Teachers? Concerns, Attitudes, Beliefs, and Pedagogical Practices as it Relates to 
Technology Integration   
 
by 
 
Jacob Kenneth Holloway 
 
 
 
A dissertation submitted to the Graduate Faculty of  
Auburn University  
in partial fulfillment of the  
requirements of the Degree of  
 Doctor of Philosophy 
 
Auburn Alabama  
August 4, 2012  
 
 
 
 
Keywords: technology, pedagogy, continuous professional development, comprehensive schools, 
magnet schools 
 
 
Copyright 2012 by Jacob Kenneth Holloway 
 
 
Approved by  
 
Paris Strom, Chair, Professor of Educational Foundation, Leadership and Technology   
Ellen H. Reames, Associate Professor of Educational Foundations, Leadership and Technology 
Margaret Ross, Professor of Educational Foundations, Leadership and Technology
ii 
 
  
  
  
  
 
Abstract  
 
 
 Education is the catalyst for preparing students to become productive members of 
society.  Developing skills and knowledge students will need to compete globally is the charge 
excepted by educators at every level.  The skills and knowledge needed to compete has become 
more interrelated with technology and its resources than ever before.  In order to incorporate 
these changes in classroom practices the classroom teacher must make fundamental changes in 
the presentation of classroom instruction.  These changes can only be accomplished through a 
process of continual professional development opportunities.  This professional development 
must be teacher-centered focusing on their concerns, attitudes, beliefs, and pedagogical practices 
all while extending time for practice and reflection.  The current study chose to analyze and 
compare teachers who work in comprehensive and magnet high schools. The data collected can 
be used to develop ideas for professional development opportunities for reluctant technology 
using teachers in order to meet the need of their students.    
  
iii 
 
  
  
  
  
 
Acknowledgments 
 
  
 Lord, I would first like to take a moment to give all praises to you.  I know that this is not 
my miracle but your works.  You have taken a young boy from south Mississippi who struggled 
in reading and blessed him, through many trials and tribulations, with receiving the highest honor 
bestowed upon an individual in education.  For this I say thank you.  I am truly humble and 
grateful.  May your works through me be an inspiration for others who believe.  I will continue 
to sing your praise as I work as a steward in your vessel.   
 Acknowledgments are also extended to my elders who are only here to participate in 
spirit.  ?We are like dwarfs sitting on the shoulders of giants.  We see more, and things that are 
more distant, then they did, not because our sight is superior or because we are taller than they, 
but because they raise us up, and by their great stature add to ours? (John of Salisbury, 1159).  
Many of my lessons of endurance, honesty, and hard work came from my elders, most of whom 
didn?t obtain a high school diploma, but they were determine that I received more.  They 
encouraged me to meet all expectations and then push a little further to exceed them.  I hope I 
have made them proud.  
Ultimate strength and peace comes from within and with the people you choose to 
surround yourself with.  Special thanks go out to my family and friends who has traveled this 
journey with me and have been victims of my sacrifice.  Thanks for the prayers, the 
understanding, the support, your personal sacrifices, and all that you have done to help me in this 
iv 
 
endeavor.  Without all of you I would have gone out of my mind. God has truly surrounded me 
with comfort and peace. 
Reflecting on my time spent at Auburn I would not have traded my experiences for 
anything in the world.  From the support I found in my cohort to the excellent instruction and 
care I received from the professors at Auburn.  I dare not try to name them all for fear of 
omission.  Special thanks to my committee members.  Dr. Paris Strom who started my journey at 
Auburn with me from the first day I stepped foot on the campus and through all of my major and 
minor milestones. Dr. Ellen Reames who I have leaned on for extra guidance and support from 
the first time I entered one of her classrooms and she has never disappointed me.  Dr. Margaret 
Ross who in her busy schedule was willing to come on board as a committee member after the 
process was started.  Special thanks go to Dr. Ross because she didn?t have to do it but she did 
and I am indebted to her for that.  Thanks to Dr. William Spencer for the help and support he 
gave during the initial process and understanding what I was trying to research.  Another thank 
you goes out to Dr. Chih-hsuan Wang in her final days on Auburn?s campus she was willing to 
sit down with me and discuss running my data through the statistics software, a huge hurtle in 
my understanding and reporting my results.  All of this is why I feel that Auburn was the right 
place for me to further my education.  
Additionally, I would like to thank the school system, site administrators, and the many 
teachers involved in this study for allowing me to come into their communities and their 
willingness to participate.  I do understand the stresses of teaching all day but, you were willing 
to give time to me and aid in my academic growth as a lifelong learner.  I am truly grateful to all 
of you for that.  If there was anyone or group I omitted please charge it to my head and not my 
heart and accept this group thank you.  
v 
 
  
  
  
  
 
Table of Contents  
 
 
Abstract ........................................................................................................................................... ii 
Acknowledgments.......................................................................................................................... iii 
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. ix 
List of Figures ..................................................................................................................................x 
Chapter One: Introduction ...............................................................................................................1 
 Introduction ..........................................................................................................................1 
 Conceptual Framework ........................................................................................................2 
 Statement of Problem ...........................................................................................................6 
 Purpose of the Study ............................................................................................................6 
 Research Questions ..............................................................................................................6 
  Open-Ended Questions ............................................................................................7 
 Significance of the Study .....................................................................................................7 
 Assumptions of the Study ....................................................................................................8 
 Limitations of the Study.......................................................................................................8 
 Definitions of Terms ............................................................................................................9 
 Conclusion ...........................................................................................................................9 
Chapter Two: Review of Literature ...............................................................................................10 
 Introduction ........................................................................................................................10 
 Types of Schools ................................................................................................................11 
vi 
 
  Magnet Schools ......................................................................................................11 
  Comprehensive Schools .........................................................................................12 
Technology Trends ............................................................................................................13 
 Teaching Models ................................................................................................................15 
  Traditional Model ..................................................................................................15 
  Non-Traditional Model ..........................................................................................16 
 Constructivism ...................................................................................................................17 
  Constructivist Behaviors ........................................................................................18 
 Application of Technology in the Classroom ....................................................................23 
 Transformational Leadership .............................................................................................27 
 Professional Development .................................................................................................31 
 Conclusion .........................................................................................................................36 
Chapter Three: Methods ................................................................................................................39 
 Introduction ........................................................................................................................39 
 Role of Researcher .............................................................................................................40 
 Purpose of the Study ..........................................................................................................40 
 Significance of the Study ...................................................................................................41 
 Research Design.................................................................................................................42 
 Research Questions ............................................................................................................42 
  Quantitative Research Questions ...........................................................................42 
  Qualitative Research Questions .............................................................................43 
 Description of Sample........................................................................................................43 
 Instrumentation ..................................................................................................................44 
vii 
 
 Data Collection Procedures ................................................................................................50 
 Data Analysis .....................................................................................................................51 
 Limitations .........................................................................................................................51 
 Conclusion .........................................................................................................................52 
Chapter Four: Results ....................................................................................................................53 
 Introduction ........................................................................................................................53 
 Description of Population ..................................................................................................53 
 Teachers? Constructivist Behavior and Technology Integration .......................................56 
  Teachers? Stages of Adoption and Technology Integration ..................................56 
  Comparison of Constructivist Behaviors ...............................................................57 
  Comparison of Attitudes  .......................................................................................57 
  Comparison of Technology Integration  ................................................................58 
 Conclusion .........................................................................................................................62 
Chapter Five: Summary of Findings, Discussion, and Recommendations ....................................64 
 Introduction ........................................................................................................................64 
 Overview ............................................................................................................................64 
 Summary of Findings .........................................................................................................66 
  Research Question 1 ..............................................................................................67 
  Research Question 2 ..............................................................................................67 
  Research Question 3 ..............................................................................................69 
  Research Question 4 ..............................................................................................69 
  Research Question 5 ..............................................................................................70 
 Discussion ..........................................................................................................................75 
viii 
 
 Limitations of the Study.....................................................................................................80 
 Implications and Recommendations ..................................................................................81 
 Conclusion .........................................................................................................................83 
References ......................................................................................................................................84 
Appendix 1: Teachers? Concerns, Attitudes, Beliefs, and Pedagogical Practices  
 Concerning Technology Questionnaire .............................................................................94 
Appendix 2: Informed Consent Letter ...........................................................................................98 
Appendix 3: Recruitment Script ..................................................................................................100 
  
ix 
 
  
  
  
  
 
List of Tables  
 
 
Table 1: Alpha Reliability Coefficients for Original Survey .........................................................47 
Table 2: Alpha Reliability Coefficients for Current Survey ..........................................................48 
Table 3: Subject Taught by Participants ........................................................................................54 
Table 4: Highest Degree Obtained by Participants ........................................................................55 
Table 5: Types of School Participant Represents ..........................................................................55 
 
  
x 
 
  
  
  
  
 
List of Figures 
 
 
Figure 1: Student Achievement Tree ...............................................................................................3 
Figure 2: Staff Development Support Diagram ...............................................................................4 
Figure 3: Obstacle/Barriers Pie Chart ............................................................................................59 
Figure 4: Increasing Level of Support Pie Chart ...........................................................................60 
Figure 5: Facilitation Support Pie Chart ........................................................................................61 
  
 
  
 
1 
  
  
  
  
 
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION  
 
Introduction 
The idea of schooling is to prepare students to become productive members of society.  
As we prepare our students to make their marks on humanity, the question arises, ?as educators 
are we preparing our students to compete universally??  The skills and knowledge students will 
need to compete globally and be successful is embodied within a world rich with technology 
(Marx, 2006).  In many aspects students are well ahead of our efforts in the classroom.  Students 
are using technology in their social lives in order to communicate, exchange and look up 
information, investigate new cultures, as well as for many other recreational activities (Becker, 
1998).  Many students have expressed concerns about the disconnect between after school 
activities, involving technology, and in school practices (Strom & Strom, 2009).  
A number of K?12 in-service teachers are continuing with business as usual and teaching 
in the manner in which they were taught.  Some teachers have moved forward with trying to 
integrate technology into classroom instruction while others have been reluctant to change 
(Brownell, 1997).  One of the major contributors to this hesitance to conform is the teacher?s 
personal pedagogical ideas.  Research has suggested that in order to use utilize technology to its 
fullest potential one must adopt a more constructivist mind set (Cuban, Kirkpatrick, & Peck, 
2001; Dunn & Rakes, 2009; Rakes, 2007; Rakes, Flowers, Casey, & Santana, 1999).  These 
changes are not easily accepted.  Time, concerns, beliefs, and attitudes are key components of 
change and adoption of new models (Hord & Loucks, 1980; Wetzel, 2002). The teacher is the 
2 
 
catalyst of change within their classroom. Given enough time, support, and proper training 
teachers who are reluctant to the change process have the best chances for integrating technology 
into their classroom operation in an authentic format that supports students learning processes. 
Conceptual Framework 
 The idea surrounding this study is the ultimate goal of student achievement.  There are 
identifiers that suggest that students learn from two major sources: external influences and from 
classroom practices.  These external influences are engulfed with technological tools which are 
engaging to the student learned.  However, many classroom practices do not incorporate the use 
of these technological resources as instructional tools.  As a result of the student being engaged 
on one end and disengaged on the other, students are becoming more disconnected with school.  
As an effort to reconnect students with learning and supply them with skills needed to link 
classroom experiences with real world application, many agencies are asking K?12 schools to 
incorporate more technology into instructional practices.  Many have thought that making 
technology available to teachers would encourage them to utilize these tools in their classrooms.  
This was not the case; many teachers ignored these tools because they did not fit into their 
pedagogical views as it pertained to instruction.  Ultimately, reformers began to look at teachers? 
pedagogy as a key contributor for getting teachers to integrate technology into their practices.  
3 
 
 
Figure 1. Student Achievement Tree 
 
 This study will take a bottom up approach for reaching student achievement.  As 
described in figure 1 the ultimate goal of educators is to encourage and support student success. 
Students learn in two different arenas, intrinsically or inside the classroom and extrinsically 
outside the classroom. In many cases what students learn outside the classroom is influenced by 
technology at a greater rate than what is being taught inside the classroom. Because of this fact 
many students are becoming disconnected with what is going on inside the classroom (Strom & 
Strom, 2009). In order to prepare students for the global workforce and keep students engaged in 
the learning process teaching practices must include strategies that incorporate technological 
tools as well as authentic tasking opportunities (Marx, 2006). This research will deal with 
Student 
Achievement  
Classroom 
Practices  
Technology used 
as a learning tool  
Teachers' Stages 
of concern & 
pedagogical ideas  
External 
Influences  
Technology for 
recreation  
4 
 
teachers? attitudes, concerns, and constructivist behaviors surrounding their willingness or 
hesitance towards integration technology into their instructional practices.  By identifying 
teachers at both magnet and comprehensive high schools a comparison study can be conducted to 
identify factors that would help support reluctant technology using teachers as they attempt to 
address pedagogical ideas and concerns related to technology use as an instructional tool.  These 
ideas can be incorporated in professional development opportunities which allow teachers to 
learn how to better service their students and raise the academic altitude of all students.   
 
 
Illustration 2: Staff Development Support Diagram 
 
 Traditionally magnet schools have been composed of handpicked children from middle 
class families who are seeking specialized instructional formats that cater to the talents and 
?Levels of 
concern  
?Pedagogical 
Practices  
?Attitudes   
Traditional 
Teachers  
  
?Levels of 
concern 
?Pedagogical 
Practices 
?Attitudes   
Magnet 
Teachers   
5 
 
interest of its students (Neild, 2004; Smrekar, 2000). Magnet school teachers, in theory, are 
charged with the challenge of motivating a group of students who are considered academically 
astute (Doyle & Levine, 1984; Neild, 2004). Perceivably, expectations and demands for success 
for this particular group of teachers and students are relatively high in respect to the communities 
in which they serve. This being said, the question may arise ?are magnet school teachers more 
proactive when it comes to technology integration as an instrument to service their students 
needs than their comprehensive school counterparts??  
 Comprehensive/traditional schools do not have the luxury filtering the students in which 
they service. Comprehensive schools are nonselective schools aimed at servicing students within 
a local community (Conant, 1959; Hammack, 2004). Many of the students being serviced in 
these schools, mostly minority and poor, enter and leave with weak academic skills and are 
inadequately trained for future education or the workforce (Kemple, Herlihy, & Findings, 2004). 
Many of today?s opportunities for employment have shifted from the industrial age to a more 
global one which relies heavily on the ability to interpret and operate within a technology rich 
environment (Marx, 2006). With national reports of school failures, student dropouts at an all 
time high, and a general disconnect with school by students at comprehensive schools the 
question can be formulated ?are comprehensive high school teacher doing enough with 
technology as an instrument to service its student population??  
 When looking at both magnet schools and comprehensive schools and their success rates 
an investigation of teachers and their instructional strategies for success are worth investigation. 
Doyle & Levine (1984) discusses that magnet schools offer a setting in where teachers are more 
receptive to reform. However, they also recognized that magnet schools may set higher academic 
standards but their organizational structure is no different than other schools service students in 
6 
 
the same age group. The current study wishes to investigate any pedagogical differences among 
traditional and magnet school teachers when dealing with technology as an instrument to aid in 
the servicing of the students in which they serve.  
Statement of Problem 
 Traditional classroom teachers are being asked to integrate technology into their 
instructional practices.  These demands have been met, by some, with great resistance.  The 
hesitance to reform is largely in part due to teachers concerns, attitudes, and fundamental 
pedagogical beliefs.  In order to get the remaining reluctant teachers to address the demands of 
modern society and prepare our students for global competition, professional development must 
be implemented to support these different levels of concerns and attitudes of teachers toward 
technology and a more constructivist epistemology.     
Purpose of the study 
 The purpose of this study was to determine the differences between traditional and 
magnet school teachers in concerns, attitude, and pedagogy as it relates to the use of technology 
in their classroom.  The information gained could be essential in providing an outline for 
professional development that would enhance the use of technology in more of today?s 
classroom.  The study attempted to identify barriers that would prevent reluctant teachers from 
fully embracing technology integrated tools into their classroom in support of authentic tasking 
and assessment.  
Research Questions 
1. What is the relationship between teachers? constructivist behaviors and their 
attitudes towards integrating technology into classroom instruction? 
7 
 
2. Is there a relationship between teacher attitudes towards informational technology 
and the integration of technology into classroom instruction? 
3. Are there identifiable differences in the level of constructivist behavior between 
magnet and comprehensive high school teachers? 
4. Is there a difference in attitudes toward the use of technology for instructional 
purposes in magnet school teachers and comprehensive high school teachers?  
5. Is there a difference in terms of the level in which technology is integrated on the 
magnet school level than that of comprehensive high schools?   
 
Open-ended Questions  
1. What obstacles/barriers have you experienced that affect your level of confidence in 
adopting technology in classroom instruction?  
2. In what ways would you like to increase the level in which you use technology in 
your classroom?  
3. What helped or might help facilitate your adoption of technology in classroom 
instruction?  
Significance of the Study 
The technology available to classroom teachers is unlimited.  The process of being able 
to use it well and guiding students through a maze of misinformation is crucial to the teaching 
and learning process.  Technological advancements have placed the whole world at our students? 
fingertips. No longer are we solely dependent on the classroom teacher as the lone source of 
information.  The driving force to integrating these technologies into learning experiences lies 
with the individual classroom teacher.  Teachers? concerns about technology integration along 
8 
 
with their pedagogical practices can be the essential when relating these new innovations to 
supporting student achievement.  With this study, investigating both traditional and magnet 
schools, identifiable connections can be determined in such a manner that common threads will 
be woven in was to develop professional development ease teachers concerns about technology. 
The ultimate conclusion of these findings would be an effort to support the education and 
advancement of all students.     
Assumptions of the Study 
1. Professional development opportunities are equally accessible through the local 
professional development center for all participants. 
2. No one pedagogical idea stands isolated from the others, it is assumed that one will be 
more dominant than the others. 
3. Magnet school teachers take advantage of available technology at a higher rate than 
traditional classroom teachers.  
4. Change is not complete unless teachers feel that their concerns have been addressed 
and they have time to practice and reflect on preconceived as well as new attitudes 
and/or beliefs.  
Limitations of the Study 
1. Sample is limited to one particular school district 
2. Time to evaluate participants over an extended period of time to record changes in 
attitudes, beliefs, and concerns while new professional development ideas are 
implemented  
3. The generalization of the study across district borders.  
 
9 
 
Definition of Terms 
Attitudes ? feelings or perceptions  
Beliefs ? long lasting items of conviction  
Comprehensive/Traditional Schools ? neighborhood public schools where children are 
zone by their addresses.  
Concerns ? feelings, attitudes, thoughts, ideas, or reactions an individual has related to 
an innovation (Hord & Loucks, 1980). 
Magnet Schools ? public schools that provide incentives to parents and students through 
specialized curricular themes or instructional methods (Goldring & Smrekar, 2000).  
Pedagogy ? the practice or science of teaching  
Professional Development ? professional training offered to teachers as a component of 
continual learning that ensures that teachers are familiar with new methods of teaching and 
adapting their methods of teaching to changes in the social environment as well as dealing with 
diverse student populations.  
Technology Integration ? the use of computing devices such as desktop computers, 
laptops, handheld computers, software, or internet in K?12 schools for instructional purposes 
(Hew & Brush, 2007).    
Conclusion 
 This chapter has offered an overview of what this study contains.  The following chapters 
provided evidence to support the current study in the form of a literature review.  Also, a chapter 
on methodology used to support the current study will be found.  A chapter dedicated to the 
finding of this study will be presented.  Finally, chapter five is dedicated to the discussion of 
implications of the current study including limitations and suggestions for future research. 
 
10 
 
  
  
  
  
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF LITERATURE  
 
Introduction 
 Increasing demand in educational support has shifted traditional classrooms to integrate 
technology into instructional practices.  Some of the most innovative and promising practices in 
education involve technology (Becker, 1998; Rakes, 2007; Swan, Hooft, Kratcoski, & 
Schenker, 2007).  These practices provide great educational capabilities for teachers to 
implement technology in their classroom instructions.  Research findings suggest learning in 
technology rich environments may help close gaps in academic performance between special 
needs and general education students (Swan, et al., 2007).  In order to apply educational 
technology effectively in classrooms, teachers should prepare themselves to use technology 
resources well.  ?If technology use can encourage successful learner-centered instructional practices 
that positively affect student achievement, it is important to identify factors that promote and/or 
prevent technology adoption? (Rakes, 2007).  Teachers? pedagogical views can be the driving force 
to integrate these new innovations in ways that support student achievement.  More constructivist 
teaching methods should be adapted by classroom teacher in order to reach the full potential and 
educational value of technological resources.  
Despite all the technological innovations available, there is little advancement in using 
technological tools (Brownell, 1997).  With the exception of post-secondary institutions 
effectively implemented various computer programs and other technological tools, K?12 
schools are less active in such technological changes (Brownell, 1997).  Only a marginal number 
11 
 
of K?12 schools and teachers went forward with integrated technology into their classroom 
instruction.  One of the problems with technological advances in general education has been a 
lack of success in integrating  technology into the curriculum (Bernauer, 1995).  Recently, 
rapid technological progress has driven a majority of the remaining K?12 institutions to 
reconsider their views on teaching and training processes in order to obtain satisfactory result 
on both state and national benchmarks. 
Types of Schools 
Magnet Schools 
The idea of magnet schools has been in existence since the 1970 (Neild, 2004).  Magnet 
schools provided local school systems an alternative for student education long before the 
recent popularity of voucher programs and charter schools.  According to Goldring and 
Smrekar (2000), magnet schools served as incentives to parents and students, offering 
specialized curricular themes or instructional formats, with the idea of improving scholastic 
standards and providing a range of individualized programs that caters to the talents and 
interest of its students.  With this idea in mind, have magnet school teachers integrated their 
use of technology in their classroom instructional strategies at a greater rate than a more 
traditional/comprehensive classroom teacher?  There are obvious advantages that magnet 
schools possess that comprehensive schools do not enjoy.  In most cases, children who attend 
magnet programs are hand-picked students who are ?higher achievers? from middle class 
socio-economic backgrounds (Neild, 2004).   A major difference, worth investigating, is that 
magnet schools differ from comprehensive schools in pedagogical emphasis, not intellectual 
disparities among their students (Doyle & Levine, 1984).  Doyle and Levine (1984) goes 
further to suggest that ?magnet schools offer a setting in which teacher-generated reform can 
12 
 
take place.?  The demands and expectations of these students and their teachers are perceived 
greater by the communities in which they represent.  Teachers at magnet programs are 
expected to challenge students who are considered highly motivated learners with advanced 
skills (Doyle & Levine, 1984; Neild, 2004).  One study suggested that although magnets 
schools may set higher academic standards, their organizational structure is no different from 
other schools that service students in the same age group (Doyle & Levine).  If this is the case, 
there will be little change in instructional strategy.  The incorporation or reluctance to 
incorporate technology will parallel that of a traditional/comprehensive classroom teacher.  
However, if the alternative is true and magnet program teachers are truly innovators in a 
setting which allows for teacher-generated reform, then the idea of greater technology 
integration by these teachers should be more apparent than teachers in a traditional more 
comprehensive setting.  
Comprehensive High Schools      
When evaluating the comprehensive high school concept in American education one 
would look at the model outlined by James B. Conant in 1959 (Conant, 1959; Hammack, 
2004).  A comprehensive high school is a nonselective high school aimed at servicing students 
within a local community.  These comprehensive high schools, sometimes known as traditional 
high schools, offer a variety of programs for the student body while maintaining an interest in 
forging communicable bonds among its hosted population (Hammack, 2004).  According to 
Conant (1959) high school education did not involve issues of pedagogy only, but also 
included social and political ones as well.  ?Education can inculcate the social and political 
ideals necessary for the development of a free and harmonious people operating an economic 
system based on private ownership and the profit motive but committed to the ideas of social 
13 
 
justice? (Conant, 1959).  The framework for this system has shifted to address a different 
content of student.  Many students who enter these comprehensive high schools enters and 
often leaves with weak academic skills and are inadequately trained for future education or the 
workforce (Kemple, Herlihy, & Findings, 2004).  Schools as a whole are being asked to 
restructure educational programs, balancing students? abilities with societal needs (Marx, 
2006).  This is becoming more difficult as the faces of these comprehensives schools changes. 
Large shifts in demographics are asking schools to service a diverse group of students that are 
largely minority and poor (Hammack, 2004).  Under these conditions educators are asked to 
engage a larger variety of student learners, who in some cases have become disenfranchised 
with the learning process.  Reports of academic disengagement, failures, and dropouts have 
many shuffling for improvement ideas (Hammack, 2004). 
Technology Trends 
 With the onset of computers and other electronic devices a world which once seemed 
unlimitedly miles apart now lies at the end of your fingertips.  ?The pace of change, fueled by 
technology, is unrelenting? (Marx, 2006).  In today?s high access world global information can be 
downloaded from home, the office, a cell phone, or any number of personal digital assistants (PDA) 
devices.  News papers and televised news broadcasts have become a less important source for many 
when it comes to keeping up with local and global society.  The changes felt by technological 
innovations have expanded well past how we obtain information into how we operate in our 
everyday lives.  Many of today?s opportunities in employment are based on the ability to interpret 
and operate within a technology rich environment.  The shift from the industrial age to a global 
knowledge one has placed challenges on today?s schools to prepare students for a system enriched 
in a global knowledge/information age (Marx, 2006).  This challenge was made clear by President 
14 
 
Barack Obama (2009), forty-fourth president of the United States, as he addressed the nation in his 
inauguration address.   
For everywhere we look, there is work to be done.  The state of the economy calls for 
action, bold and swift, and we will act ? not only to create new jobs, but to lay a new 
foundation for growth.  We will build the roads and bridges, the electric grids and digital 
lines that feed our commerce and bind us together.  We will restore science to its rightful 
place, and wield technology's wonders to raise health care?s quality and lower its cost.  
We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories.  
And we will transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a 
new age.  All this we can do.  And all this we will do... (Obama, 2009) 
Schools in America are called upon to prepare students to compete for employment in fields that 
require skills which rapidly evolve and for jobs that do not currently exist (Aubin, 2009).  Gary 
Marx (2006) has listed the skills and knowledge students will need to face the new era as 
following:  
1. Basic management and entrepreneurial skills 
2. The need to collaborate with others 
3. The ability to separate truth from fiction as they explore conflicting information that is 
expanding exponentially 
4. Critical and creative thinking skills  
5. Technology savvy  
6. An understanding of different cultural backgrounds   
 Schools are able to meet these challenges by better preparing students to use the sources of 
technology available to them responsibly and with ethical morals.  The focus of schools needs to be 
15 
 
on developing curriculum that embraces 21st technology tools as a catalyst to developing skills and 
enhancing the classroom experience (Aubin, 2009). 
Teaching Models  
Traditional Model 
One of the more commonly used instructional strategies incorporated in today?s classroom 
would be Direct Instruction (DI).  The term ?Direct Instruction? refers to a rigorously developed, 
highly scripted method of teaching that is fast-paced and provides constant interaction between 
students and the teacher (Lindsay, 2001).  This form of instruction, coined in 1968 by Siegfried 
Engelmann, is very teacher centered and holds the classroom teacher accountable for what the 
student does or does not learn.  In this model the teacher is the expert on topics, demonstrating 
desired responses.  The teacher?s role is much like a broadcaster that reports directly to students 
what they want them to know, while the students? role is to pay attention, take notes, and memorize 
salient information for testing (Strom & Strom, 2009).  The pre-scripted lessons do not allow room 
for exploration of ideas.  The student investigation of independent concerns becomes secondary to 
procedure and practice.  The assumption of the DI model is that the teaching will accelerate learning 
(Engelmann, 1997; Lindsay, 2001).  This is achieved through a process of chunking information 
together, only pulling that information which would result in desired outcomes.  Generalizations or 
rules are taught in order to apply basic understandings to more abstract problems (Engelmann, 
1997).  This process may work for early elementary children who are building a foundation for 
learning.  However, the process of oral and rote reciting as an independent component of learning is 
not working in the secondary settings.  This could be one of the causes when considering that 
adolescents are losing interest in learning once they reach the secondary level.  There seemingly 
appears to be some sort of disconnect among students and learning following the primary education 
16 
 
years.  Considering the number of hours adolescents spend with technology?video games, email, 
cell phones, and computers has impacted how they interact, interpret information and how they 
learn (Aubin, 2009).     
Non-Traditional Model  
With the influx of technologies available to today?s students, puts learning directly into their 
hands is becoming more advantages to the learning process.  The student becomes empowered, able 
to explore topics that are deemed interesting to them.  Under these conditions the classroom teacher 
is no longer considered the sole source of information.  With the occurrence of computers and 
technological achievements, the opportunities in education, research, observation, and results 
analysis largely increased and gave a chance for further development of the educational curriculum 
(Bernauer, 1995).  Currently, more students learn how to use computers in the libraries, at their 
homes or dormitories, and at Internet hotspots located at various public places such as restaurants 
and parks throughout the community (Becker, 1998).  They use these technological tools in order to 
communicate, exchange pictures and files, search for assorted information, and many other 
recreational activities.  Students then return to a traditional classroom disappointed by the lack of 
opportunity to further develop their expertise in technology in school (Strom & Strom, 2009).  
Electronic books have become more popular among young learners.  The majority of these 
students prefer to look for information in online libraries or search engines than go to a local 
library where they may have to stand in long lines and then read printed materials, which can be 
rather hard to manipulate (Becker, 1998).  The children of today have evolved from traditional 
learners onto individuals who are heavily influenced by technology.   Many students have claimed a 
disconnect between life online after school and methods of learning in the classroom (Strom & 
Strom, 2009).  
17 
 
Constructivism 
Constructivism as a theory of learning has its historical constructs in the works of John 
Dewey (Dewey, 1916) as well as the works of Jean Piaget (Piaget, 1973) and Lev Vygotsky 
(Vygotsky, 1978).  In the constructivist view of learning, the learner uses their own experiences 
and prior knowledge to create an understanding that makes sense to them.  Glenda Rakes (2007) 
outlines a constructivist learning environment as having the following four characteristics: 
1. The student construct their own learning 
2. Learning depends on a link between new information and existing understanding of 
the student  
3. Social interaction is critical to the learning process  
4. Authentic learning tasks are important for learning  
 Constructivism is a theory of knowing (Matzen & Edmunds, 2007).  As a learner, the learning 
process becomes more meaningful if the knowledge gained relates to the student's current 
situations.  This understanding is obtained through a sequence of authentic tasks which allows 
the student to learn through exploration.  The student relates the gathering of new ideas to past 
experiences of successes and failures.  In traditional classrooms, students are typically not 
provided with whole, dynamic learning experiences, but rather with limited, arbitrary activities 
(Rakes, et al., 2006).  The constructive approach to education allows both the student and the 
teacher to become more active or interactive in the learning processes.  The constructivist style 
of learning challenges the student to apply their knowledge of previous subjects and relate such 
knowledge to current task.  These associations to prior knowledge helps to bring the learning 
experience from a passive auditoria state into a real live, breathing substance that will make the 
experience outlast the activity.  Research suggests that ready access to a variety of technologies 
18 
 
makes certain kinds of teaching and learning more possible (Becker, 1998; Dunn & Rakes, 
2009; Swan, et al., 2007).  The use of these technologies also grants the classroom teacher the 
freedom to give more authentic assessment of their students? performance.  This assessment 
process allowed teachers the ability to take advantage of the different tools that will assist in 
the students? education.  A change in the instructional use of computers was found to be 
dependent upon understanding the instructional practices needed to use technology while 
teaching the curriculum (Matzen & Edmunds, 2007). 
Constructivist Behaviors  
In many studies the connection between the use of technology and constructivism are 
parallel.  Teacher beliefs concerning their personal ability to effectively use technology and 
their belief regarding the potential effect on student achievement is quite possibly a significant 
factor in determining what actually happens in the classroom (Rakes, Fields, & Cox, 2006).  A 
large reason for this reluctance, among K?12 teachers, to use technology in their classrooms 
depends heavily on their own pedagogical views of learning.  The philosophy of 
constructivism is not new to education, but the ways in which it is applied to education are still 
evolving ( Rakes, et al., 2006).  It is the classroom teacher who institutes change in classroom 
instruction.  Many teachers and students agreed, technology integration resulted in higher 
quality student work, and pre-to post-test gains as well as analysis of student work revealed 
high levels of conceptual understanding (Swan, et al., 2007).  There was a significant positive 
correlation between the change in general instructional practices and change in the 
instructional use of computers.  The relationship between constructivist compatible 
instructional and technology use continues (Matzen & Edmunds, 2007).  Research documents 
changes in teaching and learning in a ubiquitous computing classroom and suggests that these 
19 
 
changes may be related to the supports such environments provide for new representation, 
conceptualizations, and uses of knowledge that ubiquitous computing environments afford 
(Swan, et al., 2007).  It is the conclusion of the research found that the connection between 
technology use in the classroom and pedagogical views was interconnected to a constructivist 
epistemology. 
Largely absent in this discussion of teachers changing their instructional style and the 
role of technology as a catalyst in that process is a focus on the teacher and how he or she 
thinks and learns (Dexter, Anderson, & Becker, 1999).  In a case study, Dexter, Anderson, and 
Becker (1999) noted that a majority of teachers classified as constructivist believed that 
computers helped them make the change to more constructivist practices.  Constructivist 
teachers were acknowledged as those who frequently incorporated creative instructional 
practices, innovative interdisciplinary themes, individual or group projects of some complexity 
and duration, and used content linked to student interests and/or personal concerns.  These 
teachers? practices reflected a belief that understanding is deeper and long lasting when 
students are cognitively engaged with ideas that are personally meaningful (Dexter, et al., 
1999).  Constructivist teachers in essence do not adhere to traditional assessment tools. 
Teachers labeled as constructivist chose to incorporate complex qualitative judgment, going 
well beyond fixed-choice, short answer paper and pencil test (Dexter, et al., 1999).  Teachers 
in these constructivist classes sometimes gave students representational choices and 
encouraged students constructions and sharing in a variety of representational forms, including 
presentations to audiences beyond the classroom (Swan, et al., 2007).  The integration of 
technology in the instructional practices of teachers allows education to become limitless, 
regardless of any geographical limitations.  This can only be successful if the teacher identifies 
20 
 
their role. Teachers will act more as facilitators by helping students? access information, process it, 
and communicate their understanding (Dexter, et al., 1999).  The classroom teacher encourages the 
thinking process, knowing when to allow the student?s exploratory side to venture and when to 
step in with suggestions to get the student back on track.  It is the teacher?s responsibility to keep 
the students actively involved and engaged.  Most importantly, the classroom teacher faces the 
challenges of being able to authentically access the student's progress.  It is argued that a student 
doesn't really learn unless that student is able to explain what has been learned. 
There are still teachers who may use technology in ways that support the traditional 
models of instruction.  These teachers may be described as weak constructivist teachers.  Weak 
constructivist teachers were described as teachers who incorporate a greater-than-average focus 
on understanding concepts rather than merely automating skills or remembering facts, and 
made use of interpersonal processes as well, including discussion.  Weak constructivist 
teachers may still rely on grading, recognition, or the promise of future benefits as a motivator. 
Teachers may use technology in ways inconsistent with their general instructional practices 
because many see technology as a new, and somewhat unfamiliar, tool (Matzen & Edmunds, 
2007).  
Still Dexter, Anderson, and Becker (1999) were able to identify a third group of 
teachers in which they labeled as non-constructivist teachers.  In their observations they found 
that these teachers  
believed that the primary objects of learning are the mastery of a set of skills, the recall 
of important facts, and the learning of discipline-valued abstract concepts through 
direct listing, reading, note-taking, and practice in the solving of related problems or 
examples. (Dexter, Anderson, & Becker, 1999) 
21 
 
Even though students must learn facts and basic skills, the data suggest that emphasis on 
advanced reasoning skills promotes higher student performance ( Rakes, et al., 2006).  Given 
this information a majority of these teachers still chose to implement more of a routine 
structured learning environment that is most frequently related to traditional classrooms.  
Despite substantial grant-funded infusion of money for training and equipment, these teachers 
still perceived their ability to use technology as extremely limited, whether because of lack of 
access to equipment or lack of time to use technology ( Rakes, et al., 2006).  
Many of the non-constructivist teachers who now serve in the classroom were trained 
under a more traditional view of education.  In order for these teachers to learn to implement 
the proper use of technology into instructional goals they must transform their own 
pedagogical ideas.  Transformation can take place from traditional to constructivist 
epistemologies in relation to collective and individual perspectives (Hung, Tan, & Koh, 2006). 
When constructivism is used effectively, teachers incorporate the ideas of students to prepare 
the lesson that they will teach in their classrooms (Rakes, et al., 2006).  In their research 
Dexter, Anderson, and Becker (1999) found that the most mentioned influence on teachers? 
changed practices was insights about their own effectiveness, gained as a result of reflection. 
Teachers must be introduced to ideas in a constructivist setting. When teachers are provided 
with technology professional development focusing primarily on technical skills, they may fall 
back on technology uses consistent with their existing instructional practices simply because 
they have not been provided with an alternative vision for the use of technology (Matzen & 
Edmunds, 2007). These types of professional development experience in theory will more than 
likely result in little to no technology integration.  
22 
 
The idea of integrating technology into the classroom lies with the classroom teacher.  
It is the classroom teacher that controls the environment in the classroom.  In essence, it is the 
classroom teacher who decides how much and what kinds of technology will be used in their 
classrooms (Oncu, Delialioglu, & Brown, 2008).  When discussing this topic, one must 
consider that there are barriers that exist which may hinder epistemological transformation.  A 
teacher?s epistemology, according to Wetzel (2002), is a product of an individual?s prior 
knowledge base, development, and professional experiences.  Simply exposing teachers to 
technology does not equal a teacher?s willingness or ability to integrate these technologies into 
their lessons (So & Kim, 2009).  Teachers must find substance and reason behind fundamental 
changed to their philosophies. New innovations introduced to teachers who are reluctant to 
change must be shown evidence where these innovations serve the purpose of promoting 
students? learning experiences; dissemination information; and improving communication, 
assessment, and student practice better or more efficiently than the current system (Oncu, et 
al., 2008).  A paradigmatic shift in pedagogical approaches to education must exist for such 
changes to exist (Dexter, et al., 1999; Wetzel, 2002). Wetzel (2002) suggest that teachers who 
are resistant to change experience reluctance primarily because of their concerns regarding 
?the influence of instructional technology integration on their preparation, beliefs, and values.? 
One research study identified six areas of concern when it came to integration technology into 
curriculum (Hew & Brush, 2007).  These areas are listed as: resources, institution, subject 
culture, attitudes and beliefs, knowledge and skills, and assessment.  These concerns must be 
addressed in order for teachers to feel comfortable implementing new instructional strategies 
and tools.  
 
23 
 
Application of Technology in the Classroom 
The results of various studies support technology integration, suggesting that 
technology increases the ability of many students to learn mathematics and other science 
subjects because students who regularly used the computer-based learning practice methods 
found mathematics, science and other similar subjects very interesting and simple (Downs, 
Carlson, Repman, & Clark, 1999; Nguyen, Hsieh, & Allen, 2006; Schallert, 2006).  The main 
reason for such feedback after using computer-based and web-based techniques is that the 
computer provides flexible features and enjoyable ways of learning.  This process increases the 
student's ability to spend more hours at a computer to complete his/her tasks without feeling 
bored as with the traditional type of assignments and assessment tools.  
Recently, more middle and junior high schools have given preference to computer-
enhanced problem-based learning (PBL) environment on students? learning skills and attitudes 
toward such subjects as science, mathematics, and chemistry.  A computer-enhanced PBL 
provides new and different means for students to develop problem-solving skills, reflect on their 
own learning, and develop a deep understanding of the content domain (Schallert, 2006).  
Using constructivist-appropriate measures, such learning environments should lead to higher 
achievements than more traditional learning environments (Rosen & Salomon, 2007).  
Technological achievements have been proven to greatly influence the education field when 
more computer-and web-based techniques and tools are included into educational curriculum.  
Computer-based and web-based K?12 school techniques help students to improve their 
analytical skills and attitude towards the subject itself.  According to the National Council of 
Teachers of Mathematics, mathematics games may be the best way to ensure that students get 
the basic mathematical skills they need to be successful in life, while at the same time promoting 
24 
 
an enjoyment of mathematics and motivation to teach such subjects (Schallert, 2006).  
 Computer-based tools lead to the following positive results: creating a sense of challenge 
and accomplishment, promoting curiosity, and encouraging a sense of personal control.  The 
results from Schallert?s (2006) study showed the students' abilities to perceive scientific 
information quickly and easily.  The students were able to implement their knowledge in 
science while completing certain tasks and assignments.  These results are very supportive to 
some other studies that evaluated the effectiveness of the computer-enhanced PBL 
atmosphere.  The findings of Schallert?s (2006) study suggest that a computer-enhanced PBL 
programs are promising in helping sixth-graders gain science knowledge. 
The use of computer games in the classroom can be used to increases students' attitude 
toward mathematical scores.  Van Eck (2006) showed that participants who used advisement 
more often than others would have higher attitude toward mathematics scores.  He also 
showed that participants in the non-competitive simulation and game conditions would have 
more positive attitude toward mathematics than those in the competitive simulation game 
conditions.  Computer games are able to increase learning skills, promote persistence, and 
provide positive affective response toward instruction.  Van Eck?s (2006) research suggest that 
it would be more useful to make investigations that are more systematic in its approach when 
evaluating both the positive and negative influences of technological tools, computer games 
and/or programs on classroom practices and students? outcomes. 
Many teachers reported, in the findings of Swan, Hooft, Kratcoski, and Schenker 
(2007), that ready accessibilty of visual representation in the ubiquitous computing classroom 
helped lower performimg students better understand key concepts.  It is the belief of some 
education circles that technology has established itself as having a useful impact on classroom 
25 
 
practices and student outcomes.  In the study of middle school students the research supports the 
idea that there have been increases in students' science and mathematics achievement and self-
efficacy for learning these subjects after their engagement in a computer-enhanced PBL 
environment (Schallert, 2006). 
Another impact of the technology on the educational process in the classroom is using 
the web-based assessment in school instead of traditional assessment (Downs, Carlson, Repman 
& Clark, 1999).  In a recent study, there have been documented results of research that evaluate 
the difference between web-based assessment and traditional assessment as it influences 
student learning.  Nguyen, Hsieh, and Allen (2006) did a study on the impact of web-based 
assessment and practices on students' mathematics learning attitudes.  The results concluded that 
web-based assessment gives a lot of benefits to the student/teacher relationship and is useful and 
effective for the curriculum and classroom instruction.  Another benefit of using a web-based 
assessment tool is that the teachers can improve students? mind-set and enthusiasm toward the 
learning subject.  Based on the results of research (Nguyen, et al., 2006), web-based 
assessment gave opportunities to students to practice more, test themselves, regulate 
themselves, and make evaluation of their knowledge and skills by themselves. 
While an increasing number of teachers and professors support the usage of computer 
tools in the classroom, others think that technology mainly has negative effects on the 
educational process.  Schallert (2006), emphasized the usage of PBL in the classrooms can 
present some unsolicited challenges.  Technology integrated into the classroom and in 
education methods can have some bad points, such as making plagiarism an easy way for the 
students to complete their assignment (Norton, 1994).  In recent years, the Internet became one 
of the main technological achievements and advantages in the world. Its main positive and 
26 
 
efficient feature is that it helped millions of people to ease the process of finding necessary 
information very quickly and precisely. The internet has led to some negative results such as 
plagiarism in students? research papers, which recently became one of the main problems of the 
schools and universities (Paterson, 2007).   
The problem of plagiarism became especially crucial after the revolution of 
globalization and instant communication as a means of accessing information.  Charlie Lowe is 
a writing professor at Grand Valley State University near Grand Rapids and the spokes person of 
the Conference on College Composition and Communication (CCCC).  According to her point of 
view, the main problem of plagiarism is that the teachers are trying to catch the students on 
plagiarized papers and make them guilty until the opposite is to be proved.  Charlie Lowe 
thinks that the software for detecting the plagiarized papers can set the tone for an unhealthy 
and bad atmosphere for writing among the students. A s she emphasizes, ?We [teachers] have 
to teach students about plagiarism, but if all we do is catch them without taking responsibility 
for the process, how do they learn about the proper use of research material? Technology is no 
substitute for good teaching? (Paterson, 2007).   
Some educators are totally against technology in education and support the old methods 
and techniques of teaching students how they can properly write the research papers, use 
citations and references, paraphrasing, etc. (Robson & Whitesitt, 1999).  A British company 
developed a software program called Computational Forensic Linguistics (CFL), which 
provides students with some good options and aids to help them write their own papers without 
using plagiarizing. For example, the program includes search detection service to cite the 
research for the student.  Its Copy Checker is one of the software features that help the students 
avoid plagiarism (Paterson, 2007).  In addition, the software provides ?notes with work? 
27 
 
function that divides the PC screen into two windows allowing the student to see the data and 
write his/her own paper at the same time.  Moreover, this program is very friendly to the 
students since it allows them to copy and paste, but at the end helps to make the right citations 
and see the difference between the primary data and what the student can write by him/herself. 
Those kinds of programs can help students a great deal.  As a result, gradually they inspire the 
students to write the whole paper by themselves avoiding plagiarism (Paterson, 2007).  
Transformational Leadership 
 The idea of transformation existing ideas in order address present and future needs is not 
a new idea.  Change and adjustment are key components attributed to school success. These 
changes can only take place if the infrastructure is guided by strong leadership.  
Transformational leadership is one such style of leadership that can guide needed change.  The 
inventiveness of transformational leadership is not a new thought.  The idea of transformational 
leadership was first developed by James McGregor Burns in 1978 and later extended by Bernard 
Bass as well as others (Liontos, 1992).  Both Burns and Bass based their work on political 
leaders, Army officers, or business executives.  Transformational leadership builds personal and 
social identification among its members with the mission and goals of the leader and 
organization (Bass, Avolio, Jung, & Berson, 2003).  Avolio (2003) believes this can build on 
these initial levels of trust by establishing a deeper sense of identification among followers with 
respect to the unit?s values, mission, and vision.  
 In recent years, views on the direction of school leadership changed greatly with new 
demands placed national performance and accountability.  Much like many concepts in 
education, transformational leadership as it relates to education has been adopted from studies of 
what works in the fields of business and military operations.  Evidence shows that there are 
28 
 
similarities in transformational leadership whether it is in a school setting or a business 
environment (Liontos, 1992).  Transformational leadership contains four components: charisma 
or idealized influence (attributed or behavioral), inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, 
and individualized consideration (Bass & Steidlmeier, Ethics, Character, and Authentic 
Transformational Leadership Behavior, 2004).  As it relates to schools, Liontos (1992) writes 
that he has found that transformational leadership pursues three fundamental goals:  
1. Helping staff develop and maintain a collaborative, professional school culture. This 
means staff members often talk, observe, critique, and plan together.  
2. Fostering teacher development. Teacher?s motivation for development is enhanced 
when they internalize goals for professional growth.  
3. Helping teachers solve problems more effectively. Transformational leadership is 
valued by some because it stimulates teachers to engage in new activities and put 
forth that ?extra effort?.  
   Previous forms of leadership have not offered such liberties that are allowed by 
transformational leadership.  Instructional leadership encompasses hierarchies and top-down 
leadership, where the leader is supposed to know the best form of instruction and closely 
monitors teachers? and students? work (Liontos, 1992).  This form leadership can limit teacher 
creativity and influence needed to support the reluctant learner.  Another form of leadership 
evaluated by Liontos (1992) was transactional leadership.  Transactional leadership involves 
contingent reinforcement.  Followers are motivated by the leaders? promises, praise, and 
rewards; or they are corrected by negative feedback, reproof, threats, and disciplinary actions 
(Bass & Steidlmeier, Ethics, Character, and Authentic Transformational Leadership Behavior, 
2004).  Transactional leadership is based on an exchange of services (from a teacher, for 
29 
 
instance) for various kinds of reward (such as a salary) that the leader controls, at least in part 
(Liontos, 1992).  Transactional contingent reward leadership ?establishes clear standards and 
expectations of performance, which builds the basis of trust in a leader (Bass, Avolio, Jung, & 
Berson, 2003).  This form of leadership, much like instructional leadership, limits the teacher?s 
ability to make independent decisions or mistakes and learn without threat of reprimand.  The 
transformational leader will accept that there will be failures and blind canyons along the way.  
As long as they feel progress is being made, they will be happy (Straker, 2002).    
 Transformational leaders provide an inspiring vision of goals that can help overcome 
self-interest and narrow factionalism in organizations and nations (Nye, 2008).  In the field of 
education this can prove to be vital to the construction and operation of a productive learning 
organization.  Transformational leaders involve staff in collaborative goal setting, reduce teacher 
isolation, use bureaucratic mechanisms to support cultural changes, share leadership with others 
by delegating power, and actively communicate the school?s norms and beliefs (Liontos, 1992).  
When applied properly a transformational leader can create an environment that raises the level 
of local conditions and aspirers both the leader as well as the led.  The transformational leader 
treats each follower as an individual and provides coaching, mentoring and growth opportunities; 
transformational leaders are concerned about developing their followers into leaders (Bass & 
Steidlmeier, Ethics, Character, and Authentic Transformational Leadership Behavior, 2004).  
This type of thinking will allow for a greater collaborative effort among group members. The 
transformational leader thus takes every opportunity and will use whatever works to convince 
others to climb on board the bandwagon.  The transformational leader has to be very careful in 
creating trust, and their personal integrity is a critical part of the package that they are selling 
(Straker, 2002).  Transformational leadership builds personal and social identification among its 
30 
 
members with the mission and goals of the leader and organization (Bass, Avolio, Jung, & 
Berson, 2003).  Transformational leadership practices have a sizable influence on teacher 
collaboration, and significant relationships exist between aspects of transformational leadership 
and teachers? own reports of changes in both attitudes toward school improvement and altered 
instructional behavior (Liontos, 1992). 
 One of the major concerns with the idea of transformational leadership is that the leader 
is not an authentic transformational leader.  Most leaders have a profile of the full range of 
leadership that includes both transformational and transactional factors (Bass & Steidlmeier, 
Ethics, Character, and Authentic Transformational Leadership Behavior, 2004).  Transformation 
is not enough. Good leadership is not merely inspiring people with a transformational vision but 
also involves a capacity for creating and maintaining the system and systems and institutions that 
allows both effective and moral implementation (Nye, 2008).   Maintaining high standards of 
performance, Avolio (2004) adds, appear to require both transformational and transactional 
leadership.  
One way that a leader can reinforce change is through a strong professional 
development program.  Hargreaves (2005) stated connecting teacher development to student 
learning ultimately focuses clearly on student learning as the outcome of professional 
development activities. In order to build communities that learn, leaders may need to challenge 
and change well-established aspects of teachers culture (Robinson & Timperley, 2007).  In 
teacher professional development that benefits students as well as teachers, leaders are 
proactive in addressing and supporting teachers in making changes (Robinson & Timperlry, 
2007).  The success of a learning organization seems to be measured by the skills of the 
professional learner as well as the leader?s ability to support and foster professional learning.  
31 
 
According to Braimoh (2008) learning is a continuous phenomenon and therefore, no one, 
irrespective of age position, riches or popularity, will ever deliberately or inadvertently wish to 
stop learning.  
Professional Development 
On-going professional development can serve as the catalyst for addressing the 
concerns of transitioning teachers.  Professional development should include strategies that 
create meaningful change in schools.  Research is becoming increasingly clear that schools 
most successful in creating are those functioning as learning organizations or schools where 
every person and the organization itself are consciously and continuously learning (Kottkamp 
& Osterman, 2004).   
Professional development is critical to ensuring that teachers keep up with changes in 
statewide student performance standards, become familiar with new methods of 
teaching in the content area, learn how to make the most effective instructional use of 
new technologies for teaching and learning, and adapt their teaching to shifting school 
environments and an increasingly diverse student population. (Lawless & Pellegrino, 
2007) 
Hargreaves (2005) explains that in a knowledge society, teachers must be equipped to teach 
students from all socioeconomic strata, and to bring out the best in all of them.  Thus, teachers 
need to engage in the kind of professional development that promotes teacher learning, so that 
they can effectively carry out the highly complex task of fostering student learning.  
One such form of professional development is collaborative Continuing Professional 
Development (CPD).  According to researchers at the University of Texas:  
32 
 
Continuing Professional Development essentially involves a cycle in which individual 
participants reflect on their practice and make self-assessments of their knowledge and 
skills, identify learning needs in order to create a personal learning plan, implement or 
act on the plan, then evaluate the effectiveness of the plan in relation to their practice 
(Pharmacy, 2008).  
Teacher collaborative CPD gives teachers the opportunity to practice and learn without threats 
or fear of making mistakes.  Lieberman and Miller (2001) discussed that teachers, through 
proper professional development, can get use to new ways of working: struggling with difficult 
problems and contexts, expecting and receiving supportive and critical comments, and being 
with fellow teachers who are committed personally and professionally to improving their 
teaching and learning as a lifelong commitment. Collegial interaction depends on the 
participation of the entire learning community as they apply theory to meet the specific needs 
of the actual school.  ?A new paradigm of the teaching profession is needed, one that 
recognizes both the capacity of the profession to provide desperately needed school 
revitalization and the striking potential of teachers to provide new forms of leadership in 
schools and communities? (Crowther, Kaagan, Ferguson & Hann, 2002).  According to 
research conducted on collaborative CPU (Cordingley, Bell, Rundell, & Evens, 2005), when 
properly implemented, teachers have reported changes in behaviors which include:  
1. Greater confidence amongst the teachers. 
2. Enhanced beliefs amongst teachers of their power to make a difference to pupils? 
learning. 
3. The development of enthusiasm for collaborative working, notwithstanding initial 
anxieties about being observed and receiving feedback  
33 
 
4. A greater commitment to changing practice and willingness to try new things.  
All of these behavior modifications are essential to the learning process when dealing with 
changing prospective as well as addressing concerns based theories. . 
The Concerns-Base Adoption Model (CBAM) (Hall, 1973) is a tool that can aid in the 
process of outlining professional development by investigating individual?s experiences as 
they implement a new innovation (Hord & Loucks, 1980; Oncu, et al., 2008; Rakes, 2007). 
Viable professional development for the integration of technology has to consider the intent to 
produce long term pedagogical changes to individuals? practices.  This process may take years 
to fully incorporate.  The idea of change is a personal experience with individual concerns, 
which need to be considered and addressed by local change agents when implementing new 
programs or new technology tools (Wetzel, 2002).  According to Hord (1980), there are four 
basic assumptions addressed by the CBAM that helps underline the approach professional 
development: change is a process, not an event; change is accomplished by individuals first, 
then institutions; change is a highly personal experience; and change entails developmental 
growth in both feelings about and skills in using new programs.  
According to research Continual Professional providers must centralize their activities 
around how teachers learn (Evans, 2002; Fraser, 2005; Guskey, 2002). This process should 
include addressing the teachers concerns as well as connecting them to a learning community 
that fosters a positive learning experience. By creating learning communities each teacher is 
afforded the opportunity for dialogue among peers who are experiencing similar successes and 
failures. According to the research conducted by Pickering (2007), the most effective teacher 
learning is derived when teachers exchange personal experiences without fear of persecution or 
ridicule.  If successful Pickering (2007) believes that three key process will take place: 1. Self-
34 
 
aware engagement with their learning and consideration about their learning; 2. Real 
collaboration that leads to change in practice; and 3. a growing sense of responsibility for their 
professional development.     
Before change can take place one must indentify a personal need to modify their 
personal beliefs or habits. These changes in teachers are directly related to a teacher?s 
pedagogical practices. In order to bring about pedagogical change professional development 
providers must provide opportunities for the teachers to connect with what it is about their 
current practices need to change (Daly, 2009). This concept requires extensive teacher self-
awareness along with opportunities for continuous involvement in choices about Professional 
development activities. Changing practices is not a quick fix and the journey expands over an 
extensive period of time. Change is directed related to knowledge and understanding obtained 
through a process of practice-based developments which engages the learner and enhances the 
learning experience (Guskey, 2002). The learning experience becomes more meaningful when 
the learner has an opportunity to self-reflect as well as communicate their personal experiences 
with others who have embarked on a similar adventure.  
Through Collaboration with peers teachers are able to make sense of the changing 
world around them. Wenger (1998) identifies this collaborative effort as a ?community of 
practice? where the group builds knowledge together through practice and a shared network of 
experiences among its members. Literature that supports continual professional development 
acknowledges that a collaborative approach is essential to an effective design (Cordingley et 
al., 2005, 2007; Scrimshaw, 2004; Pickering 2007). According to research conducted by Fullan 
(2001) collaborative practices are outlined by five key concepts:  
35 
 
1. Teachers engage in frequent, continuous and increasingly concrete and precise talk 
about teaching practices. 
2. Teachers frequently observe each other teaching and provide each other with useful 
evaluations of their teaching.  
3. Teachers and administrators plan, design, research, prepare and evaluate teaching 
materials together. 
4. Expect Implementation dips (A smooth implementation can actually be a sign that 
not much is changing.).  
5. Change is a process, not an event. 
The benefits of a successful collaboration component to continual professional developments 
have been identified as a good source of obtaining peer support as well as means for soliciting 
specialized expertise as a teacher journeys on their day-to-day practices, observations and 
reflections (Cordingley et al., 2005).   
The goal of successful professional development in schools where new innovations are 
introduced is to change behavior which will lead to school improvement (Hord & Loucks, 
1980).  Ultimately, fundamental change comes from within an individual. Changes to attitudes 
and beliefs are a critical component to change.  According to Bodur, Brinberg, and Coupey 
(2000) a person?s belief controls their attitude toward a specific subject. . If implemented 
correctly the teacher begins to develop a growing sense of responsibility for their own 
professional development (Pickering, 2007). According to Pickering (2007) most of the 
teachers he interviewed were satisfied with their continual professional development 
opportunities provided over the last five years. The teachers felt a need for personal growth 
and that there needed to be a balance between personal and system (school and national) needs. 
36 
 
Pickering (2007) also reported that attitudes were shaped by interrelationships built upon 
structural and cultural factors that included teachers? career stages, age, and subject affiliation. 
Reports given by Guskey (2002) revealed that a successful continual professional development 
plan should be evaluated using five levels in which professional development can be judged: 1. 
Participants? reaction, 2. Participants? learning, 3. Organizational support and change, 4. 
Participants? use of new knowledge and skills, and 5. Students? learning outcomes. The 
research on collaborative continual professional development models have proven to provide 
growth within the individual teacher utilizing a support system that fosters improvements in 
student success.  
Conclusion 
Traditional instruction, such as Direct Instruction, gradually moves away from the strict 
didactic approach.  It becomes less uniform as it comes to incorporate constructivist-like 
elements such as team work and team based problem solving, which are then reflected in 
achievement measures (Rosen & Salomon, 2007).  With the rapid changes in technology as the 
tool of the future, classroom teachers are faced with demands to become more interactive in the 
schools? learning process.  In fact, statewide expectations and instructional emphases, such as 
performance assessment, or a new instructional focus adopted at their school, like cooperative 
learning (Dexter, et al., 1999).  Schools are transforming whether traditional classroom 
teachers are ready or not.  For constructivist epistemologies to be formed within school 
communities there should be authentic and evolutionary processes through which these 
pedagogies can be established between all parties and levels in the schooling system (Hung, et 
al., 2006).   Experiences, local circumstances, and needs influenced the change teachers 
decided to make and the approaches they decided to take (Dexter, et al., 1999).  In today?s 
37 
 
educational settings those instructional decisions have shifted towards the use of technology as 
a reflection of constructivist pedagogy.  Using constructivist-appropriate measures, such 
learning environments should lead to higher achievements than more traditional learning 
environments (Rosen & Salomon, 2007).  
The research in this review of literature leads to possible future research questions.  An 
investigation as to what types of professional development would best serve as a change agent 
for teachers switching from a more traditional epistemology into a constructivist-technological 
one.  How do students respond to technology integrated constructivist classrooms after being 
trained in a more restricted environment?  School official who are pour money into 
technological equipment are asking teachers to integrate these tools into classroom instruction.  
It would be more beneficial to study the connection that changes the mindset of teachers and 
students as they explore the use of technology as educational tool.     
The key to properly using technology in classrooms to support student success is 
largely based on proper professional development.  When teachers see technology modeled 
using constructivist compatible, student-centered approaches, they are likely to use it in that 
way (Matzen & Edmunds, 2007).  Most constructivist-oriented teachers in the Dexter, 
Anderson, and Becker (1999) study explicitly stated that the school-wide initiative or program 
which triggered the changes they made had been crafted to promote a constructivist view of 
learning.  When teachers become more comfortable with technology to the point where they 
can integrate it more effectively, they use it in ways that emphasize a more constructivist, 
learning-centered approach (Matzen & Edmunds, 2007).  It is the classroom teacher who is the 
true agent of change and it is the individual teacher who decides to use technological tools in 
the classroom in a constructivist manner.  To make these decisions teachers will draw upon 
38 
 
their knowledge and expertise of what works in the classroom (Dexter, et al., 1999).  Teachers? 
strong, basic technology skill levels appear to provide teachers with a comfort level with 
computers needed to support constructivist teaching practices ( Rakes, et al., 2006).  In order 
for that knowledge to include the use of computers, teachers must have opportunities with 
computers, modeling of how they work in instruction, and opportunities to reflect on their, and 
the computer?s, role in the learning process (Dexter, et al., 1999).  Technology use was 
compatible with new teacher roles, reported Matzen and Edmunds (2007), with several 
teachers reporting that technology led them to give their students more control after they 
witnessed what students were able to do.  This can only take place if teachers are given the 
support to see and make changes for their own personal assessment.  A supportive context with 
rich professional development experiences and a professional culture that encourages 
reflection and trying new approaches will produce the learning necessary for technology use to 
become a part of a teacher?s decision making (Dexter, et al., 1999).  This interaction may 
depend at least partly on the type of professional development received (Matzen & Edmunds, 
2007).  
 
 
  
39 
 
  
  
  
  
 
CHAPTER THREE: METHODS 
 
 
Introduction 
Educational debate has questioned how to keep reluctant learners engaged in the 
education process as well as efforts to stay globally competitive.  Some of these discussions have 
encouraged the use of technology in the educational setting (Becker, 1998; Rakes, 2007; Swan, 
Hooft, Kratcoski, & Schenker, 2007).  In many aspects educators have done a good job adapting 
to new innovative practices involving technology.  However, there are still a few educators who 
have been sluggish about adapting technology into their classroom practices (Brownell, 1997).  
In order to convert the remaining non-technology integration teachers a shift to a more 
constructivist mind set with time to practice and adjust (Cuban, Kirkpatrick, & Peck, 2001; Dunn 
& Rakes, 2009).  These changes are not easily accepted and may take extended time to obtain.  
Time, concerns, beliefs, and attitudes are key components of change (Wetzel, 2002).  
In this study I have attempted to identify factors that relate to teachers? willingness to 
integrate technology into classroom instruction.  Teachers were asked to respond to questions 
concerning their personal concerns, attitudes, beliefs and pedagogical behaviors as they 
considered using technology integrated instruction in their classrooms.  Previous research has 
suggested that teachers must be willing to accept a change in pedagogical practices as a major 
component of integrating technology effectively into classroom instruction.  In order to 
implement change, a strong source of professional development is needed to allow teachers to 
transition through this process.  When dealing with this transition it is thought that an individual 
40 
 
flows through a maze of concerns that need to be addressed before true adoption can be 
accomplished.  To obtain maximum potential from technological tools, the classroom teachers 
are likely to be asked to adopt a more constructivist approach to the instruction and learning 
process. 
Role of Researcher  
The role of the researcher for this study was to collect data and examine results for 
commonality as well as differences of high school teachers who teach in both magnet and 
comprehensive high schools.  At the time of this study the researcher was a certified core teacher 
within the school system in which the schools were selected.  To aid in the process of elimination 
bias and/or an obligation to participate, the researcher recused the school at which he was 
currently employed from the study.  Other measures were taken for the remaining seven schools 
to help eliminate bias and/or obligation on the part of participants which have been outlined in 
the data collection section. 
Purpose of the Study 
The purpose of this study was to determine if there were any differences between 
traditional and magnet school teachers in concerns, attitudes, and pedagogy as these related to 
the use of technology in their classrooms.  The study has attempted to identify barriers that 
would prevent reluctant teachers from fully embracing technology integrated tools into their 
classrooms in support of authentic tasking and assessment.  The data collected would be essential 
in providing an outline for professional development that would enhance the use of technology in 
more of today?s classrooms. 
41 
 
Significance of Study 
 The technology available to classroom teachers is unlimited.  The process of being able 
to use technology well and guiding students through a maze of misinformation is crucial to the 
teaching and learning process.  The driving force to integrating these technologies into learning 
experiences lay directly with the classroom teacher.  Teachers? concerns about technology 
integration along with their pedagogical practices can be essential when relating these new 
innovations to supporting student achievement.  This study has investigated both traditional and 
magnet school teachers to identify connections that can be woven into common thread for the 
development of continuous professional development programs that will ease reluctant 
technology using teachers concerns about technology.  
In order to construct meaningful change in a culture certain elements must exist. 
Instructional leaders must guide a transformational change in pedagogy in order to ensure 
longitudinal transitions between education and developing technologies.  By addressing the 
needs and concerns of his constituents the transformational leader allows ownership to be 
transferred to the individuals who are expected to complete the given task.  This study has 
attempted to identify the concerns of in-service teachers as they incorporate technological 
resources into their classroom instruction.  The evidence found can be used to anticipate 
obstacles or predict levels of concerns in professional development offered to the remaining 
reluctant technology using teachers.  Continual professional development must be offered to 
support teachers as they transition thought the change process.  Professional development needs 
to offer its participants opportunities to practice and make self-assessments of content knowledge 
and skills.  This allows participants opportunities to identify learning needs and create personal 
learning goals.  These self determined plans can be implemented and evaluated as it relates to 
42 
 
ongoing practice.  This collaborative continuing professional development allows for support 
from others transitioning through the same process at different levels.  This procedure will 
hopefully ease the transition of incorporating technology as instructional support for student 
achievement.   
Research Design  
The design of this study consisted of a mixed methods approach.  The mixed method 
approach combined the collection and analyzing of both qualitative and quantitative data 
(Creswell, 2003). In this study both components were collected concurrently.  The addition of 
open-ended questions to the survey was incorporated to gain insight from teachers on their 
personal feelings/concerns with the process associated with integrating technology as well as  
what would be needed to help foster technology integration into their classroom instruction. 
Individual teacher surveys were used to gather data needed to explore teachers? attitudes, beliefs, 
and concerns about adopting technology into instructional strategies.  A different tool was used 
to determine teachers? overall pedagogical practices in regards to their classroom instruction.  
The study attempted to answer a sequence of questions aimed at gaining an in-depth look at 
teachers? processes for integrating technology.    
Research Questions 
Quantitative Research Questions 
The following quantitative research questions were used in this study. 
1. What is the relationship between teachers? constructivist behaviors and their attitudes 
towards integrating technology into classroom instruction? 
2. Is there a relationship between teacher attitudes towards informational technology and 
the integration of technology into classroom instruction? 
43 
 
3. Are there identifiable differences in the level of constructivist behavior between 
magnet and comprehensive high school teachers? 
4. Is there a difference in attitudes toward the use of technology for instructional 
purposes in magnet school teachers and comprehensive high school teachers?  
5. Is there a difference in terms of the level in which technology is integrated on the 
magnet school level than that of comprehensive high schools?   
Qualitative Research Questions  
The following qualitative research questions were identified in the study. 
1. What obstacles/barriers have teachers experienced that affect their level of 
confidence in adopting technology in classroom instruction?  
2. In what ways would teachers like to increase the level in which they use 
technology in the classroom?  
3. What helped or might help facilitate teachers? adoption of technology in 
classroom instruction?  
Description of Sample   
The participants targeted in this study were from seven schools within the same school 
system.  The participating school system is located in an urban section of south-central Alabama. 
It is one of the largest school systems in Alabama servicing approximately 32,000 students with 
about 4,500 employees.  The district has 59 schools with eight of these schools identified as 
secondary high schools.  Three of the schools are identified as magnet high schools while the 
remaining four are listed as comprehensive/traditional high schools with one serving as an 
alternative school.  By definition magnet schools are public schools that provide incentives to 
parents and students through specialized curricular themes or instructional methods (Goldring & 
44 
 
Smerkar, 2000).  According to the district?s website the magnet programs in this district offer 
curricular themes in the area of science, performing arts, technology, and accelerated academics 
to international studies.  Comprehensive/traditional high schools are described as neighborhood 
public schools where children are zoned by their addresses.  This particular district describes its 
traditional high schools as schools with a full range of curriculum complemented by cultural arts, 
music, foreign languages, technology, career-technical education, and athletic programs. This 
study did not include alternative high schools these were omitted from the pool of potential 
participants.  
Because of the nature of this study the researcher chose purposive sampling as a way to 
target participants.  Purposive sampling is a non-probability sampling method that is used to 
identify participants according to preselected criteria (Mack, Woodsong, MacQueen, Guest, & 
Namey, 2005).  The only criterion for the participants of this study was that they teach in one of 
four core academic areas and on grade levels nine through twelve.  The sample was collected 
from a possible 206 core academic high school teachers.  One hundred thirty teachers responded 
to the survey in its entirety.  The response rate for this particular study was 63%.   
Instrumentation  
 In an attempt to measure teachers? concerns, attitudes, beliefs, and constructivist related 
teaching practices the subjects were asked to complete a questionnaire.  The questionnaire was 
designed to be taken in one meeting and to last only 10 to 15 minutes.  All questionnaires were 
delivered to the teacher?s individual hub-site or school and administered by the primary 
researcher.  All questions were answered via long form with pencil and a paper copy of the 
questionnaire. 
45 
 
The questionnaire (see Appendix 1) was developed to gather data from teachers who 
teach one of four core academic subjects: English, Mathematics, Social Studies/History, and 
Science. The questionnaire was constructed by combining two pre-existing instruments.  The 
researcher added three open-ended questions in order to give the participants an opportunity to 
freely discuss their personal opinions which may not have been expressed directly through the 
regular questioning process.  Participants were also asked to answer basic demographic 
questions.  Demographic questions were used to identify relevant information concerning the 
participants.  The questionnaire asked participants to disclose information about which core 
subject area they taught, what was their highest degree obtained, at which of the two types of 
schools, magnet or comprehensive, are they employed, and the number of years teaching 
experience they have in the classroom.  
The two pre-existing instruments that was used to construct the current instrument was 
the Teachers? Attitudes Toward Information Technology (TAT) which was developed for the 
study of the effects of informational technology integration education on the attitudes of teachers 
(Christensen & Knezek, 2000).  This instrument was designed to measure teacher attitudes 
toward informational technologies such as e-mail, internet use, multi-media technology 
resources, and other technology resources integrated into classroom instruction.  The TAT was 
designed to measure instructional use of technology.  The instrument also addressed technology 
for teacher productivity; however, this section was removed from the current questionnaire 
because the researcher did not find it to be relevant to the current study.  The TAT was originally 
validated in 1997 on a group of 147 teachers from six K?12 schools in a large public school 
district in Texas.  The instrument was developed with the contributions from 14 computer 
attitudes questionnaires: 
46 
 
1. The Computer Attitude Scale (Gressard & Loyd, 1986) 
2. The Computer Use Questionnaire (Griswold, 1993) 
3. The Attitudes Toward Computers Scale (Reecec & Gable, 1982) 
4. The Computer Survey Scale (Stevens, 1982) 
5. The Computer Anxiety Rating Scale (CARS) (Heinssen, Glass, & Knight, 1987) 
6. The ATC(Attitudes Toward Computers) (Raub,1981) 
7.  The CAIN (Computer Anxiety Index) (Maurer & Simonson, 1984) 
8. The BELCAT (Blombert-Erickson-Lowery Computer Attitude Task) (Erickson, 
1987)  
9. The Attitude Toward Computer Scale (Francis, 1993) 
10. The Computer Attitude Measure (CAM) (Kay, 1993) 
11. The Computer Attitude Questionnaire (CAQ) (Knezek & Miyashita, 1993)  
12. The Computer Attitude Items (Pelgrum, Janssen Reinen, & Plomp, 1993) 
13. The Computer Attitudes Scale for Secondary Students (CASS) (Jones & Clarke, 
1994) 
14. E-Mail (D?Souza, 1992)  
All of the above mentioned instruments measured in part one or more of the following conditions 
as it relates to computers and technology integration: Confidence, anxiety, usefulness, 
awareness, general attitude, efficiency, or capability. Christensen (1997) used Cronbach?s alpha 
to establish internal consistency reliability with the alpha coefficients ranging from .93 to .96.  
  
47 
 
Table 1 
Alpha Reliability Coefficients for Original Survey 
Subscales Alpha No. of Variables  
Electronic Mail (e-mail)  .93 10 
Internet Usage  .95 10 
Multimedia Usage  .96 10 
Technology Resources .96 10 
   
The questionnaire was used to measure teachers? attitudes and beliefs on integration 
technology into classroom instruction.  The original instrument gathered data on five separate 
scales.  For the purpose of this study the researcher averaged across all items retained to obtain a 
scale value to represent teachers? instructional use of technology.  For this research study the 
researcher decided to omit one of the scales, computers for professional productivity.  The 
researcher ran Cronbach?s alpha, for the current study, to establish internal consistency reliability 
with the coefficients ranging from .93 to .97. The full scale reliability for the current study was 
.95.   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
48 
 
Table 2 
Alpha Reliability Coefficients for Current Survey 
Subscales Alpha No. of Variables  
Electronic Mail (e-mail)  .94 10 
Internet Usage  .93 10 
Multimedia Usage  .97 10 
Technology Resources .96 10 
 
The subscales in the initial instrument were constructed using semantic differential items 
from Zaichkowsky?s (1985) Modified Personal Involvement Inventory.  Semantic items are 
usually hand coded with a number from 1?7 each participant marks between an adjective pair 
which represents a person?s perceived significance of the indicator based on intrinsic needs, 
values, and interests (Zaichkowsky, 1985).  In the current research study the researcher decided 
to reduce the number of spaces between the adjective pairs from seven to five in order to be more 
uniformed with the other components of the current survey.  
Four of the items on each subscale had the ?negative? adjective position on the left-hand 
side of the scale.  The remaining six items have the ?positive? adjective located on the left-hand 
side of the scale.  The alternating design of the scale was an attempt to eliminate participant bias 
by helping ensure that participants do not place a scoring mark in all the right-hand column of 
the objects.  This procedure requires that the researcher reverses any negatively worded items 
before scoring the instrument.  The Predictive Analytics Software (PASW) 18 software was used 
to generate an average score combining all components from the four 10 item subscales.  This 
average will constitute the participant?s attitudes towards technology.  
49 
 
The second part to this questionnaire is designed to identify teachers? self analysis of the 
stage of concern when integrating technology into classroom instruction.  The instrument used to 
measure the relationship of attitudes to stages of adoption was the Stages of Adoption of 
Technology (Christensen & Kenzen, 1997) indicator.  This instrument was based on the 
Concerns-Based Adoption Model (Loucks, Newlove, & Hall, 1975).  The adoption model targets 
behaviors of innovators as they progress through various levels of use.  The scale in this study 
was used to gauge the level of comfort educators have as they travel along a technological 
continuum.  Since this scale was a single item self-assessment the internal consistency reliability 
measures cannot be calculated for the data gathered from it.  
The third section of the current survey, the open-ended qualitative research questions 
section, was constructed to allow teachers the opportunity to elaborate on experiences that have 
encouraged or discouraged them from using technology as they develop their lessons.  The idea 
and placement of these questions were to give participants an extra platform to express the 
history of their concerns, attitudes, and beliefs as these relate to technology integration.  These 
responses will then be taken into account when developing staff development programs that can 
aid in transforming reluctant technology-using teachers into more progressive technology 
integrators.  In order to eliminate bias when coding the open-ended responses the researcher 
solicited help from a neutral party to recheck participants? responses for possible themes or code 
association. 
The final section seeks to identify the teachers? major pedagogical behaviors as they 
relate to constructivism.  To assess this portion of the questionnaire the researcher chose to 
incorporate the Constructivist Behavior Questionnaire (Rakes, 1999).  The fourteen item 
questionnaire was originally developed from a review of literature which described constructivist 
50 
 
behaviors in teachers (Brooks & Brooks, 1999).  In the process Brooks and Brooks (1999) 
identified key perceptions from classroom teachers and their classroom constructivist behaviors. 
Rakes? Constructivist Behavior Questionnaire (1999) asked respondents to report their frequency 
of each constructivist behavior ranging from one = Never to five = Daily.  Responses to these 
questions were then used to summarize the individual teacher?s constructivist score.  The original 
reliability alpha for this questionnaire was (N = 435) ranged from .88. 
Data Collection Procedures  
The data collected came from seven different high school sites in the same district.  Four 
of these sites are comprehensive high schools while the remaining three are magnet high schools.  
The data collection process started with the researcher requesting and gaining permission to enter 
each site and collect data for both the district and local site administrators.   
 Once permission was received, in writing, the researcher contacted each site individually 
and requested a date and time to come in and address the school?s faculty during a group faculty 
meeting.  All participants at each site were gathered in one location, after the regular school day, 
and asked to participate.  All willing participants were then instructed on how to complete the 
survey.  
Prior to addressing potential participants the researcher prepared the meeting room.  The 
individual questionnaire along with the informed consent letter and a pencil were placed in a 
legal envelope and positioned at each of the tables of the meeting room.  At the appropriate time 
the researcher addressed the faculty via recruitment script (see Appendix 3).  
The script asked if the prospective participants were willing to participate in the study.   
Those that agreed to be participants were then given instructions on answering the questionnaire.  
After instruction the participants were then asked to complete the questionnaire, which only took 
51 
 
about 10 to 15 minutes.  At the conclusion of the time period, all participants were asked to 
return their questionnaires in their original envelope to its position at each of the tables.  
Envelopes were then collected and the researcher thanked the faculty for their time, collected 
envelopes and departed from the site.  
Data Analysis 
 The questionnaire used to collect data for this study can be broken down into three 
different sections: teacher attitude and adoption to technology, an open-ended questioning 
assessment, and a constructivist behaviors inventory.  These questions were designed to answer 
eight research questions, in which this study was designed.  Descriptive statistics were run to 
describe characteristics of the participants.  Pearson product-moment correlation was used to 
evaluate responses as a way to answer research questions one and two.  An analysis of 
covariance was used to answer questions three through five.  Three one-way ANOVAs were 
used to assess each of the prescribed questions.  Univariate analysis of variance was run to 
evaluate results.  The remaining three questions, questions six through eight, were coded and run 
through PASW 18 for frequency as an attempt to describe categorical variables.  
Limitations  
One of the major limitations to this study is its relatively small sample size.  With only 
one district and only seven schools represented generalization on a wide scale may be limited. 
There is also an unequal balance between the number of magnet school teachers, 36, and the 
number of comprehensive school teachers, 94, represented in this study.  There also remains the 
possibility of participant biases to questions they answered in a group setting.  
 
 
52 
 
Conclusion 
 The methodology of this study was developed with the intent to determine what, if any, 
relationship exists between teachers at comprehensive and magnet high schools and their 
concerns about technology integration, along with their pedagogical practices as they relate to 
integrating these technological tools into their classroom instruction.  The researcher modified 
and combined two surveys, which have been proven to have internal reliability, and administered 
the new survey instrument (see Appendix 1).   Participants completed the survey in one sitting 
and anonymously returned the survey to the researcher.  The data was recorded in a spreadsheet, 
utilizing a PASW 18 program, tested for internal reliability and analyzed for correlations. 
Chapter IV of this study will communicate a comprehensive analysis of all data collected. 
 
  
53 
 
  
  
  
  
 
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS 
 
 
Introduction  
 This chapter reveals the findings for this research study.  The purpose for this study was 
to investigate the differences between traditional and magnet school teachers in concerns, 
attitude, and pedagogy as they relate to the use of technology in their classroom.  The previous 
chapters outline the bases of this study.  Chapter Three gave details of the steps that were used to 
conduct this research. Chapter Two also included information concerning the definitions of 
traditional and magnet schools, traditional and non-traditional learning, technology trends, 
educational application of technology, teacher pedagogy, educational leadership, and continuous 
professional development.  A combination of two separate instruments created by Christensen 
and Rakes respectfully was used to address the five research questions.   
The statistical analyses used in this chapter included correlations and separate one-way 
ANOVAs between-group analysis of covariance?s to determine statistical significances.  The 
remaining three questions used a qualitative analysis method because these questions were open-
ended.  These research questions and their results are presented in this chapter.  
Description of Population 
 A total of 206 core teachers were identified within the same school system in central 
Alabama.  A total of 206 surveys were distributed among four schools, four comprehensive high 
schools and three magnet high school.  One hundred thirty teachers agreed to participate 
resulting in the same number of surveys returned to the researcher.  The calculations revealed 
54 
 
that 63% of the identified core academic high school teachers were participants in this study.  
Data obtained from this study were collected and entered into a PASW data file.  The results of 
the demographic section of this study can be found in Table 3.  Of the 130 respondents, thirty-
four of them taught English, thirty-three were Mathematics teachers, thirty-three of them taught 
Social Studies/History, and thirty were Science teachers. 
 
Table 3 
Subject Taught by Participants   
Categories  Frequency (n = 130) Percent 
English  34 26% 
Mathematics  33 25% 
Social Studies/History 33 25% 
Science 30 23% 
 
Table 4 shows the results collected from the participants concerning their highest degree 
obtained.  There were forty-two teachers who held bachelor?s degrees, seventy-six teachers with 
master?s degrees, three teachers holding AA specialist certification, three teachers with doctoral 
degrees, and six teachers who did not respond to the question concerning highest degree 
obtained. 
 
  
55 
 
Table 4  
Highest Degree Obtained by Participants 
Categories Frequency (n = 130) Percent 
Bachelor  42 32% 
Masters 76 58% 
Specialist  3 2% 
Doctorate  3 2% 
 
 The pool of teachers ranged from various years of teaching experience.  Teachers who 
responded ranged from first year teachers up to veterans with thirty-six years of classroom 
experience.  The average number of years of teaching experience among all participants was 
twelve.  Table 5 denotes the breakdown of teachers as it relates to the type of school, magnet or 
comprehensive, which each participant taught.  There were thirty-six magnet school participants 
and ninety-four comprehensive high school participants who responded to the study.  
 
Table 5  
Types of School Participant Represents  
Categories Frequency (n = 130) Percent 
Comprehensive  94 72% 
Magnet  36 28% 
 
56 
 
Teachers? Constructivist Behavior and Technology Integration 
The first research question addressed concerns with the connections between teachers? 
constructivist behaviors and their willingness to integrate technology into their classroom 
instructional practices.  A Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient was computed to 
assess the relationship between teachers? constructivist behaviors as it relates to teachers? 
willingness to implement more technological infused practices into classroom instruction.  The 
data reveal no violation of normality, linearity, or homoscedasticity.  There was a positive 
correlation between teachers? constructivist behaviors and their willingness to integrate 
technology into their classroom instructional practices, which was statistically significant, r = 
.420, n = 130, and p < .001.  The coefficient of determination is represented by r? = (.420)? = 
.1764.  The coefficient of determination indicates that 17.6% of the variance in teachers? 
willingness to integrate technology can be accounted for by its linear relationship with 
constructivist behaviors. 
Teachers? Stages of Adoption and Technology Integration 
The second research question addressed concerns with the connections between teachers? 
stages of concerns as it relates to their own personal comfort level with using technology and 
their willingness to integrate technology into their classroom instructional practices.  The results 
of the statistical analysis using Pearson?s Product-moment Correlation can be found in Table 5.  
A Pearson Product-moment Correlation coefficient was computed to assess the relationship 
between teachers? personal comfort with using technology and how it translates into the 
teachers? willingness to implement more technological infused practices into classroom 
instruction.  The data reveal no violation of normality, linearity, or homoscedasticity.  There was 
a positive correlation between teachers? stages of concerns as it relates to their own personal 
57 
 
comfort level with using technology and their willingness to integrate technology into their 
classroom instructional practices, which was statistically significant, r = .435, n = 130, and p < 
.001. The coefficient of determination is represented by r? = (.435)? = .1892.  The coefficient of 
determination indicates that 18.6% of the variance in teachers? willingness to integrate 
technology can be accounted for by its linear relationship with constructivist behaviors. 
Comparison of Constructivist Behaviors 
 For question number three a one-way between-group ANOVA was conducted to 
determine if there was a difference in the constructivist behaviors of teachers who teach at 
magnet schools and those who teach at comprehensive high schools when it comes to teachers? 
use of technology in the classroom.  The independent variable was the type of school each 
teacher taught (magnet or comprehensive).  The dependent variable consisted of the individual 
teachers? response to the constructivist behaviors section of the researcher?s survey.   Results 
from the ANOVA indicated  that there was not a statistically significant effect in the 
constructivist behaviors of teachers who teach at magnet schools and those who teach at 
comprehensive high schools when it comes to teachers? use of technology in the classroom, F(1, 
128) = 2.379, p = .129, with a small effect, partial eta squared = .02.  
Comparison of Attitudes  
 Question number four also utilized a one-way between-group ANOVA was conducted to 
determine if there was a difference in the attitudes of teachers who teach at magnet schools and 
those who teach at comprehensive high schools when it comes to teachers? use of technology in 
the classroom.  The independent variable was the type of school each teacher taught (magnet or 
comprehensive).  The dependent variable consisted of the individual teachers? response to the 
stages of concerns adoption model for technology awareness section on the researcher?s survey.  
58 
 
Results from the ANOVA indicated  that there was a statistically significant difference in the 
attitudes of teachers who teach at magnet schools and those who teach at comprehensive high 
schools when it comes to teachers? use of technology in the classroom, F(1, 128) = 6.46, p = 
.012, with a small effect, partial eta squared = .05.  
Comparison of Technology Integration  
 In order to address question number five a one-way between-group analysis of variance 
was conducted to determine if there was a difference in the ease of technology integration 
expressed by teachers who teach at magnet schools and those who teach at comprehensive high 
schools when it comes to teachers? use of technology in the classroom.  The independent variable 
was the type of school each teacher taught (magnet or comprehensive).  The dependent variable 
consisted of the individual teachers? response to the teachers? self assessment on technology 
integration section on the researcher?s survey.  Results from the one-way between group 
ANOVA revealed that there was a statistically significant difference in the teachers? self 
assessment on technology integration of teachers who teach at magnet schools and those who 
teach at comprehensive high schools when it comes to teachers? use of technology in the 
classroom, F (1, 128) = 4.23, p = .042, with a small effect, partial eta squared = .03.  
The remaining three questions were open-ended questions.  All results have been coded 
by the researcher.  In order to remove potential bias each response was independently recoded by 
an outside source.  A comparison of codes was conducted for consistency of interpretation. 
Frequency tables were run, utilizing PASW 18 statistics software, for each of the open-ended 
questions and presented in this chapter in the form of pie charts.  
The first open ended-question asked the participants to offer their opinion on any 
obstacles or barriers that may have affected their level of confidence when adopting technology 
59 
 
into their classroom instruction.  All responses were coded and validated by an outside source. 
Once coding was complete the responses were tallied.  Results from the analysis are represented 
in Figure 3.  The coding reveled four major themes: equipment issues, professional development, 
limited access to online sites, and funding.  The percentages of the responses are as follows: 44% 
listed issues with equipment; 27% sited professional development as an obstacle; 27% 
considered limitations to outside sites due to restrictions created by school system personnel as a 
barrier; another four percent believed funding remains an issue to consider; and another 4% 
listed other issues outside of the four major themes.  
 
   Figure 3. Obstacle/Barriers Pie Chart 
 
The second open ended-question asked the participants to expound on what they would 
like to see as a way to increase the level of technology incorporated into classroom instruction. 
All responses were coded and validated by an outside source.  Once coding was complete the 
responses were tallied.  Results from the analysis are represented in Figure 4.  The coding 
Professional 
Developmen
t  
27% 
Equipment 
Issues  
44% 
Limited 
access to 
sites (proxy)  
21% 
Funding  
4% 
Other  
4% 
Obstacle/Barriers Question   
60 
 
revealed four major themes: equipment issues, professional development, limited access to 
online sites, and funding.  The percentages of the responses are as follows: 36.7% listed issues 
with equipment; 29.4% sited professional development as an obstacle; 28.4% considered 
limitations to outside sides due to restrictions created by school system personnel as a barrier; 
another 1.8% believed funding remains an issue to consider; and another 3.7% listed other issues 
outside of the four major themes. 
 
 
Figure 4. Increasing Level of Support Pie Chart  
 
The third and final open ended-question asked the participants to offer their opinions on 
what might help facilitate greater use of technology by classroom teachers.  All responses were 
coded and validated by an outside source.  Once coding was complete the responses were tallied. 
Results from the analysis are represented in Figure 5.  The coding reveled four major themes: 
equipment issues, professional development, limited access to online sites, and funding.  The 
Professional 
Developmen
t 
29.4% 
Equipment 
Issues 
36.7% 
Limited 
Access to 
Sites (proxy) 
28.4% 
Funding  
1.8% 
Other  
3.7% 
Increased Level of Support 
Question  
61 
 
percentages of the responses are as follows: 34.2% listed issues with equipment; 41.4% sited 
professional development as an obstacle; 13.5% considered limitations to outside sites due to 
restrictions created by school system personnel as a barrier; another 8.1% believed funding 
remains an issue to consider; and another 2.7% listed other issues outside of the four major 
themes. 
 
 
Figure 5: Facilitation Support Pie Chart 
 
Upon conclusion of the open-ended questions evaluation there were three recurring 
themes. Participants express concerns over equipment issues when identifying barriers and 
obstacles the may prohibits technology use. Equipment also tied into items needed to increase 
the level of support for the integration of technology. As a third area of concern, equipment 
issues was addressed by the participants as a ?need to be addressed item? if facilitation of 
technology will take place.   
Professional 
Develpomen
t  
41.4% 
Equipment 
Issues  
34.2% 
Limited 
Access to 
Sites (proxy) 
13.5% 
Funding  
8.1% 
Other  
2.7% 
Facilitation Support Question  
62 
 
Conclusion 
 This chapter has discussed the results from this study.  All of the participants were 
practicing teachers in a core content area (33 Math teachers, 30 Science teachers, 33 History 
teachers, and 34 English teachers) in the same school district.  The district included 206 core 
content area teachers, where 130 chose to participate.  Out of the 130 participants 36 or 28% held 
teaching positions in the district?s three magnet high schools.  The remaining 94 or 72% of the 
teachers held teaching positions at traditional comprehensive high schools. 
 All of the participants are at schools where they have full access to technology resources.  
There was a positive correlation found between teachers? constructivist behaviors and their 
willingness to integrate technology into their classroom instruction.  There was also a positive 
correlation found when comparing the teachers? stages of concerns adoption model for the use of 
technology and their willingness to integrate these skills into technology integration in classroom 
instruction.  When comparing teachers who taught at magnet schools and those who taught at 
comprehensive high schools, the researcher found that there were no statistically significant 
effects found in the constructivist behaviors of teachers who taught at magnet schools and those 
who teach at comprehensive high schools and their willingness to integrate technology in to 
classroom instruction.  There was, however, statistical significance found in the comparing the 
same two groups when it came to the stages of concerns integrating technology and their 
application in the classroom.  There also was a statistically significant effect found when 
comparing magnet and comprehensive high school teachers when investigating the importance 
of integrating technology into their classroom instruction.  Other areas of concerns shared by the 
participants as the topic of technology integration were, in no particular order, professional 
63 
 
development, equipment issues, funding, and limited access to interactive or teacher preferred 
web sites.  
  
64 
 
  
  
  
  
 
CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, DISCUSSION, AND 
RECOMMENDATIONS   
 
Introduction 
The purpose of this study was to attempt to identify factors that relate to teachers? 
willingness to integrate technology into classroom instruction.  Teachers were asked to respond 
to questions concerning their personal concerns, attitudes, beliefs and pedagogical practices as 
they considered using technology integrated instruction in their classrooms. Previous research 
suggests that teachers must be willing to accept changes in pedagogical practices as a major 
component of integrating technology effectively into classroom instruction.  In order to 
implement change, a strong source of professional development is needed to enable teachers to 
transition through this process.  When dealing with this transition individuals flow through a 
maze of concerns that need to be addressed before true adoption can be accomplished.  To obtain 
maximum potential from technological tools, the classroom teachers are likely to be asked to 
adopt a more constructivist approach to the instruction and learning process.  Potentially any 
links found can be transformed by instructional leaders to prepare continuous professional 
development activities designed to enhance instructional use of technology.  
Overview 
 Participants of this study included core academic teachers who teach at either a 
comprehensive or magnet high school in the same school district in central Alabama.  The 
researcher chose to use purposive sampling as the method for selecting participants for this 
65 
 
study.  The use of purposive sampling allowed the researcher to use a non-probability sampling 
method to identify participants according to a preselected criterion (Mack, Woodsong, 
MacQueen, Guest, & Namey, 2005).  The researcher?s only criterion for the participants in this 
study was that they teach in one of four core academic areas and on grade level nine through 
twelve in comprehensive or magnet high school.  Once the criterion were set the researcher was 
able to identify 206 possible participants in which 130 or 63% of the selected targeted group 
chose to participate.  The following characteristics were identified for the teachers who returned 
the researcher?s survey.  
1. 34 respondents taught English; 33 taught Mathematics; 33 were Social 
Studies/History teachers; 30 taught Science.  
2. 42 of the respondents indicated their highest degree obtained as a Bachelor?s degree; 
76 held Master?s degrees; 3 held specialist degrees; 3 held doctorate degrees 
3. 94 of the respondents taught at comprehensive high schools and 36 taught at area 
magnet high schools. 
4. The number of years of service varied in number from one year to thirty-six years of 
experience.  
The survey instrument used in this study was designed using two pre-existing 
instruments.  The first was the Teachers? Attitudes Toward information Technology (TAT) 
which was developed for the study of the effects of informational technology integration 
education on the attitudes of teachers (Christensen, 2000).  The TAT used five ten question 
scales to measure teachers? attitudes towards informational technology in the following areas:   
E-mail, multimedia, the internet, teacher productivity, and classroom productivity for students. 
The current study chose to remove the scale for teacher productivity from this study.  The TAT 
66 
 
also included a scale designed to measure the Stages of Adoption of Technology (Christensen & 
Knezek, 1997).  This instrument was based on the Concerns-Based Adoption Model (Loucks, 
Newlove, & Hall, 1975).  The adoption model targets behaviors of innovators as they progress 
through various levels of use.  The indicator in this study was used to gauge the level of comfort 
educators have as they travel along a technological continuum.  The second pre-existing 
instrument was the Constructivist Behavior Questionnaire (Rakes, 1999).  The fourteen item 
questionnaire was originally developed from a review of literature which described constructivist 
behaviors in teachers (Brooks & Brooks, 1999).  The Constructivist Behavior Questionnaire 
(1999) asked respondents to report their frequency of each constructivist behavior ranging from 
one, never, to five, daily.  Responses to these questions were then used to summarize the 
individual teacher?s constructivist score.  The researcher also chose to include three open-ended 
questions to allow teachers the opportunity to elaborate on experiences that have encouraged or 
discouraged them from using technology as they develop their lessons.  
Outside of the demographics indicator the current instrument includes 58 questions 
utilizing seven scales.  Of the 206 surveys distributed 130 were returned with usable responses 
on the instrument.  The data was analyzed using PASW 18 Statistics Software. In the following 
section each of the research questions will be discussed in light of the results and prior literature.  
Summary of Findings 
This section will discuss the findings of this research study as it relates to other literature 
on the topic.  The current research study has attempted to address five research questions dealing 
with teacher attitudes, beliefs and pedagogical practices as they consider using technology 
integrated instruction into their classroom practices.  This study also attempted to identify any 
67 
 
differences in teachers? willingness to integrate technology if they taught at a comprehensive or 
magnet high school.  
Research Question 1: What is the relationship between teachers? constructivist behaviors 
and their attitudes towards integrating technology into classroom instruction? 
A Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient was computed to address this question 
from the gathered data.  The current research revealed that there was a positive correlation 
between teachers? constructivist behaviors and their willingness to integrate technology into their 
classroom instruction.  The coefficient of determination can only account for about 18 percent 
(17.6%) of the variance in teachers? willingness to integrate new technologies.  This percentage 
reflects a small significance to the parallelism.  Research suggests connectivity between the use 
of technology and constructivism (Dunn & Rakes, 2009; Matzen & Edmunds, 2007; Rakes, et 
al., 2006).  The small significance in the current study may suggest that many weak or non-
constructivist teachers are using technology devices in the classroom in a more traditional 
fashion.  According to Dexter, Anderson, and Becker (1999), weak or non-constructivist teachers 
may still rely traditional models of instruction and are more center-focused on grading, 
recognition, or the promise of future benefits as a motivator.  These teachers are more focused on 
learning facts and basic skills which may limit reasoning skills promotions.  
Research Question 2: Is there a relationship between teacher attitudes towards 
informational technology and the integration of technology into classroom instruction? 
 A Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient was computed to address this question 
from the gathered data.  The current research revealed that there was a positive correlation 
between teachers? stages of concerns as it relates to their own personal comfort level with using 
technology and their willingness to integrate technology into their classroom instructional 
68 
 
practices.  The coefficient of determination can only account for about 19 percent (18.6%) of the 
variance in teachers? willingness to integrate new technologies.  This percentage reflects a small 
significance to the parallelism.  The stage of concern question in this survey was build to reflect 
the Concerns-Base Adoption Model (CBAM) (Hall, 1973).  The CBAM is a tool that aids in the 
process of developing continuous professional development by investigating participants? 
experiences as they navigate through new innovation (Hord & Loucks, 1980; Oncu, et al., 2008; 
Rakes, 2007).  The small effect size of 19% in the current study suggest that there is little support 
for collaborative continuing professional development for these teachers on new or innovative 
technology integration strategies.  
 Questions three through five attempted to address a comparison between magnet school 
teachers and comprehensive school teachers and their willingness to integrate technology into 
their classroom instruction.  Magnet schools are schools provided by local school systems that 
offer alternatives to traditional schooling.  Magnet schools offer incentives to parents and 
students by offering specialized curricular themes or instructional formats intended to improve 
scholastic standards (Goldring & Smerkar, 2000; Neild, 2004).  Comprehensive high schools, 
also known as traditional high schools, are nonselective high schools aimed at serving students 
within a local community.  Comprehensive high schools offer a variety of nonspecific programs 
to its student body all while attempting to maintain communicable bonds among its host 
population (Hammack, 2004).  Previous research has not been found by this researcher that 
reflected a comparison of magnet and comprehensive high school teachers that focuses on 
technology integration for instructional purposes.  
69 
 
Research Question 3: Are there identifiable differences in the level of constructivist 
behavior between magnet and comprehensive high school teachers? 
 A one-way between-group ANOVA was used to determine if there was a difference in 
the constructivist behaviors of teachers who teach at magnet schools and others who teach at 
comprehensive high schools as it relates to technology usage in their classroom instruction.  To 
answer this question the researcher used the type of school in which the teacher taught as the 
independent variable and the constructivist behaviors indicator in the survey as the dependent 
variable.  Data collected revealed that there was no real significance between what type of school 
a teacher taught and their constructivist behaviors.  Teachers? pedagogical ideas are 
fundamentally based on their instructional training.  Neither group showed any specific training 
which made them use technology in a more constructivist manned.  Hence, students in both 
settings are receiving instruction in similar fashion.  Pedagogical ideas among teachers are no 
different depending solely on what type of school in which the teacher teaches. 
Research Question 4: Is there a difference in attitudes toward the use of technology for 
instructional purposes in magnet school teachers and comprehensive high school teachers? 
 In order to address this question a one-way between-group ANOVA was used to 
determine if any differences existed in the attitudes of teachers who teach at magnet schools and 
those who teach at comprehensive high schools as it involves integrating technology into 
instructional relevance.  The independent variable was based on the types of schools each teacher 
taught.  The dependent variable was identified from the responses that the teachers gave as they 
answered the stages of concerns adoption section of the current survey.  There was no significant 
evidence that there was any difference in stages of adoption of technology in the field of 
instructional use.  As mentioned in question two, there seems to be no ongoing adoption, by way 
70 
 
of professional development, for the purpose of new technologies and its integration for 
instructional use. 
Research Question Five: Is there a difference in terms of the level in which technology is 
integrated on the magnet school level than that of comprehensive high schools? 
 A one-way between-group ANOVA was used to explore any differences in the ease in 
which teachers at magnet schools integrate technologies into instructional practices in 
comparison to their comprehensive high school counter parts.  The type of school in which the 
teacher taught was identified as the independent value and the teachers? self-assessment on 
technology integration was identified as the dependent variable.  Research from the current study 
indicated that there were no significant differences that related to the ease of transforming 
technological tools into instructional usage among magnet or comprehensive high school 
teachers.  The classroom teacher is the controlling factor that decides how much technology is 
allowed into classroom instruction.  This type of change depends deeply on the teacher?s 
epistemological transformation (Wetzel, 2002).  According to Wetzel (2002) epistemological 
transformation is based on the individual?s prior knowledge base, development, and professional 
experiences.  The current research suggests that ongoing professional development in the area of 
technology integration is no greater for magnet school teachers than for those teaching at 
comprehensive high schools.  Other research suggest that changes in philosophies must be 
developed threw continuous professional development (Oncu, Delialioglu, & Brown, 2008; So & 
Kim, 2009; Wetzel, 2002). 
 The remaining three questions were open ended questions designed to give participants 
an opportunity to offer any insight on their personal experiences with integration technology into 
71 
 
their classroom instruction.  The data was collected can be as a guide for future professional 
development that would address the need of its participants.  
 The first of the open ended questions offered a platform in which participants were asked 
to offer feedback on obstacles or barriers that may have effect their level of confidence when 
adoption new technologies for instructional purposes.  Of the responses coded 44% of the 
teachers who answered this question displayed concerns with the equipment that are provided in 
the schools.  With many school systems cutting back on spending new equipment may not be 
high on the list of necessities.  New technologies are introduced at such a fast rate that it is 
difficult to keep pace with all of changes (Marx, 2006).  The second area of concern was that of 
proper professional development.  Twenty-seven percent of all participants who responded 
agreed that professional development was big change agent needed to remove barriers associated 
with reluctant technology use in classroom instruction.  Another twenty-one percent of the 
participants sited institutional control as an obstacle to technology use in the classroom.  Many of 
the teachers express frustrations over blocked sites that they felt contained valuable content that 
could aid in the instructional process.  One participant responded that ?many filters on this 
school system?s network were designed to prevent students from accessing undesirable website 
but at the same time it ties the hands of the classroom teacher.?  Eight percent of the respondents 
expressed concerns in the way of funding or others that did not fit in the coded categories. 
 The second open response question asked participants to expound on what they felt were 
key areas of concern that would increase the level of technology incorporated into classroom 
instruction.  The question revealed, once again, three major areas of concern: equipment; 
professional development; and institutional control.  Thirty-seven percent (36.7%) of the 
participants stated that they would like to see some of the more outdated equipment replaces or 
72 
 
that they would like there classroom equipped with greater technology than just smart boards.  
Many teachers stated that they would use technology more if the technology was available more 
readily for their students.  Twenty-nine percent (29.4%) of those who responded to this question 
requested professional development that allowed them time to practice.  One of the biggest 
complaints I got from the respondents was that professional development only lasted one or two 
days and they were sent back into the classroom and asked to implement what they should have 
learned.  Without time for practice, sharing, and positive/constructive feedback most teachers 
revert back to old practices (Hargreavers, 2005; Lawless & Pellegrino, 2007).  The final major 
section of this question was tied to intuitional control.  Twenty-eight percent (28.4%) wanted to 
see fewer restrictions from the district level allowing the individual teachers to use personal 
judgment as to what was appropriate material or web-sites.  The final six percent (5.5%) was 
ideas related to funding and other responses that did not fit into the coded themes.    
 The final open-ended asked participants what they felt might help facilitate greater use of 
technology by classroom teachers.  The number one suggestion rendered by participants from 
this question was professional development.  Forty-one percent (41.4%) believed that 
professional development was vital to the idea of seeing more technology use in today?s modern 
classrooms.  Thirty-four percent (34.2%) of the coded data show that equipment issues would be 
a major concern for a school moving forward with a wider use of technology in their classrooms. 
limitations to sites accounted for another fourteen percent (13.5%) of what participants felt 
would facilitate greater use of technology in classroom instruction.  Eleven percent (10.8%) of 
the responses collected was concerned with funding or other factors that did not fit into coded 
categories.  
73 
 
 In the open-ended response queries their existed three common themes that translated 
across all boundaries. A large percentage of the participants felt that equipment issues was a 
major concern when considering obstacles/barriers that limited their confidence moving forward 
with trying new technologies. Similar numbers were found concerning equipment that explained 
what participants felt they needed to increase the amount of technology offered in their 
classrooms. The teachers also expressed strong sentiments about the need to address equipment 
issues as a way to help facilitate technology integration among other classroom teachers. In order 
to obtain full teacher buy in concerns about equipment must be address by site administrators 
before asking teachers to change their instructional practices that would incorporate technology 
as a feasible tool.  
Another concern that appeared in large numbers in each of the open-ended questions was 
a need to lift limitations to current restricted web-sites. The participants felt that there were 
viable learning opportunities that could be accessed from using the internet but felt their hands 
were tied by district level filters or proxies that restricted their usage. District administrators feel 
the need to impose filters to limit the misuse of the internet by both district employees and 
students. Many of the participants have expressed experiences where many of the students they 
teach have found was to get around the district imposed filters which may defeat purpose of the 
filtering process. A workable compromise must be communicated between district and site 
administrators and the individual classroom teachers that would give a little more flexibility to 
the teacher when considering appropriateness of the material.  
The third concern that was expressed in each of the open-ended questions was the need to 
provide adequate professional development. Responses from the participants revealed that too 
often workshops or training only lasting one or two days with no follow-up and full expectations 
74 
 
are expressed that the new concepts or strategy be followed. With professional development 
being listed as both a barrier and a means of jump-starting the use of technology integration by 
classroom teachers is an important observation. In the researchers opinion offering one or two 
day training is not the professional development needed to stimulate the use of technology. 
Continual Professional Development or professional development that provides real time to 
implement will be a stronger solution than a meaningless set of instructions disseminated in 
handouts and presented over a couple of days.  
Surprisingly none of the open-ended question sparked major concerns over funding. In a 
time where budget cuts and downsizing of personnel teachers were not overly concerned about 
the money it would take to incorporate technology into classroom instruction. For the most part 
the teachers who participated in this study feel there are funds available to update equipment and 
provide professional development. The third issue of lifting restrictions wouldn?t cost the school 
system any more money.  
The concerns that the teachers have in the areas of equipment and proxies must be 
addressed by the district and site levels before being able to introduce any professional 
developments. One of the key components of change is participant buy-in. In order for these 
teachers to feel comfortable building new experiences they have to feel that their basic needs are 
met. In order to get teachers to incorporate new or even existing technologies they need to feel 
confident that the equipment is available and that it?s going to function properly. A craftsman 
can only be as good as his tools will allow. The idea to have the freedom to become more 
authentic in assessments and instructional strategies stems directly from the classroom teacher 
feeling that they have a certain level of control in how a lesson is presented. The whole idea of 
constructivism is to identify prior knowledge experiences and expand into new ones basted off of 
75 
 
where the students want to go. Well, most of today?s students? prior knowledge and experiences 
stem from the use of the internet. One may not always agree with the quality of what they gather 
from this resource but it is undeniable that it has a major influence on society. By removing some 
of the restrictions a classroom teacher may be able to guide the student through a maze of 
misinformation and teach them to be more critical of the information they receive and 
disseminate.  
Discussion 
The ultimate evaluation for the success of an educator is based on how well they prepare 
their students to become productive member of society. In today?s society students will need to 
compete globally and communicate collaboratively across boundaries previously considered 
unattainable. The skills and Knowledge students will need to remain competitive are ones rich in 
technological advances (Marx, 2006). Therefore, if teachers are to be considered successful they 
must find ways to incorporate these technological resources into their classroom instruction in 
such a manner that it reflects authentic tasking opportunities related to constructivist practices. 
The current section will discuss the findings of this research paper and how it relates to 
the literature found in the field. The researcher chose to evaluate teachers? concerns, attitudes, 
beliefs, and pedagogical practices as it relates to technology integration. The current study also 
chose to do a parallel comparison between core magnet high school teachers and their 
comprehensive high school counterparts as an attempt to identify continual professional 
development ideas that would help foster the relationship between constructivist practices, 
technology integration, and classroom instruction.  
In order to apply technology resources constructively in classroom instruction, teachers 
must be prepared to transition through a process where practice and collaborative relationships 
76 
 
are present in a professional learning environment. According to Dexter, Anderson, & Beck 
(1999) teachers may be using technology in the classroom but in a more traditional format (p. 
15). In the current study teachers acknowledge the presence of technology inside their 
classrooms; however, large majorities use it in ways that don?t coincide with constructivist 
practices. Teachers surveyed admit to having interactive smart-boards and digital display 
devices, such as Elmo?s, in their classroom but many of the teachers have not tapped into their 
full potential. Classroom use of smart-boards resembles many older generation grade school 
teachers? use of chalk boards and the digital display device has merely taken the place of the 
overhead projector. Matezen & Edmunds (2007) observed that teachers have used technology in 
more of traditional format because many teachers see technology as a new and unfamiliar tool. 
Many of the teachers surveyed (41%) identified professional development as a major component 
needed to get teachers using technology in a different format.  
Professional development providers and organizers must provide professional learning 
opportunities that cater to the needs of the individual teachers that they serve. One major 
component to consider when planning for professional development, which addresses changing 
teachers? instructional practices, is to focus on how the teacher thinks and learn (Dexter, et al., 
1999). The teachers in the current study showed discomfort in the ?quick-pop-popcorn? 
approach to professional development. Concerns over professional development opportunities, 
lasting one or two days without ample time to digest and integrate new practices and ideas, have 
left teachers reluctant to try. Collaborative continual professional development (CPD) is one 
form of professional development that can be utilized to produce positive results when 
attempting to change a school?s culture. Research on CPD (pp. 31-36) has reviled much success 
if activities are centralized around a practice-based learning community where the learners are 
77 
 
engaged in the learning process able to make decisions on what needs to be learned, 
communicate success and failures with peer who are experiencing a similar journey, self-reflect 
and make changes to personal beliefs and practices. These learning opportunities must be on-
going and extends across time.  
The researcher chose to survey teachers from two different types of high school, magnet 
and comprehensive, in an attempt to identify needs, expressed by the teachers, in order to 
develop a CPD plan that will consider the needs and concerns of the individual as they relates to 
technology integration and constructivist practices. In research questions one (p. 6) the 
researcher tried to identify any connection between constructivist behaviors and the manner in 
which technology was integrated into classroom instruction. Teachers who incorporate 
constructivist practices usually incorporate complex qualitative judgment, while going well 
beyond fixed-choice, and short answer paper and pencil test Dexter, et al. 1999). The majority of 
the teachers (82%) in the current study fell in the categories of either weak or non-constructivist 
in their approach to instructional practices. The assumption can be applied that in the era of high 
stakes testing and annual yearly progress (AYP) many teachers have opted to assess students in a 
manner that best resembles the accountability assessments. This view of ?teaching to the test? is 
not the most beneficial practice. Research conducted on computer enhanced problem-based 
learning (PBL) has revealed increases in students? understand of core subjects such as math and 
science (Schallert, 2006). In addition to Schallert (2006), Rosen & Salomon (2007) discusses 
how the use of constructivist-appropriate measures boost achievement in students academics 
more than a more traditional learning environment. When designing professional development 
for this group of teachers the participants must envision the advantages of such activities as web-
78 
 
based assessments and computer enhanced PBL assignments. Enough time must pass for the 
individual teacher to assess to success of this new approach the instruction and pedagogy.  
In the second question (p. 7) the researcher attempted to understand the relationship 
between teachers? attitudes towards informational technology and the integration of these 
technologies into classroom instruction. The evidence provided indicated a positive reaction 
between the teachers comfort level and their willingness to use technological resources. These 
findings were consistent with what was previously supported in the literature. Simple exposure to 
new technologies does not automatically yield desired results when considering teachers? 
willingness or ability to transfer these ideas into classroom instruction (So & Kim, 2009). 
Humans are creatures of habit, showing repetition with things that they have been taught and 
have become comfortable with, disregarding practices that seem awkward or unrehearsed. The 
goal when developing professional development activities is to change behaviors or habits in a 
way that supports school improvement (Hord & Loucks, 1980). The correlation in attitudes 
towards technology and its integration accounted for only 18% of the variance indication that 
teachers are not responding to technology in a constructivist format a t a large rate. This 
evidence being found CPD needs to incorporate time to practice and adapt new ideas so that 
the teachers are comfortable enough to formulate new and positive habits that will improve 
instruction and learning in the classroom.  
In an attempt to better identify the needs of the teachers the researcher chose to break 
the teachers down into two categories based on their teaching environments, magnet and 
comprehensive high schools. The researcher expected to find differences in the two groups 
when it concerned constructivist practices. It was perceived that magnet school students on 
average out preformed students who attend traditional high schools. Hence, assumptions of 
79 
 
teachers at magnet schools providing different instructional strategies than their comprehensive 
counterparts existed. This was not the case. There was no supporting evidence that either group 
displayed any more constructivist practices than the other. It is safe to assume that instruction 
provided to magnet school students and instruction provide to comprehensive school students 
are provided in the same formats. Neither group received any more of a specialized 
instructional format than the other. This did not correlate with what the research suggested. 
According to Goldring and Smrekar (2000) magnet schools were supposed to provide an 
incentive to parents and students, by offering specialized curriculum themes or instructional 
formats. Additional investigations show no sustainable differences in teacher attitudes towards 
technology or the levels in which technology instruction for either group of teachers. This 
information is surprising give the fact that for the most part magnet programs hand-pick 
students who are ?higher Achievers? (Neild, 2004). Magnet schools should not be focused as 
much on AYP goals and meeting minimal progress. They should be more flexible to 
incorporate more authentic tasking opportunities for their students. Doyle and Levine (1984) 
go further to suggest that ?magnet schools offer a setting in which teacher generated reform 
can take place.? Evidence provided in both Doyle and Levine and the current study that 
although magnet schools set higher academic standards, their organizational structure is no 
different from other schools that service students in the same age group. 
Evidence in from the current study suggests a need for collaborative CPD to address 
pedagogical practices and the influence that technology can play in constructivist ideas. In 
order to institute a change in practice there are a few concerns that must be addressed on the 
district and sit levels. The issues of restrictions to site teachers believe have instructional value. 
There is also must be a commitment to provide maintenance for existing equipment as well as 
80 
 
a pledge to update antiquated equipment when funds permit. A conscious effort must be made 
to ensure equitable use of all equipment available to the site. Professional development needs 
to do more than introduce new technologies they need to integrate innovative practices and 
pedagogy to enhance the learning process. This process should include: 1. Participants? 
reaction, 2. Participants? learning, 3. Organizational support and change, 4. Participants? use of 
new knowledge and skills, and 5. Students? learning outcomes (p. 36). The evidence of success 
will take time and will have to be evaluated through constant reflection.  
Limitations of the Study  
 The findings of the current study cannot be generalized to other populations because the 
sample was limited to one specific school district in central Alabama.  Another limitation factors 
was the use of survey methods.  Data collected from the current survey was directly dependent 
upon teacher participants? willingness to respond honestly and freely to all responses.  
Additionally, there was an uneven distribution of magnet school teachers in comparison to 
comprehensive high school teachers.  Of the one hundred thirty participants there were only 
thirty-six magnet school teachers which only accounted for about twenty-eight percent of the 
sample population.  Time was also a limiting factor for the current factor.  The research study did 
not extend across time in which the teachers would have had the opportunity experience 
continuing professional development opportunities that incorporated technological tools for 
instructional practices.  Had this opportunity been extended perhaps participants would have 
recorded changes in attitudes, beliefs and concerns over a period of time and across stages.  
Lastly, the current study did not identify the role of the instructional leader in the process of the 
transformation.  Future study will have to include the leadership styles of the instructional 
81 
 
leaders as it relates to supporting the teachers as they transition to this maze of new ideas and 
practices.  
 Implications and Recommendations  
 It is difficult to deny the values found in education, and like all arts or disciplines proper 
tooling and training is essential to success.  Some of the most innovative and promising practices 
in education involve technology (Becker, 1998; Rakes, 2007).  These practices provide great 
educational capabilities for teachers to prepare their students to become productive citizen who 
compete in a global society.  The skills and knowledge students will need to stay competitive 
globally embodies a rich understanding and application of technology (Marx, 2006).  The driving 
forces to integrating these skills involving technology into learning experiences lie directly with 
the classroom teacher.  The current study attempted to identify the attitudes, concerns, beliefs, 
and pedagogical practices of two groups of teachers, those who teach core subjects at magnet 
high schools and those core teachers who teach at comprehensive high schools, to help identify 
common threads as well as differences in order to develop continuous professional development 
practices that will increases technology use throughout its district.   
The data collected did not show any differences between magnet high school teachers 
and comprehensive high school teachers and the ways they integrated technology into their 
classroom instructions.  The records also indicated that there were no differences found in 
constructivist beliefs among either group of teachers.  Lastly, the data did not show any increases 
in the use of technologies for either group.  Based on this information the researcher concluded 
that there were no differences in the types of technology or what professional developments were 
offered to either group of teachers.  The levels of knowledge or usage were basically the same 
which indicates that neither group of students were receiving any greater amounts of training as 
82 
 
it was associated with technology use and the use of technology for authentic tasking among core 
area teachers.  This assessment did not include any technology classes that were available at 
either types of school.    
The overall comparison of the teachers? constructivist behaviors and the teachers? 
willingness to integrate technologies for authentic tasking indicated that technology is not being 
used to its full potential.  The data suggest that a large majority of the teachers who participated 
in the current survey could be labeled as weak to non constructivist.  Future professional 
development opportunity would need to focus on how to incorporate technologies in a more 
constructivist manor.  Currently, a large majority of the teachers who participated in this study 
seem to be integrating technologies to support traditional learning practices.  Responses from 
participants led the investigator to believe that there were no ongoing professional developments 
that dealt with constructing fundamental changes in teachers and how they see and use 
technology for instructional practices.  Further investigation indicated that most of the teachers 
surveyed felt the need for updated equipment and professional development as a catalyst for a 
change in the culture surrounding technology integration.  
Concerns identified in the current study opened avenues for future discussions and 
studies.  These recommendations include: (1) research site administrators on how much their 
concerns, attitudes, beliefs, and pedagogical believes influences the culture of the school as it 
relates to technology integration; (2) research changes in teachers? attitudes as they journey 
through a constructed continuous professional development program that places emphasis 
technology used under the constructivist umbrella; (3) research students on how they feel the 
technologies learned or practices in their school has or will impact their ability to compete in a 
global society and what they would like to see more of in their classrooms.  
83 
 
 
Conclusion  
 This study was constructed as an exploratory study aimed at being able to design a 
continuous professional development plan that would encourage greater use of technology in a 
classroom setting utilizing constructivist strategies.  This study chose also to compare core 
academic teachers that teach at magnet high schools and comprehensive high schools.  The 
research indicated that teachers were concerned about equipment issues, professional 
development, and institutional control when it comes to technology and its incorporation into 
classroom instruction.  Many of the teachers have indicated that they are using technology 
however evidence suggests that they are using technology primarily for traditional methods.  
Based on the current study the professional development should be continuous providing 
teachers with time to experiment and practice with room to collaborate with others as they 
transition as a team through individual stages.  
84 
 
  
  
  
  
 
REFERENCES 
 
 
Aubin, M. (2009). Tomorrow is now: Preparing our students for the 21st century. A Report by 
 the 21st Century Learning Sub-Committee of the District 39 Community Review  
  Committee 
Bass, B. M., Avolio, B. J., Jung, D. I., & Berson, Y. (2003). Predicting unit performance by 
assessing transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of applied psychology, 
88(2), 207. 
Bass, B. M., & Steidlmeier, P. (2004). Ethics, character, and authentic transformational 
leadership behavior. Ethics, the Heart of Leadership, Westport Co, Preger, 175?196. 
Becker, H. (1998). Running to catch a moving train: Schools and information technologies. 
Theory into Practice, 37(1), 20?30. doi: 10.1080/00405849809543782 
Bernauer, J. (1995). Integrating technology into the curriculum. First Year Evaluation. Paper 
presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (San 
Francisco, CA, April 18-22, 1995). 
Bodur, H., Brinberg, D., & Coupey, E. (2000). Belief, affect, and attitude: Alternative models of 
the determinants of attitude. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 9(1), 17?28. doi: 
10.1207/15327660051044222 
Braimoh, D. (2008). Lifelong learning through mentoring process and its operational dimensions 
in society. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 9(2), 16?25.  
85 
 
Brooks, J. G., & Brooks, M. G. (1999). In search of understanding: The case for constructivist 
classrooms. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development. 
Brownell, K. (1997). Technology in teacher education: where are we and where do we go from 
here? Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 117??138. 
Christensen, R., & Knezek, G. (1997). Internal consistency reliabilities for 14 computer attitude 
scales. Technology and Teacher Education Annual, 2, 877?880.  
Christensen, R., & Knezek, G. (2000). Internal consistency reliabilities for 14 computer attitude 
scales. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 8(4), 327?336.  
Conant, J. (1959). The American high school today: A first report to interested citizens. New 
York:  McGraw-Hill. 
Cordingley, P., Bell, M., Rundell, B., & Evans, D. (2005). The impact of collaborative 
continuing professional development (CPD) on classroom teaching and learning. Review: 
How do collaborative and sustained CPD and sustained but not collaborative CPD affect 
teaching and learning.  
Cordingley, P., Bell, M., Isham, C., Evans, D., and Firth, A. (2007), 'What do specialists do in 
 CPD programmes for which there is evidence of positive outcomes for pupils and 
 teachers?' Research Evidence in Education Library London, EPPI-Centre, Social Science 
 Research Unit, Institute of Education, University of London. 
Crestwell, J. (1993). Research design: Qualitative and quantitative design approaches. London: 
Sage Publications: 
Crowther, F., Kaagan, Ferguson, & Hann. (2002). Big change question: Is the role of the 
principal in creating school improvement over-rated? Journal of Educational Change, 
3(2), 167?173.  
86 
 
Cuban, L., Kirkpatrick, H., & Peck, C. (2001). High access and low use of technologies in high 
school classrooms: Explaining an apparent paradox. American Educational Research 
Journal, 38(4), 813. doi: 10.3102/00028312038004813 
Daly,C., Pachler,N., & Pelletier,C, (2009). Continuing professional development in ICT for 
 teachers: A literature review. BECTA Report. Retrieved from WLE Centre: 
 http://www.wlecentre.ac.uk/cms/files/becta/becta-ict-cpd-literaturereview.pdf 
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and Education: An introduction to the philosophy of education 
(1966 ed.). New York: Free Press.  
Dexter, S. L., Anderson, R. E., & Becker, H. J. (1999). Teachers? views of computers as catalysts 
for changes in their teaching practices. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 
31(3), 221?239.  
Downs, E., Carlson, R., Repman, J., & Clark, K. (1999). Web-based instruction: Focus on 
learning. Technology and Teacher Education Annual, 1, 773?779.  
Doyle, D., & Levine, M. (1984). Magnet schools: Choice and quality in public education. Phi 
Delta Kappan, 66(4), 265?270.  
D?souza, P. V. (1992, Winter). E-mail?s role in the learning process: A case study. Journal of 
Research on Computers in Education, 25(1), 256?264. 
Dunn, K., & Rakes, G. (2009). Producing caring qualified teachers: An exploration of the 
influence of pre-service teacher concerns on learner-centeredness. Teaching and Teacher 
Education. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2009.06.013 
Engelmann, S. (1997). Direct instruction. Instructional development paradigms. Englewood 
Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.  
87 
 
Erickson, T. E. (1987). Sex differences in student attitudes towards computers. Paper 
presentation at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association.  
Evans, L. (2002), ?What is teacher development?? Oxford Review of Education 28 (1) pp. 123- 
 137. 
Francis, L. J. (1993). Measuring attitudes toward computers among undergraduate college 
students: The affective domain. Computers in Education, 20(3), 251?255.  
Fraser, C. (2005), ?Towards a unified model of professional development?? Paper, School of 
 Education, University of Aberdeen. 
Goldring, E., & Smerkar, C. (2000). Magnet schools and the pursuit of racial balance. Education 
and Urban Society, 33(1), 17. doi: 10.1177/0013124500331003  
Gressard, C. P., & Loyd, B. H. (1986). Validation studies of a new computer attitude scale. 
Association of Educational Data Systems Journal, 18(4), 295?301. 
Grisworld, P. A. (1993). Some determinants of computer awareness among education majors. 
Association for Educational Data Systems Journal, 16(2), 92?103. 
Guskey, T. (2002) ?Does it make a difference? Evaluating professional development?, 
 Educational Leadership 59 (6) pp. 45?51. 
Hall, G. (1973). A developmental conceptualization of the adoption process within educational 
institutions. Univ. of Texas, Austin. Research and Development Center for Teacher 
Education. 
Hammack, F. (2004). The comprehensive high school today.  New York: Teachers College Press. 
Hargreaves, A. (2005). Leadership succession. doi:10.1080/00131720508984680 
Heinssen, R. K., Jr., Glass, C. R., & Knight, L. A. (1987). Assessing computer anxiety: 
Development and validation of the computer anxiety voting scale. Computers in Human 
Behavior, 3, 49?59. 
88 
 
Hew, K., & Brush, T. (2007). Integrating technology into K-12 teaching and learning: Current 
knowledge gaps and recommendations for future research. Educational Technology 
Research and Development, 55(3), 223?252. doi: 10.1007/s11423-006-9022-5 
Hord, S., & Loucks, S. (1980). A concerns-based model for the delivery of in-service. Univ. of 
Texas, Austin. Research and Development Center for Teacher Education 
Hung, D., Tan, S.-C., & Koh, T.-S. (2006). From traditional to constructivist epistemologies: a 
proposed theoretical framework based on activity theory for learning communities. 
Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 17(1), 37?55.  
Jones, T., & Clarke, V.A. (1994). A computer attitude scale for secondary students. Computers 
in Education, 22(4), 315?318. 
Kay, R. H. (1993). An exploration of theoretical and practical foundations for assessing attitudes 
towards computers: The computer attitude measure (CAM). Computers in Human 
Behavior, 9, 371? 386. 
Kemple, J., Herlihy, C., & Findings, K. (2004). The talent development high school model. New 
York, NY: MDRC. 
Knezek, G.A., & Miyashita, K.T. (1993). Handbook for the young children?s computer 
inventory. Denton, TX: Texas Center for Educational Technology.   
Lawless, K., & Pellegrino, J. (2007). Professional development in integrating technology into 
teaching and learning: Knowns, unknowns, and ways to pursue better questions and 
answers. Review of Educational Research, 77(4), 575. doi: 10.3102/0034654307309921 
Lieberman, A., & Miller, L. (2001). Teachers caught in the action: Professional development 
that matters (vol. 31). New York: Teachers College Press. 
89 
 
Lindsay, J. (2001). What the data really show: Direct instruction really works. Retrieved April 3, 
2002 from www.jefflindsay.com  
Liontos, L. B. (1992). Transformational Leadership. ERIC Digest, Number 72. ERIC 
Clearinghouse on Educational Management.  
Loucks, S., Newlove, B., & Hall, G. (1975). Measuring levels of use of the innovation: A manual 
for trainers, interviewers, and raters. Austin, TX: Research and Development Center for 
Teacher Education, University of Texas at Austin. 
Mack, N., Woodsong, C., McQueem, K., Guest, G., & Namey, E. (2005). Qualitative research 
methods: A data collector?s field guide.  
Marx, G. (2006). Sixteen trends, their profound impact on our future: Implications for students, 
education, communities, countries, and the whole of society. Educational Research 
Service (May 1, 2006). 
Matzen, N., & Edmunds, J. (2007). Technology as a catalyst for change: The role of professional 
development. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 39(4), 417.  
Maurer, M., & Simonson, M. (1984). Development of validation of a measure of computer 
anxiety. In M. Simonson (Ed.), Proceedings of selected research paper presentations. 
Annual Meeting of the Association of Educational Communications and Technology, 
Dallas, TX. 
Neild, R. (2004). The effects of magnet schools on neighborhood high schools: An examination 
of achievement among entering freshmen. Journal of Education for Students Placed at 
Risk (JESPAR), 9(1), 1?21. doi: 10.1207/S15327671ESPR0901_1 
90 
 
Nguyen, D., Hsieh, Y., & Allen, G. (2006). The impact of web-based assessment and practice on 
students? mathematics learning attitudes. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and 
Science Teaching, 25(3), 251.  
Norton, P. (1994). Integrating technology in schools: A cohort process for graduate level inquiry. 
Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 3(2), 163?174. doi: 10.1080/0962029940030204 
Nye, J. S. (2008, March 31). Transformational leaders aren?t always better. Gulfnews.  
from  
http://gulfnews.com/opinions/columnists/transformational-leaders-aren-t-always-better-
1.93889  
Obama, B. (2009). President Barack Obama?s inaugural address. Retrieved January, 23, 2009 
from 
 www.nytimes.com/2009/01/20/us/politics/20text-obama.htm  
Oncu, S., Delialioglu, O., & Brown, C. (2008). Critical components for technology integration: 
How do instructors make decisions? Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science 
Teaching, 27(1), 19.  
Osterman, K. F., & Kottkamp, R. B. (2004). Reflective practice for educators: Professional 
development to improve student learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. 
Paterson, J. (2007). A war of words. THE Journal, 34(9), 18?20. 
Pelgrum, W. J., Janssen Reinen, I. A. M., & Plomp, T. (1993). Schools, teachers, students, and 
computers: A cross-national perspective. Twente, Netherlands, I.E.A.  
Pharmacy, Univ. of Texas, (2008, May 19, 2008). Continuing Education- Continuing 
Professional Education from www.utexas.edu ? Home ? Continuing Education Home  
91 
 
Piaget, J. (1973). To understand is to invent: The future of education. [English translation by 
George-Anne Roberts]. New York: Grossman Publishers. 
Pickering, J., Pachler, N. and Daly, C. (eds) (2007), New designs for teachers? professional 
 learning. London: Bedford Way Papers, Institute of Education, University of London.  
 http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/programmes/elearningpedagogy/iowfinal.pdf 
Rakes, G. (2007). Concerns regarding technology adoption as predictors of instructional 
practices. Unpublished manuscript, Project RITE. The University of Tennessee Martin. 
Rakes, G., Fields, V., & Cox, K. (2006). The influence of teachers? technology use on 
instructional practices. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38(4), 409.  
Rakes, G., Flowers, B., Casey, H., & Santana, R. (1999). An analysis of instructional technology 
use and constructivist behaviors in k?12 teachers. International Journal of Educational 
Technology, 1(2), 1?18. 
Raub, A.C. (1981). Correlates of computer anxiety in college students. Unpublished doctorial 
dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia  
Reece, M. J., & Gable, R. K. (1982). The development and validation of a measure of general 
attitudes toward computers. Educational and Psychologies Measurement, 42, 913?916.  
Robinson, V. M. J., & Timperley, H. S. (2007). The leadership of the improvement of teaching 
and learning: lessons from initiatives with positive outcomes for students. Australian 
Journal of Education?Hawthorn, 51(3), 247.  
Robson, R., & Whitesitt, J. (1999). Probability park: A database-backed on-line professional 
development environment targeting standards-based school reform. Technology and 
Teacher Education Annual, 1, 585?590.  
92 
 
Rosen, Y., & Salomon, G. (2007). The differential learning achievements of constructivist 
technology-intensive learning environments as compared with traditional ones: A meta-
analysis. Journal Educational Computing Research, 36(1), 1?14. doi: 10.2190/R8M4-
7762-282U-554J 
Schallert, D. (2006). Middle school students? self-efficacy, attitudes, and achievement in a 
computer-enhanced problem-based learning environment. Journal of Interactive 
Learning Research.  
Scrimshaw, P. (2004), ?How can innovative ICT practice be sustained and extended?? Paper 
  presented at Becta Annual Research Conference. 
So, H., & Kim, B. (2009). Learning about problem based learning: Student teachers integrating 
technology, pedagogy and content knowledge. Australasian Journal of Educational 
Technology, 25(1), 101?116.  
Stevens, D. J. (1982). Educator perceptions of computers in education: 1979 and 1982. 
Association for Educational Data Systems Journal, 145(1), 1?15.  
Straker, D. (2002, September 30). Changing Minds and Persuasion. Retrieved August 1, 2004, 
from 
http://changingminds.org/disciplines/leadership/styles/transformational_leadership.htm  
Strom, P., & Strom, R. (2009). Adolescents in the internet age. Charlotte, NC: Information Age 
Publishing. 
Swan, K., Hooft, V., Kratcoski, A., & Schenker, J. (2007). Ubiquitous computing and changing 
pedagogical possibilities: Representation, conceptualizations and uses of knowledge. 
Journal Educational Computing Research, 36(4), 481?515. doi: 10.2190/B577-7162-
2X11-17N5 
93 
 
Van Eck, R. (2006). The effect of contextual pedagogical advisement and competition on 
middle-school students? attitude toward mathematics and mathematics instruction using a 
computer-based simulation game. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science 
Teaching, 25(2), 165?195.  
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind and society: The development of higher mental processes. 
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 
Wenger, E. (1998), Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning and Identity. Cambridge: 
 Cambridge University Press. 
Wetzel, D. (2002). A model for pedagogical and curricular transformation with technology. 
Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 18(2), 43?50.  
Zaichkowsky, J. L. (1985). Familiarity: product use, involvement or expertise. Advances in 
Consumer Research, 12(1), 296?299.  
 
  
94 
 
 
  
  
 
Appendix 1 
Teachers? Concerns, Attitudes, Beliefs, and Pedagogical Practices Concerning Technology 
Questionnaire 
This questionnaire is designed to assess your perceptions of the use of technology for the benefit 
of your students as well as gauge your constructivist behavior. It should require about 10 to 15 
minutes of your time. Usually it is best to respond with your first impression, without giving a 
question much thought. Your answers will remain confidential.  
Thank you for your cooperation! 
Demographics:                                                                                             Group Id: ____      
Core subject area___________________           Current grade level________ 
Type of school:     Magnet School____          Comprehensive High School____   
Years of teaching experience: ____                     Highest degree received: ____                Does 
your school have access to usable technology: ____ 
 
Instructions: Choose one location between each adjective pair to indicate how you feel about 
the object.  
To me, the use of e-mail for instructional purposes is:  
1.  Important  o  o  o  o  o  Unimportant  
2.  Boring o  o  o  o  o  Interesting  
3.  Relevant  o  o  o  o  o  Irrelevant  
4.  Exciting  o  o  o  o  o  Unexciting  
5.  Means 
Nothing  
o  o  o  o  o  Means a lot  
6.  Appealing  o  o  o  o  o  Unappealing  
7.  Fascinating  o  o  o  o  o  Mundane  
8.  Worthless  o  o  o  o  o  Valuable  
9.  Involving  o  o  o  o  o  Uninvolving 
10.  Not Needed  o  o  o  o  o  Needed  
 
95 
 
To me, the use of the internet for instructional purposes is: 
11.  Important  o  o  o  o  o  Unimportant  
12.  Boring o  o  o  o  o  Interesting  
13.  Relevant  o  o  o  o  o  Irrelevant  
14.  Exciting  o  o  o  o  o  Unexciting  
15.  Means 
Nothing  
o  o  o  o  o  Means a lot  
16.  Appealing  o  o  o  o  o  Unappealing  
17.  Fascinating  o  o  o  o  o  Mundane  
18.  Worthless  o  o  o  o  o  Valuable  
19.  Involving  o  o  o  o  o  Uninvolving 
20.  Not Needed  o  o  o  o  o  Needed  
 
To me, the use of multimedia (podcast, photostory, movie maker, etc.) for instructional 
purposes is:  
21.  Important  o  o  o  o  o  Unimportant  
22.  Boring o  o  o  o  o  Interesting  
23.  Relevant  o  o  o  o  o  Irrelevant  
24.  Exciting  o  o  o  o  o  Unexciting  
25.  Means 
Nothing  
o  o  o  o  o  Means a lot  
26.  Appealing  o  o  o  o  o  Unappealing  
27.  Fascinating  o  o  o  o  o  Mundane  
28.  Worthless  o  o  o  o  o  Valuable  
29.  Involving  o  o  o  o  o  Uninvolving 
30.  Not Needed  o  o  o  o  o  Needed  
 
For my students, using technology resources in the classroom is:  
31.  Important  o  o  o  o  o  Unimportant  
32.  Boring o  o  o  o  o  Interesting  
33.  Relevant  o  o  o  o  o  Irrelevant  
34.  Exciting  o  o  o  o  o  Unexciting  
35.  Means 
Nothing  
o  o  o  o  o  Means a lot  
36.  Appealing  o  o  o  o  o  Unappealing  
37.  Fascinating  o  o  o  o  o  Mundane  
38.  Worthless  o  o  o  o  o  Valuable  
39.  Involving  o  o  o  o  o  Uninvolving 
40.  Not Needed  o  o  o  o  o  Needed  
96 
 
Choose the stage that best describes where you are in the adoption of technology. 
o  Stage 1: Awareness  
I am aware that technologies exist but have not used it ? perhaps I?m even avoiding 
it. I am anxious about the prospect of using computers  
o  Stage 2: Learning the process  
I am currently trying to learn the basics. I am sometimes frustrated using technological 
tools. I lack confidence when using technology.  
o  Stage 3: Understanding and Application of the process  
I am beginning to understand the process of using technology in my instruction and can 
think of specific tasks in which it might be used. 
o  Stage 4: Familiarity and confident  
I am gaining a sense of confidence in using different types of technology for specific 
tasks. I am starting to feel comfortable using existing technologies.  
o  Stage 5: Adaption to other context 
I think about technology as a tool to help me disseminate information as well as a way 
to investigate new ideas. I can use it in many applications and as an instructional aide.  
o  Stage 6: Creative application to new contexts  
I can apply what I know about technology in the classroom. I am able to use it as an 
instructional tool and integrate it into the curriculum.  
 
To better identify your needs, please answer the following open ended questions. If 
additional space is needed a blank sheet will be attached.  
What obstacles/barriers have you experienced that affect your level of confidence in adopting 
technology in classroom instruction?  
 
In what ways would you like to increase the level in which you use technology in your 
classroom?  
 
What helped or might help facilitate your adoption of technology in classroom instruction? 
 
97 
 
How often do you as a classroom teacher  
Scale of Implementation 
Not at all Not very much Some-times  Often  Frequently 
Encourage and support student autonomy and 
initiative (student working independently and helping 
to direct their own learning)? 
o  o  o  o  o  
Use raw data and primary sources? o  o  o  o  o  
Use manipulative, interactive, and physical 
materials?  o  o  o  o  o  
When explaining tasks, use cognitive terminology 
such as ?classify,? ?analyze,? ?predict,? and 
?create??   
o  o  o  o  o  
Allow student responses to drive lessons shift 
instructional strategies, and alter content 
accordingly?   
o  o  o  o  o  
Inquire about students? understanding of concepts 
before sharing my own understanding of those 
concepts?    
o  o  o  o  o  
Encourage students to engage in dialogue, both with 
the teacher and one another?  o  o  o  o  o  
Encourage student inquiry by asking thoughtful, 
open-ended questions? o  o  o  o  o  
Encourage students to ask questions of each other? o  o  o  o  o  
Seek elaboration of students? initial responses?  o  o  o  o  o  
Engage students in experiences that might result in 
contradictions to their initial ideas?  o  o  o  o  o  
Allow wait time after posing questions o  o  o  o  o  
Provide time for students to construct relationships 
between/among concepts? o  o  o  o  o  
Nurture students? natural curiosity?  o  o  o  o  o  
 
  
98 
 
  
  
  
  
 
Appendix 2 
 
Informed Consent Letter 
 
(NOTE:  DO NOT SIGN THIS DOCUMENT UNLESS AN IRB APPROVAL STAMP 
WITH CURRENT DATES HAS BEEN APPLIED TO THIS DOCUMENT.) 
 
INFORMED CONSENT 
for a Research Study entitled 
?Teachers? Concerns, Attitudes, Beliefs and Pedagogical Practices as It Relates to 
Technology Integration? 
 
You are invited to participate in a research study to first, discover whether there are any 
differences in the use of technology by magnet school and comprehensive high school 
teachers. Second, to seek an understanding of individual teachers as they transition through 
stages of technology use identifying contributing factors of attitudes, beliefs and pedagogical 
practices. Untimely attempting to develop staff development ideas aimed at supporting the 
reluctant technology integrating teacher. The study is being conducted by Jacob Holloway, a 
student under the direction of Dr. Paris Strom, Associate Professor in the Auburn University 
Department of Educational Foundations, Leadership and Technology.  You were selected as a 
possible participant because you are either a comprehensive or magnet high school teacher 
teaching in a core content area within the Montgomery Public Schools System.  
 
What will be involved if you participate?  If you decide to participate in this research study, 
you will be asked to answer a questionnaire and return it in a pre-stamped self-addressed 
envelope via US Postal Service.  Your total time commitment will be approximately 10-15 
minutes. 
 
Are there any risks or discomforts?  The risk associated with participating in this study is 
the risk a breach in confidentiality.  To minimize these risks, I will collect all data and record it 
as anonymous. All identifiable information will be removed or fictionalized in the reporting 
process. Finally, all data collected will be secured in a locked filling cabinet, in the home 
office of the principal investigate, throughout the course of data collection, analysis, and report 
generation. 
 
 
 
Participant?s initials ______                                                             Page 1 of 2 
99 
 
Are there any benefits to yourself or others?  If you participate in this study, you can expect 
to gain valuable insight into staff development ideas aimed at technology use, development, 
and implementation while understanding the connection between pedagogical practices best 
suited to support technology integration. I cannot promise you that you will receive any or all 
of the benefits described. 
 
Are there any costs?  If you decide to participate, you will incur no cost for participating. 
Mailing cost will be paid by the investigator.  
 
If you change your mind about participating, you can withdraw at any time during the 
study.  Your participation is completely voluntary.  If you choose to withdraw, your data can 
be withdrawn as long as it is identifiable.   Your decision about whether or not to participate or 
to stop participating will not jeopardize your future relations with Montgomery Public 
Schools.  
 
Your privacy will be protected.  Any information obtained in connection with this study will 
remain anonymous (or confidential).  Information obtained through your participation may be 
used to fulfill the prerequisite of a dissertation as a part of the educational requirements 
necessary to obtain the degree of PhD in Administration and Supervision of Curriculum and 
the possibility of publication. 
 
If you have questions about this study, please ask them now or contact me, Jacob Holloway 
at www.jkh0002@auburn.edu or my faculty adviser, Dr. Paris Strom at stromps@auburn.edu.  
A copy of this document will be given to you to keep. 
 
If you have questions about your rights as a research participant, you may contact the 
Auburn University Office of Human Subjects Research or the Institutional Review Board by 
phone (334)-844-5966 or e-mail at  hsubjec@auburn.edu or IRBChair@auburn.edu. 
 
HAVING READ THE INFORMATION PROVIDED, YOU MUST DECIDE 
WHETHER OR NOT YOU WISH TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS RESEARCH STUDY. 
YOUR SIGNATURE INDICATES YOUR WILLINGNESS TO PARTICIPATE. 
 
_____________________________     __________________________________ 
Participant's signature  Date         Investigator obtaining consent        Date 
 
_____________________________      ___________________________________ 
Printed Name Printed Name 
 
    ______________________________ 
     Co-Investigator                        Date 
 
  _____________________________ 
      Printed Name           
Page 2 of 2  
100 
 
  
  
  
  
 
Appendix 3 
Recruitment Script  
 
My name is Jacob Holloway, a graduate student from the Department of Educational 
Foundations, Leadership and Technology at Auburn University. I would like to offer you a 
unique opportunity to participate in a research study aimed at assisting teachers with becoming 
more knowledgeable and better equipped to address the constant demands to integrate more 
technology into their instructional practices. This will only take about 10 to 15 minutes of your 
time and your corporation would be greatly appreciated. My study is designed to help determine 
if teachers? dispositions of attitudes, concerns and pedagogical practices influence their 
willingness or hesitance to integrate technology into their instructional practices. I will be 
requesting feedback, from you the classroom teacher, in the form of a questionnaire. I am asking 
for teachers inputs because you are the ones facing the many challenges of meeting our students? 
instructional needs on a daily bases.   
Although I would like to hear feedback from each one of you, unfortunately at this time I am 
limiting my study to core academic teachers who are currently teaching at either a 
comprehensive or magnet high school. If you are not a core content area teacher I ask that you 
not participate in this study at this time.  
If you would like to participate in this research study, you will find legal envelopes placed on the 
tables at which you are sitting. Please open one and you will find a letter of consent. This letter 
101 
 
explains your rights as a participant. Quickly read over this letter asking any questions that may 
concern you. Please note that it is my intent to keep all information submitted to me confidential, 
however, there exist a slight risk of a breach of confidentiality. This study does not reflect in any 
way on job performance or your employment with Montgomery Public Schools. All results 
reported to your district will be recorded and presented as anonymous.  At the bottom there is a 
place for your signature, by signing this letter you would have agreed to participate in this study. 
After signing your consent or if you decide not to participate please return your consent 
document to the envelope and stack them at the end of your tables for collection.   
If you should find that you have questions later, please contact me at www.jkh0002@auburn.edu 
or my advisor, Dr. Paris Strom, at www.stromps@auburn.edu  
Again, thank you for your support.