How Teachers Integrate Technology and Their Beliefs about Learning: Is There a Connection?
Eugene Judson; Journal of Technology and Teacher Education; 2006; 14, 3; Academic Research Library pg. 581-597
Reviewer: Dedy Gunawan
Judson (2006), in his research: “How Teachers Integrate Technology and Their Beliefs about Learning: Is There a Connection?”, concluded that there was not significant relationship between teachers’ belief about teaching and their practice in integrating technology in the class. The findings of this quantitative research were controversial because they did not correspond with previous judgments that a constructivist-teacher would automatically manage a dynamic student-centred classroom. The title is simple and shows the assessed variables clearly. By reading the title, the readers will understand the approach of this research project. The abstract does not show the complicated statistical discussion but present simply the final answer to the research questions.
The research paper is organised into five headings: background, methodology, findings, discussion, and implications. An introduction presented before the background is without a title. Thirty four references are listed, with only seven of them might be considered as old references as they were written 10 years or more before the research report was published. One of them is taken from a very old journal written in 1969. The author consistently followed Harvard referencing system and put the link of a further reading in each of the electronic reference.The author introduced the topic of the study by reviewing the recent educational reform movement, which refers to constructivism, and a stable growth of technology integration in teaching. Some problems related to the use of technology, the conflict between technology integration and quality instruction, and how teachers wrongfully implement technology in the class, such as using it merely as a presentation tool, came up in this introduction. The author shortly discussed how a technology was being used, then followed by why the technology was used in the particular way. Through this in-depth discussion, the author tried to justify the significance of the research.
The background of the research talked about previous studies in technology integration in classrooms. Most of them discussed about computer skills and availability of technology. Before coming to the research questions, the author contradicted some findings about constructivism. Some surveys showed strong relation between computer use and constructivist belief while other researches (Willis, Thompson, & Sadera, 1999; Simmons et al., 1999) opposed to this judgement because they assumed that a self-reported survey employed in the past was not an effective method of data collection in the area of technology integration (cited in Judson, 2006).
The participants of this research were primary and secondary classrooms teachers. The author selected them because they already integrated technology in the classrooms and had studied about the use of technology in teaching as the participants of the study. The teachers, in reverse, agreed to participate in the study. In other words, the author employed non probability sampling by selecting ‘individuals who are representing some characteristics to be investigated’ (Creswell, 2005). More particular, Dane (1990) identified it as purposive sampling: ‘procedures directed toward obtaining a certain type of element’. The other reason of employing this non probability sampling is because of difficulty in enumeration (Ary, 1996). However, it would be much better if the author gave particular information about the place and time of the observation.
There are two independent variables and one dependent variable in the study. To measure teachers’ beliefs and attitudes, which are the independent variables, the author employed the Conditions that Support Constructivist Uses of Technology (CSCUT) survey (Ravitz & Light, 2000 cited in Judson, 2006) which was declared in agreement with Teaching, Learning, and Computing Survey (CRITO, 1998 cited in Judson, 2006). The author did not statistically evaluate the CSCUT validity and reliability since the designer of the survey asserted that it has been developed to meet the need of constructivist data collection. Four categories are organized within this instrument: Teaching Philosophy, Computer Use Attitude, Computer Use Objective, and Computer Knowledge and Skills.
To measure teaching practice in using technology in the class, that is the dependent variable, the author utilized the Focusing on Integrating Technology: Classroom Observation Measurement (FIT:COM) that was developed based on teaching standards in educational technology (ISTE, 2000 cited in Judson, 2006) and other disciplines (National Council for the Social Studies, 1994; National Council of Teachers of English, 2000; National research Council, 1996; National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 2000 cited in Judson, 2006) . It was assumed as a valid instrument and ‘supported by significant inter-rater reliability and internal consistency measures’ (Judson, 2002 cited in Judson, 2006). The score gained by the participants while doing this observation could be zero to a hundred. The higher score indicate superior constructivist technology integration.
The author presented a table that summarised the survey result consisting four categories: Teaching Philosophy, Computer Use Attitude, Computer use Objectives, and Computer Knowledge and Skills. The author also explained perfectly the meaning of each category. When it came to the result, however, a question arises: what is the position of Computer Use Objectives and Computer Knowledge Skills? Were they considered as variables? What variables were they: independent, intervening or confounding variables? If they were, the author should have included them as parts of the research variables. If they were none of them, their presence needed to be reconsidered.
In spite of this confusion, the analysis found that there was not significant correlation between observed teaching practice and beliefs about instruction and between teaching practice and attitudes towards technology. The results were obtained by correlating the data of CSCUT survey and FIT:COM observation using Pearson product moment coefficient (r). Another uncertainty occurs as we link the research questions, the research findings and the abstract. While an abstract aimed to summarise all of the research findings, the researcher did not include all answers of the research questions into the abstract. The abstract did not uncover the result of the second question, the relation of teachers’ attitude towards technology and their teaching practice. Whether this is due to a journal instruction to limit the number of words, it remains unclear.
Under the discussion heading, the author discussed that teacher expertise in using computer technology might be the answer why the results of the study showed a poor relation between teachers’ belief and practice. Although it sounds like an additional topic outside the research discussion, it gave a new sight of possible explanation.
In summary, instead of using self-reported surveys, the author utilised instruments that was considered to be more valid and reliable in the area of technology integration data collection. The research results surprisingly contradicted to what other researchers previously found. Despite some inconsistence, the research has contributed a valuable prospect to the development of better education, mainly in the area of technology integration in teaching and learning.
REFERENCE LIST
ARY, D., JACOBS, LC, & RAZAVIEH, A (1996) Introduction to Research in Education, Orlando, Harcourt Brace College Publisher.
CRESWELL, J. W. (2005) Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research, New Jersey, Pearson Education, Inc.
DANE, F. (1990) Research Methods, Belmont, California, Wadsworth, Inc.
JUDSON, E. (2006) How Teachers Integrate Technology and Their Beliefs About Learning: Is There a Connection? Journal of Technology and Tacher Education, 14, 581-597. viewed 22 February 2007 http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?index=0&did=1046713471&SrchMode=1&sid=10&Fmt=6&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1170826659&clientId=20831
