Presentation software	60.0		40.0			14.0		86.0
	• Subject-related CD-ROM	80.0		20.0			40.3		58.2

The scarcity of other studies related specifically to the effect of InTech training on middle school or other grade level teachers’ abilities with technology means that comparative data are lacking. Thus, more investigations are needed on the effectiveness of InTech training on teachers’ integration of technology with instructional practices at all grade levels. Additional research into actual classroom instructional practices, not just self-reported technology use, would also be helpful. Moreover, InTech teachers in this study have only completed the first phase of training, and they will begin training other teachers after redelivery of services training (Holmes et al., 1997). An examination of the effect of the redelivery process is warranted. Consideration also should be given to whether teacher use of presentation software and student use of technology are adequate returns on the investment of time and resources for professional development activities.

Becker (1999) presented research questions arising from his study that also need to be addressed. These questions concerned constructivist pedagogy and its relationship to technology integration, and his questions can be adapted for future investigation of InTech. For example, what specific InTech instructional goals transfer to constructivist classroom practices? Is use of presentation software an appropriate constructivist pedagogical strategy? Finally, extensions of Wenglinsky’s (1998) study are needed to examine the connection between technology integration and student achievement. Whether there are differences in InTech teachers’ integration of technology should be assessed to determine InTech’s effect on student outcomes not simply its effect on the teacher’s computer proficiency.

As additional teachers are InTech trained and InTech redelivery begun, more teachers should gain the skills and confidence that appear to ensue from InTech training. Giving teachers time to implement a new program is essential for teacher morale and program success. According to Bracey (1994), teachers may require four to six years to become comfortable enough with a new technology to incorporate it into their teaching strategies. Because teachers in this study overwhelmingly report that technology use is important, they may have the motivation to continue to improve how it is used.

Nevertheless, the use of new media alone will not transform classrooms and improve student learning. As Gilstrap (1997) asserted, successful schools and teachers “make the needs of their students the top priority. Technology just helps them do a better job of meeting those needs” (p. 4). Similarly Lookatch (1996) observed, “it is not the machine that motivates. Rather it is content and instructional strategies that motivate the learner” (p. 29). McKenzie (1999) stressed that “great teaching is more important than great equipment” (p. 13) in maximizing the benefits of technology. The results of this study are an indication that InTech training offers one step toward using technology and good teaching practices to transform instruction.

Contributors

Fritzie N. Sheumaker received her BA from Oglethorpe University and MEd from Valdosta State University. With 23 years of public school teaching experience, she is currently a doctoral candidate and instructor in curriculum and instruction at Valdosta State University and the coordinator for gifted education in the Mitchell County School System, Camilla, Georgia. Her research interests include integration of technology into curriculum, technology staff development, Web-based instruction, and differentiated instructional practices.

John R. Slate received his doctorate in psychology from the University of Tennessee, Knoxville in 1984. He is currently a full professor in the Department of Educational Leadership and Foundations at the University of Texas at El Paso. His research interests include study skills and related attitudinal variables and the integration of technology into instructional practices.

Anthony J. Onwuegbuzie is an assistant professor in the Department of Educational Leadership at Valdosta State University. He earned his PhD in educational research and two of his three master’s degrees (MS in statistics and MEd in testing and measurement) at the University of South Carolina. Also, he has earned a postgraduate diploma in statistics at the University College London. His research topics primarily involve disadvantaged and underserved populations such as minorities, students with learning disabilities, and juvenile delinquents. His research interests also include factors associated with academic achievement, including the role of academic-related anxiety as it affects elementary, secondary, and postsecondary students.

Contact

Fritzie Sheumaker
Department of Curriculum and Instruction
College of Education
Valdosta State University
Valdosta, GA 31698
lfesheum@alltel.net

References

Anderson, S., & Harris, J. (1997). Factors associated with amount of use and benefits obtained by users of a statewide educational computing network. Educational Technology Research and Development, 45(1), 19–50.

Becker, H. J. (1994). Equity in school computer use: National data and neglected considerations. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 64, 289–311.

Becker, H. J. (1999). Internet use by teachers: Conditions of professional use and teacher-directed student use. Teaching, Learning, and Computing: 1998 National Survey. Irvine: The University of California, Irvine, Center for Research on Information Technology and Organizations. Available: www.crito.uci.edu/TLC/findings/Internet-Use/startpage.htm.

Bracey, G. (1994, Winter). Computers improve teaching. Electronic Learning (Special Supplement), 12

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). New York: John Wiley.

Dockstader, J. (1999, January). Teachers of the 21st century know the what, why, and how of technology integration. T.H.E. (Technological Horizons in Education) Journal. 26(6), 73–74. Available: www.thejournal.com/magazine/vault/A2084.cfm.

Eisenberg, M., & Johnson, D. (1996). Computer skills for information problem solving: Learning and teaching technology in context. Syracuse, NY: ERIC Clearinghouse for Information and Technology. (ERIC No. ED 392 463)

Espinosa, L., & Chen, W. (1996). The effect of teacher inservice training on technology and multiage grouping: Year one evaluation of constructing and networking for multiage learning project. Journal of Computing in Childhood Education, 7(1/2), 13–38.

Follansbee, S., Hughes, R., Pisha, B., & Stahl, S. (1997). Can online communication improve student performance? Results of a controlled study. ERS Spectrum, 15(1), 15–26.

Gay, L. R., & Airasian, P W. (1999). Educational research: Competencies for analysis and application (6th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Georgia Department of Education. (1999). Educational technology: FY 98 lottery funding summary. Atlanta, GA: Author.

Gilstrap, R. (1997). The electrified classroom: Using technology in the middle grades. Childhood Education, 73, 297–300.

Holmes, E., Redish, T., Whitacre, L., Bennett, S., & Talley, V. (1998). Design manual for Georgia framework for integrating technology in the student-centered classroom. Atlanta: Georgia Department of Education.

Holzer, S. M. (1994). From constructivism to active learning. The Innovator [Online serial], no. 2 Available: http://www.succeed.ufl.edu/innovators/innovator_2/intro.html.

Kennesaw State University Educational Technology Center. (1999). InTech [Online document]. Available: http://edtech.kennesaw.edu/intech/.

Latham, A. S. (1999). Computers and achievement. Educational Leadership, 56(5), 87–88.

Lookatch, R. (1996). The ill-considered dash to technology. The School Administrator, 53(4), 28–31.

Loyd, B., & Loyd, D. (1985). The reliability and validity of an instrument for the assessment of computer attitudes. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 45, 903–908.

Lundeberg, M., Coballes-Vega, C., Standiford, S., Langer, L., & Dibble, K. (1997). We think they’re learning: Beliefs, practices, and reflections of two teachers using project-based learning. Journal of Computing in Childhood Education, 8(11), 59–81.

MacArthur, C. A., Pilato, V., Kercher, M., Peterson, D., Malouf, D., & Jamison, P. (1995). Mentoring: An approach to technology education for teachers. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 28, 46–62.

McKenzie, J. (1998). The wired classroom: Creating technology enhanced student-centered learning environments. From Now On [Online serial], 7(6) Available: www.fno.org/mar98/flotilla.html.

McKenzie, J. (1999). Scoring high with new information technologies. From Now On. [Online serial], 8(7). Available: www.fno.org/apr99/scoring.html.

Mergendoller, J. R. (1997). Technology and learning: The research. Principal, 76(3), 12–14.

National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education Task Force on Technology and Teacher Education. (1997). Technology and the new professional teacher: Preparing for the 21st century classroom [Online document]. Available: www.ncate.org/accred/projects/tech/tech-21.htm.

Soloway, E. (1996). Teachers are the key. Communications of the ACM, 39(6), 11–14.

Strommen, E. F., & Lincoln, B. (1992). Constructivism, technology, and the future of classroom learning. Education and Urban Society, 24(4), 466–477.

Watson, J. (1999). Educational technology for the 21st century: Why the delay? [Online document]. Available: http://www.edexcellence.net/foundation/publication/publication.cfm?id=239

Wenglinsky, H. (1998). Does it compute? The relationship between educational technology and student achievement in mathematics [Online document]. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. Available from ETS' Policy Information Center.

Whelan, C. S., Frantz, C., Guerin, J., & Bienvenu, S. (1997). A qualitative evaluation of a statewide networking infrastructure in education project. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 29(4), 403–422.

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