An Analysis of Teachers’ Concerns Toward the...
99
An Analysis of Teachers’ Concerns Toward the Implementation of Instructional Technology in the Curriculum by Yaritza Gonzalez An Applied Dissertation Submitted to the Abraham S. Fischler School of Education in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Education Nova Southeastern University 2012
Transcript of An Analysis of Teachers’ Concerns Toward the...
An Analysis of Teachers’ Concerns Toward the Implementation
of Instructional Technology in the Curriculum
by
Yaritza Gonzalez
An Applied Dissertation Submitted to the
Abraham S. Fischler School of Education
in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
for the Degree of Doctor of Education
Nova Southeastern University
2012
Approval Page
This applied dissertation was submitted by Yaritza Gonzalez
under the direction of the persons listed below. It was
submitted to the Abraham S. Fischler School of Education
and approved in partial fulfillment of the requirements for
the degree of Doctor of Education at Nova Southeastern
University.
Timothy Shields, EdD Date
Committee Chair
Ninoska Rivas de Rojas, EdD Date
Committee Member
Program Professor Review Date
Applied Research Center
Ronald P. Kern, PhD Date
Associate Dean
ii
Abstract
An Analysis of Teacher’s Concerns Toward the Implementation
of Instructional Technology in the Curriculum. Yaritza
Gonzalez, 2012: Applied Dissertation, Nova Southeastern
University, Abraham S. Fischler School of Education. ERIC
Descriptors: Technology Integration, Middle School
Teachers, Computer Technology, Curriculum Implementation
The purpose of this research study was to conduct an
analysis of concerns experienced by teachers when it came
to the implementation of instructional technology in the
curriculum. As a result of a lack of technology
implementation at the study site, teachers were surveyed in
order to analyze concerns that could have been barriers.
The theoretical foundation of this research was the
concerns-based adoption model (CBAM). In addition, a
literature assessment of the effectiveness of teaching with
technology, barriers to technology integration, and
professional development was conducted to further support
the research.
Four research questions were addressed in the study:
1. What are teachers’ concerns about instructional
technology as measured by the Stages of Concern
Questionnaire (SoCQ)?
2. Are there significant relationships between teachers’
stages of concern and years of teaching experience?
3. Are there significant relationships between teachers’
stages of concern and grade level taught?
4. What do researchers indicate as best practices for
professional development when it comes to technology
integration in the curriculum?
Quantitative data was gathered using the SoCQ, as well as
models from the literature that aided in gathering
information for successful technology implementation in the
classroom. The survey results provided teachers with a
better understanding of their concern barriers. In
addition, this study aided administration in shaping plans
for future technology training in a school implementing
wireless classrooms.
iii
Table of Contents
Page
Chapter 1: Introduction...................................1
Statement of the Problem.............................2
Definition of Terms.................................11
Purpose of the Study................................12
Summary.............................................13
Chapter 2: Literature Review.............................15
Theoretical Framework...............................15
Technology Integration..............................18
Teachers’ Concerns..................................24
Teachers’ Self-Efficacy.............................28
Professional Development............................30
Barriers to Technology Use..........................35
Conduction of Further Research......................38
Summary.............................................40
Research Questions..................................40
Chapter 3: Methodology...................................42
Participants........................................42
Instruments.........................................43
Procedures..........................................45
Summary.............................................48
Chapter 4: Results.......................................49
Results for Research Question 1.....................50
Results for Research Question 2.....................53
Results for Research Question 3.....................59
Results for Research Question 4.....................61
Summary.............................................64
Chapter 5: Discussion....................................65
Discussion of Results...............................66
Summary of Findings.................................74
Implications of Findings ...........................77
Limitations of the Study............................79
Recommendations for Future Research.................80
Summary.............................................81
References...............................................83
Appendix
Stages of Concern Questionnaire.....................92
iv
Tables
1 CBAM Stages of Concern...........................17
2 Stages of Concern Percentile Scores for Teacher
Cohort (N=9).....................................51
3 Raw Score Totals of Stages of Concern for
Teacher Cohort...................................53
4 One-Way MANOVA Results on Teaching Experience....55
5 Univariate Tests of the Stages of Concern (SoC)
on Teaching Experience...........................56
6 Estimates of the SoC on Teaching Experience......58
7 One-Way MANOVA Results on Grade Taught...........60
8 Estimates of the SoC on Grade Taught.............61
9 Summary of Studies for Best Practices of
Technology Professional Development..............63
10 Summary of Online Resources and Texts for Best Practices of Technology Professional Development.64
Figures
1 Instructional Technology Stages of Concern
Profile for the Total Study Sample (N=9).........52
2 Comparison of Teaching Experience Means Scores
on the Awareness Stage of Concern................59
v
1
Chapter 1: Introduction
Technology tools and resources should become an
integral part of both the learning and teaching process; in
order to have an impact on student achievement (Education
Development Center [EDC], 2002). The International Society
for Technology in Education [ISTE] (2008) noted that
effective teaching in the 21st century requires teachers
to: (a) facilitate and inspire student learning and
creativity, (b) design and develop digital age learning
experiences and assessments, (c) model digital age work and
learning, (d) promote and model digital citizenship and
responsibility, and (e) engage in professional growth and
leadership. Furthermore, President Obama’s Elementary and
Secondary Education Act noted that one key area of teaching
is giving teachers adequate time and support to develop
themselves and their lessons (U.S. Department of Education,
2010a).
In order to function adequately in the 21st century,
students must develop strong technological skills. In
addition, the No Child Left Behind Act indicates that
“every student must become technology literate by the end
of eight grade, and programs must be available that
encourage the effective integration of technology with
2
teacher training and curriculum development” (“Title IID-
Enhancing Education through Technology,” 2010, para. 2).
Statement of the Problem
The Northeastern state where this study took place is
one of the wealthiest in the nation, but unfortunately has
the largest achievement gap among all 50 states (Commission
on Educational Achievement [CCEA], 2010). When this state’s
low-income students are compared to low-income students
from other states; the CCEA found that low-income students
score in the bottom third on some key assessments. In 2010,
non-low income students in this state outscored their low-
income classmates by 34 points in math and 28 points in
reading (CCEA). Results such as these make it essential for
educators to effectively use available technology
resources. With the use of technology resources, students’
performance can be maximized at a time when United States
students are performing more poorly (Dunn & Rakes, 2010a).
Gray, Thomas, and Lewis (2010) conducted a statistical
analysis of teachers’ use of technology in U.S. schools.
These authors found that there were differences among low
and high poverty schools in respect to the percentage of
teachers who sometimes or often used technology. In low
poverty schools, 69 compared to 39% of high poverty schools
used email or list-serve to send out information to
3
parents, 92 compared to 48% used email to address
individual concerns with parents, and 36 compared to 18%
used a course or teacher web page to communicate with
students.
Additionally, Gray, Thomas, and Lewis (2010) mentioned
that “the percentage of teachers that reported spending the
following number of hours in one year in professional
development activities for educational technology was 13%
for none, 53% for one to eight hours, 18% for 9 to 16
hours, 9% for 17 to 32 hours, and 7% for 33 or more hours”
(p. 4). These statistics show that the allocation and
availability of resources are important parts of the
strategy to increase technology use in the classrooms.
Lawless and Pellegrino (2007) noted that the increased
investment of technology in schools could widen the digital
divide unless urban schools maintain a teaching force
equipped to use technology effectively.
Moreover, this states’ technology plan suggested that
large differences exists in teacher skill levels in knowing
how to meaningfully integrate available technology (“State
of CT Technology Plan,” 2010). A goal of the plan is to
support educators individually with technology that
connects them to learning experiences; which therefore, can
4
inspire them to provide effective teaching for all
learners.
In order to meet this goal, the plan recommends that
information be identified and disseminated to assists
schools in providing personalized professional development
for teachers implementing technology in the curriculum
(“State of CT Technology Plan,” 2010). Additionally, the
plan affirms, “technology integration will become an agent
to help address the key challenge faced by the state, such
as that of closing the achievement gap” (p. 4-5).
This study was conducted in a private urban middle
school academy, which services Grades 5 to 8, and is
located in a Northeastern state. The institution provides
tuition-free, extended day education for underserved girls
and boys from low-income families. There is a total student
population of 61, all of who have been awarded a full
scholarship to attend the academy. The main focus of the
school is to assist low-income students in being accepted
into a prestigious private high school with a full
scholarship.
The instructional curriculum at the academy strives to
be rigorous. New laptops were donated for the first time to
the school, as well as interactive white boards. Because of
these donations, students have regular access to computers
5
for school use unlike previous years (K. O’Leary, personal
communication, November 30, 2010). There is Internet via a
wireless network throughout the building. Typical computer
usage includes: (a) completing word-processing and
PowerPoint projects, (b) searching for information, (c)
preparing for standardized tests, and (d) completing other
specialized activities.
The topic. There was no evidence that teachers’
concerns toward the implementation of technology had been
analyzed at the target school. Therefore, this study
identified and analyzed teachers’ concerns and the lack of
technology usage as an instructional tool; to aid in the
delivery of subject matter in the curriculum already in
place.
The research problem. The technology advances at the
study site have increased the demand on classroom teachers
to integrate technology into the curriculum. Implementation
of technology has become priority at the study site, but a
preliminary interview with the school administrator
revealed that the integration of instructional technology
in the curriculum to meet students’ needs is lacking from
teachers (K. O’Leary, personal communication, November 30,
2010).
Classroom observations and formative evaluations
6
conducted by administration over the school year revealed
gaps that exist between technology implementation in the
curriculum and the focus of teaching students technology
skills. At the study site, it appears that much more
attention has been placed by teachers on teaching students
how to work the technology, rather than using technology as
an instructional delivery system to its full potential in
the classroom (K. O’Leary, personal communication, November
30, 2010).
The potential for improvement toward the integration
of educational technology within the classroom exists at
the school. Professional development is offered at least 20
days throughout the year, but more training that includes
instructional technology, in order to support teachers in
their technology integration throughout the curriculum,
would be beneficial. Teachers at the academy are
comfortable using word processing applications and the
Internet with students, but not all teachers are adequately
prepared to use technology in their teaching (K. O’Leary,
personal communication, November 30, 2010).
Background. Technology access is not a problem at the
study site, but it has been found by administration that
students continue to struggle with their technology skills
once they move on to prestigious high schools; compared to
7
their non-low income peers in those high schools. The lack
of instructional technology implementation in the
curriculum in schools serving low-income students has
become an increasing problem. Although, the digital divide
has decreased for traditionally underrepresented students,
inequalities in technological access still remain, and
further research pertaining to teacher use of technology
with traditionally underrepresented students is still
needed (Hess & Leal, 2001). Razfar (2008) noted that
“technology and computer-based instruction have not been
sufficiently integrated into the curriculum especially at
institutions that serve primarily language minority, low
income, and first generation populations” (p. 327).
According to the U.S. Department of Commerce (2010),
in an analysis conducted regarding Internet use in low-
income households, it was found that single-parent
householders with young children rate the lowest with only
57% of Internet use in the home, compared to other
households. This brings concern to the digital divide of
low-income students. Although, the falling cost of
computers and Internet access is narrowing a digital divide
in society, gaps in home access to media and technology use
are substantial (Warschauer & Matuchniak, 2010). Because
the target school’s students often do not have technology
8
alternatives outside of school, it is imperative that
teachers offer richness and intensity of technology use
within their curriculum.
Currently, there are a total of 10 teachers at the
school and no media specialist. The teachers are paid
interns sponsored by the AmeriCorps program. Although, all
teachers are college graduates, with 100% having earned a
bachelor’s degree, none are certified. The teachers have an
average of zero to six years in teaching experience; with
54% being first year teachers. The current student:teacher
ratio is 15:1.
When it comes to new teachers; Russell, Bebell,
O’Dwyer, and O’Connor (2003) mentioned that because the
first years of teaching are challenging, new teachers spend
most of their time in getting used to classroom management
as opposed to integrating technology. Clausen (2007) noted
that beginning teachers consider instructional technology
use in the classroom as an additional element to their
regular teaching practice. King, Williams and Warren (2011)
indicated that because of the barriers that these teachers
are faced with, such as disparities in access to curriculum
and technology and differences in background experiences
and prior knowledge; they face challenges in meeting the
diversity of students’ needs.
9
Deficiencies in the evidence. Although, an increase in
attention to technology in schools to improve learning has
been noticed in the past few years; Gros (2007) found that
minimal research attention has been directed toward the
challenges and concerns teachers face in implementing
technology, especially in a low-income private school
setting. Information that is excised and not established
through traditional research designs is that “about how the
technology-rich environment fits in with all the other
constraints and priorities facing a classroom teacher on
any given day” (Culp, Honey, Spielvogel, Martin, Light,
2002, p. 6). Furthermore, Dunn and Rakes (2010a) state that
“it is important to identify and address implicit teacher
characteristics that influence and increase teacher
consequence concerns with regard to the implementation of
technology in the classroom” (p. 58).
Existing studies of concerns to computer technology
integration primarily focus on faculty of higher education
(Keengwe, Onchwari & Wachira, 2008) and teachers of public
schools (Wetzel, 2001; Atkins & Vasu, 2000; Gorder, 2008).
Nevertheless, a study focused in a private middle school
setting that services low-income students is critical. The
benefits of integrating technology into the instructional
curriculum can be better understood by using quantitative
10
approaches. In order to add to the literature, this
research was a modified replication of an earlier study
conducted by Rakes and Casey (2002).
In their study, Rakes and Casey (2002) found that
personal concerns of teachers’ use of technology might be
sacrificed as emphasis is placed on student achievement.
About 68% of their teacher sample indicated they were given
no time during the school day to practice what had been
taught during professional development. According to these
researchers, teachers’ concerns must be addressed first in
order for teachers to be concerned with the application and
use of technology with students.
Audience. The results of this analysis provides
valuable information for administrators as they look for
new ways to motivate students, hone their problem solving
skills, and increase teachers’ technological skills in
their teaching. School administrators are provided with
information that assists in the appropriate integration of
technology to better meet the diverse educational needs of
students, as well as contribute to the body of knowledge
that relates to the value of using computers as an
instructional tool.
Teachers, on the other hand, can gain an understanding
of how technology can and should play an important role in
11
curriculum planning, development, delivery, assessment, and
administration. Furthermore, policy makers and district
leaders can better isolate variables and develop models
about technology implementation in schools. At the same
time, by identifying the importance of computer technology
integration, parents can better understand how their child
is being educated and also assist with implementing the
medium at home with their student.
Definition of Terms
For the purpose of this applied dissertation, the
following terms are defined.
Concerns. This term refers to the composite
representation of the feelings, preoccupation, thought, and
consideration given to a particular issue or task (Hall,
George & Rutherford, 1977).
Digital divide. This term refers to a perception based
on students who do and those students who do not have
access to technology, computers, and the Internet
(Schlosser & Simonson, 2006).
Professional development. This term refers to ongoing,
learning opportunities that consist of short courses and
workshops that teachers receive on aspects of their work
(Jovanova-Mitkovska, 2010).
Stages of concern. This term refers to sequential
12
stages through which one progresses when faced with change
such as: (a) awareness concerns, (b) informational
concerns, (c) personal concerns, (d) management concerns,
(e) consequence concerns, (f) collaboration concerns, and
(g) refocusing concerns (Hall et al., 1977).
Technology. This term refers to a capability given by
the practical application of knowledge to use computers,
educational software, network hardware, promethean boards,
and any other associated peripherals (Wetzel & Zambo,
1996).
Technology integration. This term refers to the
incorporation of technology resources and technology based
practices into the daily routines, work, and management of
schools (National Center for Education Statistics, 2002).
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to further research the
concerns that influence teachers towards the implementation
of instructional technology in their curricula at the
middle school site. According to Clausen (2007),
“exploration of the development of teachers and how the
school context affects their instructional technology use
are the next step for researchers and reformers interested
in improving teachers’ instructional technology use” (p.
247). In addition, providing teachers’ perceptions in a
13
private school setting can aid in shaping plans for future
technology training models in a school implementing
wireless classrooms.
The SoCQ survey was used to assess teacher concerns in
regards to using technology on a daily basis in their
classrooms. The questionnaire is useful in determining what
teachers are thinking about the practice of technology
implementation, and in measuring how they feel about their
involvement with this innovation (Hall et al., 1977). This
study was supported by the CBAM, which offers a way to
understand and address educators’ common concerns about
technology use. Teachers must be aware that technology for
learning could potentially be a powerful tool for teaching
today’s students the skills they will need to succeed in
the new global economy (Federation of American Scientists,
2006). Having awareness of teachers’ concerns allows
administrators in charge of technology at the study site,
to tailor professional development programs given to these
individuals.
Summary
The literature has revealed that supporting
professional development, gives teachers the knowledge and
skills that help improve their classroom practice.
Moreover, it brings 21st century technology into learning
14
in meaningful ways and inspires learners of all ages to
achieve. This dissertation was used to focus on assisting
teachers identify their concerns to technology
implementation; thereby, allowing students to be taught
with higher expectations of engagement and interaction.
Technology integration in the classroom is increasing
at a rapid pace, now more than ever, since technology is
becoming more varied. Several studies indicated that while
the technology amount and access has increased (Clausen,
2007; Dunn & Rakes, 2010a; Collins & Halverston, 2009;
Marcoux & Loertscher, 2009), unfortunately its effects on
teacher instruction and pedagogy has lagged behind (Razfar,
2008). O’Brien and Scharber (2010) concluded that:
With the abundance of technological resources, the
changing nature of literacy and a new NAEP National
Standardized Test on Technological Literacy launching
in 2014, the time has come for schools to join in the
Web 2.0, Literacy 2.0, and Education 2.0 revolution.
In fact, the new tech-literacy exam will bring student
competency to the fore. The new exam will address
technology and society, design and systems, and
information and communication technologies, which are
not content area specific. (p. 601)
15
Chapter 2: Literature Review
This chapter explores the conceptual framework within
which the study was grounded, as well as an examination of
research existing in the literature related to teacher
concerns, the use of technology in classrooms and
professional development. The areas found to be most
closely related to technology implementation in the
curriculum are: (a) technology integration and effective
use in the classroom, (b) students’ interaction with
technology, (c) professional development, (d) teachers’
concerns and self-efficacy, and (e) barriers to technology
integration. These topics were included within the
literature review in order to obtain a more comprehensive
view of the concerns teachers’ face using instructional
technology in the classroom.
Theoretical Framework
To guide this study, the theoretical framework used
was that of Hall and Hord’s (2005) CBAM. This model, which
was developed in the 1970s, has been adapted in research
for more than 25 years (Holloway, 2003) and aids innovation
by addressing educator’s concerns about change. The
component of CBAM known as Stages of Concern (SoC)
supported the study.
Concerns-based adoption model. Researchers have drawn
16
upon Fuller’s (1969) phases of concern theory to examine
teachers’ concerns. As beginning teachers come to identify
with the new teacher role; Fuller believes that a sequence
of concerns is experienced. These concerns are the
following: Stage 1, Self-concerns (adequacy as a teacher);
Stage 2, Task concerns (teaching methods, teaching
performance); and Stage 3, Impact concerns (pupil learning
needs). Fuller’s work made an influence in Hall and his
colleagues when developing the CBAM. The model highlights
change as a process rather than an event. Moreover, CBAM
proposes that the diagnostic data can be used by managers
to develop a prescription for needed interventions of a
specified change (Hall et al., 1977). When it comes to
concerns Hall et al. (1977) noted that:
To be concerned means to be in a mentally aroused
state about something. The intensity of the arousal
will depend on the person’s past experiences and
associations with the subject of the arousal, as well
as how close to the person and how immediate the issue
is perceived as being. (p. 5)
The CBAM describes these concerns in seven levels,
also known as SoC, of which teachers experience as they
adopt a new practice (Hall & Loucks, 1979). Table 1 lists
the SoC in the CBAM and what each category entails.
17
Table 1
CBAM Stages of Concern (SoC)
Stages Concerns
0-Awareness Teachers have little concern or involvement with the
innovation.
1-Informational Teachers want to know more about the innovation.
2-Personal Teachers want to learn about the personal
ramifications of the innovation and are uncertain
about the personal demands.
3-Management Teachers learn the processes and tasks of the
innovation, such as managing, scheduling, and time
demands.
4-Consequence Teachers focus on the innovation’s impact on
students.
5-Collaboration Teachers cooperate and coordinate with other
teachers in implementing the innovation.
6-Refocusing Teachers consider the benefits of the innovation
and think of additional alternatives that might work
even better.
Note. Adapted from “Measuring stages of concern about the innovation: A
manual for use of the SoC questionnaire,” by Hall, G. E., George, A.
and Rutherford, W. L., 1977, Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov:80/
PDFS/ED147342.pdf
Many studies in educational settings are available
that have applied the CBAM framework and the SoCQ. Gokcek
(2009) used these tools to identify teachers’ concerns who
were involved in the implementation of a reformed
mathematics curriculum for sixth graders. In another study
Van den Berg, Sleegers, Geijsel and Vandenberghe (2000)
used CBAM and the SoCQ questionnaire to address the
concerns of teachers with regard to the implementation of
adaptive teaching. Various researchers have examined
18
teachers’ concerns regarding technology integration using
scores from the SoCQ (Dunn & Rakes, 2010; Yang & Huang,
2008; Wetzel, 2001). Researchers who use these tools share
a common ground of awareness that earlier concerns must be
resolved before later concerns emerge.
Technology Integration
To have effective technology adoption, teachers’
different SoC require to be acknowledged by those in charge
of the innovation. Furthermore, appropriate professional
development should be provided (Al-Rawajfih, Fong & Idros,
2010). With the use of technology, educators can change how
they teach to match what students need to know, how they
learn, and where and when they learn; in order to prepare
students to learn throughout their lives and in settings
far beyond classrooms (U.S. Department of Education,
2010b).
The National Science Foundation [NSF] (2008) ensures
that in this era, it is possible to draw on more
technologies to design curriculum, support teachers, and
monitor students’ progress. Digital learning resources
enable engaging individual learners’ personal interests by
connecting web learning resources to learning standards,
and bridging informal and formal learning in and outside
school (Brown & Adler, 2008; Collins & Halverson, 2009;
19
National Science Foundation, 2008). The resource of
technology has been shown to improve student performance
when utilized effectively (Dunn & Rakes, 2010b). Students
have indicated that the variation from usual written
assessments to that of technology led assessments is an
appealing component to their learning process (Smith &
Peck, 2010).
Students’ interaction with technology. When it comes
to students, true learning in the 21st century requires
being able to use new technologies, organize and evaluate
information to solve problems, and innovate practical ideas
in real-world settings (Jimoyiannis, 2010). Students who
have trouble in school have been shown to have greater
success when technology is incorporated into the curriculum
(Joseph, 2008). Traditional classroom lessons have often
failed to effectively or reliably engage and motivate
students. Technology allows learning to be personalized
instead of a one-size-fits-all curriculum. The attention
span of the average middle school student is 10 to 12
minutes (Vawter, 2009); therefore, direct instruction
should be kept minimal. Hersey and Jordan (2007) found that
children entering first grade are estimated to spend an
average of 14 minutes per day using computers. By the time
children reach age 12; their average screen time has
20
increased to 79 minutes of computer usage.
McCormack and Ross (2010) studied how students
interacted with technology and its outcomes. They had
students research two science websites related to
Deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA). Students evaluated the
websites in small groups and commented on lab procedures,
as well as level of engagement. These researchers found
that students learned the lab procedures by bridging the
roles of media consumer and producer. McCormack and Ross
also found that the science content was reinforced. When
compared to previous classes, these students made fewer
mistakes in lab procedures.
In a Texas middle school, students participated in the
Technology Immersion Pilot program. These students used
wireless laptops in school to communicate, solve problems,
and create information in all of their subject areas. All
of the teachers that were involved in the project reported
an increase in student learning and engagement, parental
involvement, and a decrease in discipline issues. Results
showed that one of the middle schools had standardized math
scores increase by 5% for sixth-graders, 42% for seventh-
graders and 24% for eight-graders (International Society
for Technology in Education, 2007).
Lei (2010) studied the relationship between technology
21
use and student outcomes. A comparison was made of the
association between the quantity of technology and student
outcomes; with the association between the quality and
student outcomes. Students from a Northwestern middle
school in the U.S. participated in the study. It was a
small school with 237 students and a student:teacher ratio
of 9:1. Resources such as one-to-one laptops were provided
in the school. With the use of surveys and interviews, data
was collected. The survey, which included four sections,
was administered at the beginning and at the end of the
year. Nine teachers and nine students were interviewed on
how they used technology, for what purpose, and in what
context. All participants were interviewed individually for
about 30 minutes.
Lei (2010) discovered, during the data analysis, that
32.3% of the students spent less than two hours a day on
computers, 30.8% spent two to three hours a day, and 36.9%
spent more than three hours a day on computers. The
analysis also revealed that there was no significant
relationship between the quantity of technology use and
student outcomes. Nevertheless, there was a significant
relationship found between the quality of technology use
and student outcomes. According to Lei, the significant
influence on student outcomes depends on how the technology
22
is used. For example, social-communication technology had a
significant positive influence on students. Yet, he
believes that it is important to pay close attention on the
quality of technology use, in order for it to have a
meaningful impact on teaching.
Effective technology use in the classroom. Technology
can make it possible to adopt better approaches to
instruction and change the context of learning by making it
easier to teach the same things (Lawless & Pellegrino,
2007). Lee, Cerreto and Lee (2010) mentioned that “teachers
base their decisions to use technology in the classroom
primarily on their evaluation of the potential benefits,
with less regard for the opinions of others and little
concern over internal and external resources” (p. 162).
Wetzel (2001) noted that factors that influence efforts to
sustain an effective technology program at a school are
those of a “focus on hardware rather than on the
implementation process, a weak implementation planning
process that fails to meet the needs of teachers, and
little or no professional development” (p. 4).
Al-Bataineh, Anderson, Toledo & Wellinski (2008)
researched the implementation and integration of technology
at middle and high school levels. A survey was administered
to teachers asking them questions in regards to training
23
received in technology, the type of technology usage, and
the frequency of the use of technology. Results were based
on a survey return rate of 77%, where findings demonstrated
that teachers were using technology in some capacity. The
use of technology as a support tool was the highest by all
respondents at 49%. This entailed the use of the Internet
and the grade book.
The use of technology for direct instruction in the
classroom scored the lowest percentage. Lack of familiarity
with the technology, which was 55%, became a barrier as to
why teachers did not use technology in the classroom. The
authors confirmed that “there is a need to increase
technology training so that technology is not only an aid
to instruction, but also becomes integrated unto the
teaching and learning process” (Al-Bataineh et al., 2008,
p. 386).
In order to help teachers understand how to integrate
technology in the curriculum Hur, Cullen and Brush (2010)
developed several guidelines that teacher educators should
follow. The following guidelines are: (a) provide concrete
experiences, (b) promote reflection, (c) assist in
application, (d) create communities of learners, and (e)
develop technological pedagogical and content knowledge.
These researchers note that by educators describing project
24
development and the implementation process in depth, it can
assist other educators on developing a similar project.
Teachers’ Concerns
According to Wetzel (2001), for teachers to accept
change in their pedagogy to adapt a new technological
innovation; they first must experience conflict within
their expectations. Dunn and Rakes (2010b) noted that
teachers with low consequence concerns fail to implement
innovations in their classrooms, due to the fact that they
are likely to resist any change. Gokcek (2009) discovered
that dilemmas are likely to arise when old experiences and
new pedagogy suggest different courses of action.
Furthermore, Wetzel (2001) felt that studying the
changes of teachers’ patterns of adaptation when using new
curriculum, would provide insight into how teachers
incorporate reform principles in their instructional
practices. When there is a deeper understanding of the
usefulness of tools and teachers are able to collaborate
with peers, their confidence is strengthened (Williams,
Foulger & Wetzel, 2009).
Curriculum concerns. Curriculum cannot be endorsed
unless teachers have opportunities to learn new concepts,
ways of interacting with students, ways of presenting
material, and forms of professional collaboration
25
(Vandenberghe, 2002). In a case study approach conducted in
Turkey, Gokcek (2009) studied three sixth-grade math male
teachers who were using a new math curriculum. These
teachers were administered the SoCQ to identify how their
concerns changed throughout implementation of the
curriculum over 2 years.
Results of the study showed that teacher one had
overall concerns decrease to some extent during the second
year. This teacher’s concerns fell down from 96% to 61%,
which meant that he was more interested in the program.
When it came to Stage 2 of the questionnaire, personal
concerns, the teacher had a peak of 31%. This indicated
that teacher one was still uncertain about the demands of
facilitating the use of the curriculum (Gokcek, 2009).
When it came to teacher two, Gokcek (2009) found that
overall concerns did not change remarkably in 2 years,
other than in Stage 5 and Stage 6. Unlike teacher one,
teacher’s two, Stage 0 concerns elevated from 87% to 96%;
which indicated that he had low interest in the program and
little concern about following the program. During the
second year, teacher’s two concerns raised to 84%. Teacher
three had a much different pattern of concern in the 2
years. In regards to Stage 0, his scores remained moderate
with 40% and 55%. Although, he was more interested in the
26
curriculum the first year, the change process brought him
no concerns the second year. His maximum score of 67%, for
Stage 2, showed that he was uncertain about meeting program
demands.
The study revealed that teacher one was the only
teacher that became more adapted to the curriculum during
the second year. The other two teachers became resistant to
the reform, due to their high stages of concern during the
second year. Gokcek (2009) concluded that the teachers were
yet not fully aware of the curriculum, as well as not
interested in the program. He further mentioned that it is
essential for curriculum developers to take preventative
actions so that reform efforts are not wasted.
Adoption of innovation concerns. In a Midwestern
research university, DeVore (2000) studied the concerns of
professors who use computer-mediated communication for
instructional purposes. The SoCQ was also used to gather
data. With a 52% survey return rate, DeVore found that some
of the highest levels of concern for professors were the
following: (a) 14% for awareness, (b) 19% informational,
and (c) 19% personal. As for the lowest concerns,
collaboration was at the bottom at 16%. This indicated that
professors were not very much interested in collaborating
with other professors and were more interested in self-
27
needs concerning instructional technology. Of those
professors who use technology, 75% indicated that they had
never had any formal training. According to DeVore,
collaboration and training of educators are a must, in
order to enhance the quality and quantity of instruction.
At another research university, Turns, Eliot, Neal and
Linse (2007) studied teaching concerns of engineering
educators. They wanted to inquire about the prevalence of
concerns associated with the adoption of any type of
innovation. Furthermore, the researchers wanted to identify
which concerns the CBAM could categorize. The study was
sought to explore how these concerns illustrated the nature
of teaching concerns in engineering education.
An engineering instructional consultant was used to
have consultations with the engineering educators. The
consultant helped the clients with issues identified. After
63-consultations, the researchers debriefed the consultant.
The interviews consisted of the consultant responding to
open ended questions. An estimation was made that the
dataset represented the concerns of 40 to 45 different
individuals.
Deductive analysis was used, as well as inductive
analysis for the results. After a filtering and coding
process was performed, 120 concerns were identified. Turns
28
et al. (2007) stated that with 70 concerns, the impact
category was the most prevalent. Some of the concerns in
this category were such as: (a) relationship with students,
(b) groups of students within a class, and (c) maintaining
quality while providing accommodation.
In addition, 66 concerns were identified as being
related to the adoption of innovation and for the
assumptions of the CBAM. Some of these concerns included
the following: (a) strategies and practices that form a
part of teaching, (b) mentoring and advising that occurs
outside the classroom and (c) assessment and monitoring
practices. Study results indicated that there was an
evidence of learner-centered practices. According to Turns
et al. (2007), the results “point to adoption of innovation
and professional problem solving as promising ways to
conceptualize the activity of educators” (p. 306).
Teachers’ Self-Efficacy
Classrooms provide a developed grounded knowledge of
teaching (Kelchtermans & Ballet, 2002). As teachers
collaborate with peers, their grounded knowledge becomes a
meaningful lens. In being a member of an organization,
teachers learn and develop. Greene (1991) mentioned that
choice plays a role in how teachers develop. He later
discussed how choice is necessary for teachers and states
29
that “teachers willing to take the risk of coming in touch
with themselves, of creating themselves, have to exist in a
kind of tension; because it is always easier to fall back
into indifference, and into mere conformity” (p. 10).
Teachers’ beliefs. Studies have indicated that
teachers with lower consequence concerns are unlikely to
engage in target innovations (Dunn & Rakes, 2010b).
Providing schools with computers is not enough to assure
utilization of the resources by teachers. Administrators
should address the cognitive and affective teacher
attributes. This in turn, will result in positive changes
for students. Bandura (1977) mentioned that people are
likely to perform a certain behavior when they believe that
they are capable of performing the behavior successfully.
Teachers’ teaching styles are influenced by personal
factors, including personality and belief system (Wetzel,
2001). Most importantly, teachers’ styles are influenced by
the organizational structure in which they teach. Wetzel
believes that for instructional technology to be
successfully implemented, teacher beliefs and values need
to shift.
Learner-centered beliefs. The authors Dunn and Rakes
(2010a) investigated teachers’ learner-centered beliefs and
teacher efficacy on consequence concerns using a
30
quantitative research design. The SoCQ was used to study
descriptive information and linear regression models, along
with a teacher beliefs survey and teacher sense of efficacy
survey. About 74 students employed as teachers were
surveyed. These students were enrolled in a masters of
education program in a Mid-Southern university.
According to Dunn and Rakes (2010a), the student
surveys were completed via e-mail. The results, which were
analyzed using Cronbach’s alpha, displayed that reliability
alpha for the learner-centered beliefs subscale was .75;
while the alpha for the efficacy subscale was .95. In
regards to the SoCQ, raw scores were converted to
percentiles as such: Stage 0, 93%; Stage 1, 90%; Stage 2,
85%; Stage 3, 80%; Stage 4, 54%; Stage 5, 76; and Stage 6,
77%. Results indicated that “learner-centered beliefs and
teacher efficacy do significantly influence teachers’
consequence concerns” (Dunn & Rakes, p. 72).
Professional Development
Jovanova-Mitkovska (2010) noted that effective
professional development involves team planning, student
observation, the study of video lessons, and reflections.
Donovan and Green (2010) suggested that there is a need to
better prepare teachers for teaching in technology rich
environments, due to the fact that there is an influx of
31
the use of mobile laptops in K-12 classrooms. Because
teachers with long teaching experience lag behind younger
teachers when it comes to technology integration, Al-
Rawajfih et al. (2010) recommended that these teachers be
retrained to expose them with the most current technology.
In regards to technology integration, opportunities for
follow-up learning and feedback are considered to be the
best, when it pertains to professional development (Lawless
& Pellegrino, 2007).
Effective development on technology. To take away the
uncertainty and lack of familiarity that goes along with
technology, Al-Bataineh et al. (2008) stated that by
incorporating training at the teacher trainer level, the
use of technology will increase. Schrum (1999) argued that
teachers need to be placed in a technology rich field
environment. This will allow them to receive ongoing
guidance as they implement technology supported lessons.
Furthermore, extensive practice of how to use their
technology skills will aid in augmenting student learning.
Designers of teacher development programs should
emphasize methods to improve efficiency, since teachers
have reported concerns that using computers to create and
deliver lessons requires too much time (Lee et al., 2010).
Nevertheless, career development in teaching by creating
32
professional conditions, significantly changes the attitude
of a teacher’s own professional development (Jovanova-
Mitkovska, 2010).
To aid in professional development Marcoux and
Loertscher (2009) indicated that “partnerships with other
organizations, the community, consortia, and granting
agencies provide the wherewithal to implement the constant
change and improvement required to keep pace with
technology” (p.19). Jimoyiannis (2010) conducted a study in
Greece to research the preparation of science teachers in
integrating information and communication technologies in
their instruction. Participants consisted of six-science
teachers whose teaching experienced ranged from 10 to 25
years. The course sessions lasted 350 hours in total; of
which teachers received instruction with the use of modules
on various topics from educational software to
instructional design principles. When the program was
completed, a qualitative case study approach was used to
study the impact on the participants’ perceptions.
Upon review of the interview transcripts and
recordings, it was found that all participants reported an
increased willingness and confidence in their ability to
apply information and communication technologies in their
own instruction. Additionally, participants developed
33
increased knowledge and skills in their subject matter.
Teachers also felt that they could effectively integrate
technology into the science curriculum. Jimoyiannis
concluded that “by analytically describing the types of
knowledge teachers need, educators are better supported to
understand the variance in levels of technology integration
occurring in the classrooms” (p. 1268).
Effective development of beginning teachers. When it
comes to professional development, Watzke (2007) stated
that the beginning years of teaching are identified as
being problematic. He further mentioned that “the process
of professional development itself is oriented towards
higher levels of student learning, how students learn, and
understanding and meeting the socio-emotional and academic
needs of students as a means to facilitate student
learning” (p. 107). A challenge facing teacher education
programs is that of preparing teachers to work in
technology rich schools (Wedman & Diggs, 2001).
In a study conducted by Clausen (2007), he researched
how the first year development of two beginning teachers
affected their technology use with students. One of the
teachers taught third grade and had 21 students. The other
teacher taught second grade and had 29 students. For both
of these teachers, classroom technology access consisted of
34
an overhead projector, networked computers, TV, and VCR.
Issues that the teachers found themselves facing where
those of curriculum planning, classroom management, and
organization.
One of the teachers believed that the use of
technology in the classroom was an opportunity for her
students to misbehave; while the other teacher believed
that technology could be useful in reaching student goals
(Clausen, 2007). Throughout the year, a mentoring program
and a technology coordinator provided the teachers aid and
instructional support. Clausen was able to perform a data
triangulation by employing a case study of interviews,
direct observation, classroom, and teacher documents over a
year time. He found that both teachers experienced the same
challenges as other beginning teachers. The teachers’
frustrations of having to manage time, the classroom, and
students affected their instructional decisions about
technology use with students.
Results from the study showed that although technology
access did not affect technology use for both teachers; the
support and development received from their institution
facilitated their technology use with students. Having an
active engagement of teachers, aids in building communities
of colleagues within the school setting, and helps sustain
35
efforts after the conclusion of training (Lawless &
Pellegrino, 2007).
Barriers to Technology Use
The barriers to effective technology integration have
been well documented in the literature. In order to
increase the use of technology, more work needs to be done
to determine the importance of the barriers (Al-Bataineh et
al., 2008). Al-Bataineh et al. revealed that:
More crowded classrooms; more pressures to succeed due
to the impact of No Child Left Behind Act and more
day-to-day responsibilities are playing a key role in
the allotment of time in the daily lesson planning of
a teacher. Discipline issues and special needs
students are other areas that have had a significant
impact on incorporating technology into the classroom.
The ability to plan and gauge an entire lesson around
all of these factors makes it extremely difficult to
be an innovator or proponent in technological
implementation. (p. 382)
Barriers of instructional knowledge. Wedman & Diggs
(2001) performed a self-study to identify barriers to a
technology enhanced learning environment. The study
involved 23 teacher education faculty members. A survey was
administered and an interview was conducted. The
researchers discovered that there were five factors as
barriers to the use of technology among faculty. These
factors were: (a) 52% received explicit expectations
regarding the use of technology, (b) 22% received regular
feedback of how well they were meeting expectations when it
36
came to technology use, (c) 39% reported that available
tools and the environment adequately supported technology
use, and (d) 22% reported that rewards were in place to
encourage technology use.
When it came to possessing the instructional knowledge
to implement technology, only half of the faculty felt
prepared. This study concludes that barriers need to be
identified before efforts to create and implement
technology-enhanced learning environments are made.
Available technologies tend not to be used, due to staff
reporting not having sufficient time to familiarize
themselves with it (Robinson & Sebba, 2010). Moreover,
Robinson and Sebba found that schools which acknowledged
and built on the technological skills, allowed for an
increase in access to digital technologies.
Barriers for new teachers. McCormack and Ross (2010)
discussed that although time commitment can be challenging,
as well as the commitment for teachers to become familiar
with the technology; obtaining prior approval to access the
Internet during class time can be a barrier to overcome.
In order to assist teachers in overcoming barriers as they
integrated technology, Wetzel (2001) performed a
quantitative study for the STAIRS Model. This model
consisted of eight steps: (a) staff development, (b) time
37
to learn, (c) trainer that was qualified, (d) transition
time to implement technology, (e) access to hardware and
software, (f) involvement by teachers in the process, (g)
recognition of teachers, and (h) support for teachers. The
main focus of the model was to influence changes in the
teachers’ pedagogy in regards to technology implementation.
The participants for the study consisted of five
teachers in a middle school located in Virginia. The
majority of the students at the school were from middle to
low socioeconomic backgrounds. In order to collect data,
three instruments from the CBAM were used during three
interviews. These instruments were the SoCQ, the levels of
use of an innovation, and innovation configuration. When
triangulation was used to analyze the data; it was found
that four of the five teachers had a decrease in their
concerns in relation to their awareness and information
regarding the integration of technology. Four of the five
teachers used a student-centered approach, which was a
shift in pedagogy.
A strength found in the study was that of support
before, during, and after classroom implementation of
technology by teachers. Involvement of teachers in the
integration process also proved to be a strength with the
STAIRS Model. Overall, the study indicated a success of
38
80%, for curricula transformation (Wetzel, 2001). Van den
Berg et al. (2000) concluded that in order for teachers to
overcome barriers, it is critical that they feel
appreciated and supported by the school administration.
Conduction of Further Research
An important issue in research according to Hur et al.
(2010) is that of assisting teachers in understanding
technology integration. Teacher identity has also been a
source of considerable research interest (Hamman, Gosselin,
Romano, & Bunuan, 2010). Dunn and Rakes (2010b) posited
that two variables to enhance the development of learner-
centered teachers when it comes to technology are learner-
centered beliefs and concerns. They further state that “it
is important to explore these variables as well as the
relationships between them in order to find ways to better
equip teacher educators” (p. 516).
Research on teacher development. When it comes to
teachers, the need for cultural and structural support is
underscored (Kelchtermans & Ballet, 2002). Hamman et al.
(2010) noted that researchers could ask study participants
to describe their teacher selves in terms of instruction.
The use of reflection logs, interviews or conservations
with peers can provide insight into teachers’ possible
selves. Innovating teaching and learning approaches that
39
help education and teachers prepare for the 21st century as
noted by Williams et al. (2009), should be furthered
explored.
Research on teacher’s concerns. According to Rakes and
Casey (2002) “the use of concerns-based training model
rather than a skills-based training model is one method for
addressing attitudes and feelings that may be inhibiting
teacher use of technology” (p. 11). Van den Berg et al.
(2000) mentioned that differentiated and individualized
measures are needed in order to achieve the objectives of
innovations. Small-scale approaches are best when
conducting such studies. Wetzel (2001) confirmed that
quantitative data allows conclusions from a personal
perspective of teachers.
Furthermore, using a large number of teachers in a
concerns study may add little beyond the existing
literature (Wetzel, 2001). A large number sample can limit
the in-depth analysis of concerns that teachers encounter
as they integrate instructional technology. Similarly,
there is no single method for determining sample size in an
online survey (Hill, 1998). Sample sizes for these types of
surveys, such as the SoCQ, cannot be arranged by
traditional means.
40
Summary
The literature review revealed an emphasis of
teachers’ concerns and its effect on the implementation of
instructional technology. With the introduction of
technology into the classroom, the delivery of curriculum
has changed.
The review of teachers’ concerns and barriers to
technology use exposed the importance of professional
development and support from administrators. When
identifying teacher concerns, Havelock (1995) recommended
using change agents. He further stated:
The first task of the change agent is to develop some
sense of what the concern is, a sense of where the
system seems to be hurting, and where the need for
change is most pressing. The change agent needs to
look around and to listen to what is being said by
different members of the system before determining
what the real concern is. (p. 12)
This quantitative research resulted in assessing
teachers’ concerns and in providing recommendations for
technology integration improvements.
Research Questions
This research was performed in an effort to analyze
teachers’ concerns toward the implementation of
instructional technology in the curriculum. Four research
questions were provided for the impetus for this study:
1. What are teachers’ concerns about instructional
41
technology as measured by the SoCQ?
2. Are there significant relationships between
teachers’ stages of concern and years of teaching
experience?
3. Are there significant relationships between
teachers’ stages of concern and grade level taught?
4. What do researchers indicate as best practices for
professional development when it comes to technology
integration in the curriculum?
42
Chapter 3: Methodology
At the project school, the principal (K. O’Leary,
personal communication, November 30, 2010) noted a pattern
during classroom observations. It was observed that on a
regular basis, teachers lack the integration of the use of
instructional technology within their curriculum. The goal
of this study was to analyze the concerns these teachers
have when it came to integrating technology in the
curriculum successfully.
In order for teachers to increase the use of
technology with students, it is imperative that
administration addresses these concerns through the
implementation of professional development, in the area of
instructional technology. This chapter describes the
research that was conducted to complete the study. The
participants, instruments, and procedures are described.
Participants
Through the use of nonprobability sampling, a
convenience sample was used. Creswell (2008) indicated that
in nonprobability convenience sampling “the researcher
selects individuals because they are available, convenient,
and represent some characteristic the investigator seeks to
study” (p. 155). The target population for this study was
urban, inner-city middle-school teachers. The sample
43
consisted of all 11 teachers at the study site, who were
invited to participate in the study. These participants
teach Grades 5 to 8 students at a private urban middle
school in the Northeast United States. The sample was made
up of teachers who have 0 to 6 years of teaching
experience, and have at least a Bachelor’s degree.
Commitment was made to protect the privacy and
confidentiality of the participants very seriously. All
laws and guidelines were met in regards to the protection
of participant confidentiality, as well as the information
they shared. Data collected for the study was used for
research purposes only. No identifying information was
solicited and no tracking of responses was maintained,
ensuring confidentiality in survey responses.
Instruments
Developers of the instrument. Hall et al. (1977)
developed a 35-item SoCQ to provide a quick scoring measure
of the intensity of each stage of concern about an
innovation. The SoCQ, aligns with the operational
definition and conceptualization of concerns. According to
George, Hall and Stiegelbauer (2006):
During the time of active development of CBAM materials,
a cadre of CBAM practitioners emerged. These
practitioners became trained in the model and
disseminated it to a range of school, organizational,
and university settings. As a result, CBAM tools
commonly have been used in federally sponsored research
44
projects, dissertation research, evaluations, and many
change programs. Active research on CBAM tools
continues, as does use of the CBAM framework and tools,
along with learning from their application.
Understanding teacher or individual change continues to
be an important focus for thinking about and
facilitating teacher development and school improvement,
even in the current context. (p. 2)
Validity and reliability. The instrument has been found
to have high internal reliability (George et al., 2006).
George et al. investigated “the validity of the SoCQ by
examining how scores on the seven Stages of Concern scales
relate to one another and to other variables as concerns
theory would suggest” (p. 11). Validated over a 3 year
period, and with 10 years of measurement development; the
questionnaire was tested for estimates of reliability,
internal consistency and validity with 11 different
innovations. Taped interviews were rated for concerns and
contrasted with the SoCQ data. In all studies conducted,
the SoCQ accurately measured stages of concern about an
innovation. Hypothesized scales matched factor scales.
Hall et al. (1977) mentioned that in a 1 week test-
retest study, stage score correlations ranged from .65 to
.86 with four correlations being above .80. In addition,
internal consistency estimates ranged from .64 to .83 with
six coefficients being above .70. These strong correlations
between scale scores show a strong positive relationship
between contiguous stages.
45
Procedures
Design. The design of this study was that of a cross-
sectional survey, which included descriptive and inferential
statistics. According to Creswell (2008) a cross-sectional
survey design allows for data to be collected at one point
in time and “examines current attitudes, beliefs, opinions,
or practices” of participants (p. 389).
Data collection. Quantitative data was collected from
the teacher sample at the middle school site by using the
SoCQ (see Appendix). Permission to conduct the research was
obtained from the school’s administrators. Participants all
had access to a computer, which allowed for the survey to be
submitted electronically. Upon Institutional Review Board
approval and written permission obtained from the
instrument developers, the SoCQ questionnaire was
administered online via e-mail for participants to complete
and return. The following steps were taken:
1. A meeting was conducted with the teachers where the
purpose of the study and the questionnaire was explained
and any questions were answered.
2. A participation/consent form was distributed in
person for participants to sign. This form described the
purpose of the SoCQ, explained how to complete the
instrument, and indicated the innovation that the
46
individual should consider when responding to the
questions.
3. The survey was posted on the Internet with a URL
link to the web site. This site was distributed to the
participants via the consent form.
4. Respondents were asked to confidentially and
voluntarily complete the questionnaire and return it within
a 2 week period via the link. The responses were
transferred into a password-protected account; where later
they were transferred from that account into a spreadsheet
for statistical analysis. The demographic questions
included in the questionnaire assisted in gathering
information for significant differences.
5. The researcher organized information gathered from
participants and thanked them for their participation in
the study. Analysis of the data followed collection, and
results were published in the final report.
In terms of benefits, teachers were informed that
their responses to the questionnaire would reveal their
present concerns about implementing instructional
technology in the curriculum. When concerns were
identified, appropriate interventions were suggested and
presented to administrators in charge of professional
47
development, and in initiatives implementing the use of
instructional technology in the curriculum.
Research Question 1. What are teachers’ concerns about
instructional technology as measured by the SoCQ? The data
analysis was based on converting the item raw score totals
for each stage into percentile scores for the average of
the group. Results were then plotted into a profile chart.
According to George et al. (2006) converting the raw scores
into percentile score, make interpretation of the results
much more holistic.
Research Question 2. Are there significant
relationships between teachers’ stages of concern and years
of teaching experience? For this question, an examination
of the percentile scores for all seven stages was
conducted. The meaning of the high raw scores and their
interrelationships in regards to the independent variable
of teaching experience was interpreted with the use of a
one-way multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA). George
et al. (2006) noted that “correlations of high stages of
concern scores with demographic data can lead to improved
explanations and interpretations of concerns data” (p. 52).
Research Question 3. Are there significant
relationships between teachers’ stages of concern and grade
level taught? To answer this question, an examination of
48
the percentile scores for all seven stages was conducted. A
one-way MANOVA was used to interpret the meaning of the
high raw scores and their interrelationships with grade
level taught.
Research Question 4. What do researchers indicate as
best practices for professional development when it comes
to technology integration in the curriculum? This question
was answered through the gathering of information from an
exhaustive review conducted of the literature.
Summary
This study was designed to analyze teachers’ concerns
toward the implementation of instructional technology in
the curriculum. As a result, this study relied on the
quantitative techniques to obtain the required data.
Four research questions were developed based on the need at
the subject school and the recommendations of previous
studies. The data that were collected provided findings to
assist the subject school to make effective changes in
professional development when it comes to the use of
technology.
49
Chapter 4: Results
The purpose of this research study was to analyze the
concerns teachers have at the target school when
integrating technology in the curriculum. The theoretical
foundation of this proposal was CBAM (Hall et al., 1977).
This dissertation study used quantitative methods where
data was gathered using the online version of the SoCQ. The
design of this study was that of a cross-sectional survey,
which included descriptive and inferential statistics.
An examination of the percentile scores for all seven
stages of concern was conducted. The meaning of the high
raw scores and their interrelationships in regards to the
independent variables of teaching experience, as well as
grade level taught, were interpreted using MANOVA. The
data, in conjunction with information from the literature
review, was used to present a better understanding of
concern barriers at the study site.
The SoCQ was distributed to all 10 classroom teachers
at the target school. Two weeks after the instrument was
provided to the teachers, reminder emails were sent to
nonresponders. Respondents from the study site constituted
90% (N=9). The collected data showed evidence of concerns
that teachers experience when implementing instructional
technology in the curriculum. The results and findings of
50
the SoCQ are presented in this chapter according to the
research questions for the study.
Results for Research Question 1
What are teachers’ concerns about instructional
technology as measured by the SoCQ? In order to answer
Research Question 1, results were obtained from the 35
questions in the questionnaire categorized into seven
stages of concern: (a) awareness, (b) informational, (c)
personal, (d) management, (e)consequence, (f) collaboration
and (g) refocusing. Guidelines contained in the SoCQ manual
were used for the interpretation of the scores. A response
of 0 indicated a very low concern, and a response of 6
indicated a very high concern.
Item raw score totals for each stage were converted
into percentile scores that became the basis for
constructing SoCQ profiles for the average of the group.
According to George et al. (2006), converting the raw
scores into percentile scores, make interpretation of the
results much more holistic. The higher the percentage
score, the more intense the concerns are at that stage.
Furthermore, George et al. stated that “the profile
analysis is the richest and most frequently used method for
interpreting data from the SoCQ” (p. 37).
51
Thus, upon analyzing the sample profile, the
researcher found that the highest stages of concern for
this group were Stage 1 at 88% for information, and Stage 2
at 83% for personal as presented in Table 2. According to
George et al. (2006), the relationship of Stage 1 and Stage
2 scores are essential. A higher Stage 1 score than that of
Stage 2 indicates a positive perspective where a “positive
one-two” split is created. The one refers to Stage 1 and
the two refers to Stage 2.
Table 2
Stages of Concern Percentile Scores for Teacher Cohort (N=9)
Stages
Scores (%)
0-Awareness
1-Informational
2-Personal
3-Management
4-Consequence
5-Collaboaration
6-Refocusing
61
88
83
65
54
72
60
Note. Percentages are rounded to the nearest whole number.
Figure 1, illustrates the graphic composite result of
the stages of concern when it comes to the relative
intensity for the teacher cohort.
52
Figure 1. Instructional technology stages of concern profile for the
total study sample. (N=9).
Concerning Stage 0 of awareness, the cohort had a low
score of 61%. The score of this stage according to George
et al. (2006) indicates how much priority and interest
respondents are placing on the innovation compared to other
tasks. Consequently, evidenced by the medium intensity
score in Stage 3 at 65%, it was revealed that the cohort
does not have a significant management concern when it
comes to managing the use of instructional technology in
the curriculum. Furthermore, the low intensity of 54% on
Stage 4 showed that teachers are not intensely concerned
about the impact and consequences of instructional
technology on students, but are concerned about working and
discussing their concerns with others through collaboration
as verified by Stage 5 at 72%. This supports George et al.
53
findings that those who have high Stage 5 concerns tend to
score lower on Stage 4. Stage 6 at 60%, is displayed as
tailing down in Figure 1.
Nevertheless, evidenced by the consistent distribution
and response patterns of the items, it can be inferred that
responders read the items in the SoCQ carefully and paid
attention to the measure in responding. George et al.
(2006) described that when this occurs, raw score totals
for Stages 4 and 5 tend to be higher than the rest as
displayed in the sum of raw score totals in Table 3.
Table 3
Raw Score Totals of Stages of Concern for Teacher Cohort (N=9)
Stages
Raw scores Average
0-Awareness 101 11
1-Informational 220 24
2-Personal 213 24
3-Management 152 17
4-Consequence 221 25
5-Collaboaration 231 26
6-Refocusing 175 19
Results for Research Question 2
Are there significant relationships between teachers’
stages of concern and years of teaching experience? The
null hypotheses for this research question was H10: Teaching
54
experience has no significant relationship to the reported
stages of concern. The alternate hypothesis was H1a:
Teaching experience has a significant relationship to the
reported stages of concern. To answer this question a one-
way MANOVA was administered. Administering MANOVA over
separate ANOVAs allows for control of Type I error rates
across multiple statistical tests (McDonald, Seifert,
Lorenzet, Givens & Jaccard, 2002). According to Bray and
Maxwell (1982), other reasons for using MANOVA are when
“the researcher is interested in the effects of treatments
on several criterion variables individually, and the
researcher is interested in the relationships among the p
variates” (p. 341).
The dependent variables for this test were the seven
stages of concern. The independent variable included years
of teaching experience. George et al. (2006) recommended
that users of the questionnaire always use raw scale scores
when conducting statistical analyses instead of percentile
scores. Therefore, for this research question, raw scale
scores for each individual’s stages of concern was inputted
into SPSS (statistical software) as the dependent variable,
and then a test of significance was applied.
Due to the random occurrence of an unequal n of a cell
for the different levels of the factor (years of teaching
55
experience), the unweighted estimated marginal means were
reported comparing the main effects. In addition, a Type
III sum of squares test was used for the difference in
unweighted means with an LSD confidence interval
adjustment. Table 4 displays the results of the one-way
MANOVA. A one-way MANOVA revealed a significant
multivariate main relationship for teaching experience,
Wilks’s λ =.000, F(15,3.16)=24,p<.05. As a result, the null
hypotheses H10 is rejected.
Table 4
One-Way MANOVA Results on Teaching Experience
Value
F
Hypothesis
df
Error
df
Sig.
Pillai's trace
1.966
1.14
15.000
9.00
.434
Wilks' lambda
.000 23.57 15.000 3.16 .010
Hotelling's
trace
15.000
Roy's largest
root
70231.34 42138.80a 5.000 3.00 .000
Note. Each F tests the multivariate effect for years of teaching
experience. These tests are based on the linearly independent
pairwise comparisons among the estimated marginal means.
a. The statistic is an upper bound on F that yields a lower bound
on the significance level.
Given the significance of the overall test, an
ANOVA was conducted on the dependent variables using
Fisher’s LSD method at the .05 level. A significant
56
univariate relationship was found only on the awareness
stage of concern, F(3,5)=11.03,p<.05 (see Table 5). The
univariate relationship on the following dependent
variables were nonsignificant: information,
F(3,5)=.25,p=.857; personal, F(3,5)=1.43, p=.338;
management, F(3,5)=.75, p=.569; consequence,
F(3,5)=1.26,p=.383; collaboration, F(3,5)=3.54,p=.103;
and refocusing, F(3,5)=.22, p=.878.
Table 5
Univariate Tests of the Stages of Concern (SoC) on Teaching
Experience
Sum of Mean
Soc Squares df Square F Sig.
0-Awareness
Contrast
88.22
3
29.41
11.03
.012
Error
13.33 5 2.67
1-Information Contrast 7.39 3 2.46 .25 .857
Error
48.83 5 9.77
2-Personal Contrast 98.00 3 32.67 1.43 .338
Error
114.00 5 22.80
3-Management Contrast 104.89 3 34.96 .75 .569
Error
234.00 5 46.80
4-Consequence Contrast 48.22 3 16.07 1.26 .383
Error
64.00 5 12.80
5-Collaboration Contrast 126.50 3 42.17 3.54 .103
Error
59.50 5 11.90
6-Refocusing Contrast 24.89 3 8.30 .22 .878
Error
187.33 5 37.47
Note. The F tests the effect of years of teaching experience. This
test is based on the linearly independent pairwise comparisons
among the estimated marginal means.
57
In the awareness stage of concern, teachers with 2
years of teaching experience scored significantly the
highest mean at (M=13.33, SD=.67); compared to the
means of teachers with 3 years (M=7.0, SD=1.63); 4
years (M=9.0, SD=1.63); and 5 years (M=5.0, SD=1.63) of
teaching experience (see Table 6). Regarding the other
stages of concern, the years of teaching experience
results were not significantly different from each
other.
58
Table 6
Estimates of the SoC on Teaching Experience
SoC Years
Teaching
Mean
Std.
Error
95% Confidence
Interval
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
0-Awareness
2
13.33
.67
11.62
15.05
3 7.00 1.63 2.80 11.20
4 9.00 1.63 4.80 13.20
5 5.00 1.63 .80 9.20
1-Information 2 23.83 1.28 20.55 27.11
3 25.00 3.13 16.97 33.03
4 26.00 3.13 17.97 34.03
5 26.00 3.13 17.97 34.03
2-Personal 2 24.00 1.95 18.99 29.01
3 27.00 4.78 14.73 39.27
4 27.00 4.78 14.73 39.27
5 15.00 4.78 2.73 27.27
3-Management 2 19.00 2.79 11.82 26.18
3 16.00 6.84 -1.59 33.59
4 13.00 6.84 -4.59 30.59
5 9.00 6.84 -8.59 26.59
4-Consequence 2 23.00 1.46 19.25 26.76
3 28.00 3.58 18.80 37.20
4 26.00 3.58 16.80 35.20
5 29.00 3.58 19.80 38.20
5-Collaboration 2 23.50 1.41 19.88 27.12
3 25.00 3.45 16.13 33.87
4 31.00 3.45 22.13 39.87
5 34.00 3.45 25.13 42.87
6-Refocusing 2 18.33 2.50 11.91 24.76
3 21.00 6.12 5.27 36.74
4 23.00 6.12 7.27 38.74
5 21.00 6.12 5.27 36.74
The line graph shows the differences between mean
estimates of the significant relationships found among the
years of teaching experience for the awareness stage of
concern (see Figure 2).
59
Figure 2. Comparison of teaching experience means scores on the
awareness stage of concern.
Results for Research Question 3
Are there significant relationships between teachers’
stages of concern and grade level taught? The null
hypotheses for this research question was H20: Grade level
taught has no significant relationship to the reported
stages of concern. The alternate hypothesis was H2a: Grade
level taught has a significant relationship to the reported
stages of concern. A one-way MANOVA was conducted to
determine the relationships of grade levels on the
dependent variables of the seven stages of concern
(awareness, informational, personal, management,
consequence, collaboration, and refocusing). The Wilks
Lambda statistic, the most frequently used test from
60
MANOVA, was used to determine significant relationships.
The data were analyzed at the .05 level of significance.
Table 7 displays the results of the one-way MANOVA.
Upon analyzing the results, no significant relationships
were found among the grade levels taught on the dependent
measures, Wilks’s λ =.033, F(12,2)=.751,p>.05. Therefore,
the hypotheses H20 is accepted. In addition, because a
statistically significant result was not achieved, further
univariate follow-up tests were not necessary.
Table 7
One-Way MANOVA Results on Grade Taught
Value
F
Hypothesis
df
Error
df
Sig.
Pillai's trace
1.577
1.241
12.000
4.000
.455
Wilks' lambda
.033
.751a
12.000
2.000
.699
Hotelling's
trace
10.849
0.000
12.000
0.000
Roy's largest
Root
8.731 2.910b 6.000 2.000 .278
Note. Each F tests the multivariate effect of grade taught.
These tests are based on the linearly independent pairwise
comparisons among the estimated marginal means.
a. Exact statistic
b. The statistic is an upper bound on F that yields a lower
bound on the significance level.
Table 8 displays how the means of grade levels did not
create a significant relationship on teachers’ stages of
concern.
61
Table 8
Estimates of the SoC on Grade Taught
SoC Grade
Mean
Std.
Error
95% Confidence
Interval
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
0-Awareness
6
10.00
1.54
6.23
13.77
7 7.00 3.08 -.54 14.54
8 13.50 1.54 9.73 17.27
1-Information 6 24.25 1.52 20.52 27.98
7 25.00 3.05 17.54 32.46
8 24.50 1.52 20.77 28.23
2-Personal 6 23.25 2.88 16.20 30.31
7 27.00 5.77 12.89 41.11
8 23.25 2.88 16.20 30.31
3-Management 6 16.25 3.72 7.13 25.37
7 16.00 7.46 -2.24 34.24
8 17.75 3.73 8.63 26.87
4-Consequence 6 25.75 1.80 21.35 30.15
7 28.00 3.60 19.19 36.81
8 22.50 1.80 18.10 26.90
5-Collaboration 6 28.75 2.18 23.43 34.07
7 25.00 4.35 14.36 35.64
8 22.75 2.18 17.43 28.07
6-Refocusing 6 21.00 2.78 14.21 27.79
7 21.00 5.55 7.41 34.59
8 17.50 2.78 10.71 24.29
Results for Research Question 4
What do researchers indicate as best practices for
professional development when it comes to technology
integration in the curriculum? This question was answered
by conducting an exhaustive review of the literature that
62
highlighted the mayor findings of best practices and
strategies for professional development; an essential
factor in order to aid instructors in using technology to
improve teaching and learning. Most sources of information
were researched within the past 13 years, and were derived
from journals, online resources and texts from 1999 to
present on topics related to professional development when
integrating instructional technology in the curriculum. The
findings cited by researchers were documented as being
useful, pertinent and replicable.
In general, practices that were reviewed in regards to
professional development included the following (see Tables
9 & 10):
1. The use of collaboration (Sawyer, 2002; Barnett,
2003; Cunningham, 2003; Jovanova-Mitkovska, 2010).
2. Connection to student learning (Barnett, 2003;
Schrum, 1999; Cunningham, 2003).
3. Administrative support (Schmoker, 2006; Jovanova-
Mitkovska, 2010; Rosenfeld, 2008).
4. Exposure to technology (Rosenfeld, 2008; Schrum,
1999; Mouza, 2011).
63
Table 9
Summary of Studies for Best Practices of Technology Professional
Development
Year Author Sample Type of
Study
Findings
2002
Sawyer
One
elementary
teacher and
one high
school
English
teacher
Ten year
longitudinal
case study.
Descriptive
and
explanatory
narrative
approaches
Collaboration allowed both
teachers to develop their
classroom practices and
leadership skills. Rich context
presented allowed teachers to
draw teaching and learning
questions. Teaching and
curriculum grew by practice
connections made with other
teachers.
2010 Jovanova-
Mitkovska
Primary and
secondary
teachers
Survey and
Interviews
Teachers that worked with
master teachers acquired a
higher level in developing
technical skills.
Administration created
conditions for professional
development by providing
support.
2011 Mouza Eight
teachers
from three
urban
charter
schools
Qualitative
analysis-
Examination
of case
narratives,
surveys and
observations
Case development and exposure
to technology enabled teachers
to achieve effective knowledge
of technology integration. The
exposure to technology led to
teachers getting out of their
comfort zone, thinking outside
the box and utilizing new
resources. Technology use was
increased when professional
development included culturally
relevant strategies to the
urban setting.
2008 Rosenfeld Forty-two
graduate
education
students
employed as
teachers in
an urban
school and
enrolled in
an
educational
technology
course
A variety of
projects
were
assigned to
the teachers
where they
then had to
present
their
findings. A
survey was
also
administered
at the
beginning of
the course
and at the
end of the
course.
Survey indicated that teacher
competence with technology was
higher at the end of the
semester than at the beginning.
This was due to providing
modeling, a hands-on component
to allow practice,
collaboration, continuing
support, and easy access to the
technology. Administration can
match the level of instruction
and the ability of the teachers
to aid in the increase of
technology use.
64
Table 10
Summary of Online Resources and Texts for Best Practices of Technology
Professional Development
Summary
In Chapter 4, the results of the study were presented.
Quantitative data were taken from the SoCQ and presented in
tables and figures for the statistical analysis of the
research questions. Chapter 5 discusses the findings and
offers recommendations for future research.
Year
Author
Practices
2003
Barnett
Grouping teachers by grade level or subject
allows for lesson modeling and the listening to
needs. Technology enhanced lesson plans and
access to hardware and software are fundamental.
Curriculum should drive the use of technology.
2003 Cunningham Utilizing modeling and peer-coaching methods
help teachers integrate technology, as well as
become facilitators of learning with this tool.
Clear definitions of technology learning goals
allow for effective implementation.
2006 Schmoker Implementing learning communities and teacher
teamwork makes schools more successful.
Rewarding teachers aids in establishing a
results-oriented culture.
1999 Schrum The practice of technology skills aids in
augmenting student learning. Placing teachers in
a technology rich field environment allows them
to receive guidance and support.
65
Chapter 5: Discussion
This study was undertaken in an attempt to add to the
limited body of knowledge regarding the lack of
instructional technology integration in the curriculum in
private schools serving low-income urban students. Several
studies have been conducted that investigated the concerns
of instructional technology integration in schools.
However, these studies tended to focus on specific areas,
such as faculty of higher education and teachers of public
schools. No research had been completed that provided a
comprehensive view of teachers servicing low-income urban
students. Thus, in order for teachers to increase the use
of technology with students, the study at hand represented
an attempt to analyze the concerns teachers have with
implementing technology in the curriculum.
Quantitative data were gathered to answer the study's
research questions: What are teachers’ concerns about
instructional technology as measured by the SoCQ? Are there
significant relationships between teachers’ stages of
concern and years of teaching experience? Are there
significant relationships between teachers’ stages of
concern and grade level taught? What do researchers
indicate as best practices for professional development
when it comes to technology integration in the curriculum?
66
Data were analyzed, and results were presented in Chapter
4.
Discussion of Results
In this section, the results and implications of each
research question are discussed.
Research Question 1. Research question 1 was the
following: What are teachers’ concerns about instructional
technology as measured by the SoCQ? The cohort’s concerns
analysis (see Figure 1) indicated that respondents had
intensity peaks at the self-concern stages (informational
and personal). Results suggest that the group desires more
information about implementing instructional technology in
the curriculum and more information in their roles when
adopting the innovation. In addition, the cohort also has
little fear of the personal effects instructional
technology may have on them and are open to and interested
in learning more about it, as evidenced by the score on
Stage 2 of 83%. This outcome corroborates the findings of
Gokcek (2009), Hall et al. (1977), Dunn and Rakes (2010a),
and Wetzel (2001), who found that teachers with high stages
of concern in the self-concern stages tend to not have yet
fully accepted the innovation and can become resistant to
the innovation being implemented.
67
Respondents showed high informational, personal, and
collaboration concerns, but low consequence concerns. This
indicates that teachers remain in the early stages of
understanding the process of using technology as a teaching
tool. Given the high score of 88% in the information stage,
it is not surprising that the cohort has personal concerns
which relate to how the innovation might affect them. The
low score of 61% in Stage 0 of awareness is an indicator
that implementing instructional technology in the
curriculum is of high priority and essential to the
cohort’s thinking and work. A high score in this category,
on the other hand, would have indicated that teachers have
a number of other initiatives that are of concern instead
of the innovation surveyed (George et al., 2006).
Furthermore, those who score high on Stage 5 and Stage 1 as
this sample did, have a desire to learn from others rather
than lead the collaboration. In addition, the tailing down
on Stage 6 of 60% (see Figure 1) indicates that teachers do
not have ideas that would possibly compete with the
implementation of instructional technology or of additional
alternatives that might work even better. Moreover, it
shows that teachers are not resistant to implement
instructional technology in the classroom.
George et al. (2006) also mentioned that information
68
and personal concerns should be supported and addressed
first before concerns related to student outcomes emerge.
Before student achievement can occur, teachers must view
technology positively and feel comfortable using it (Rakes
& Casey, 2002). Overall results suggest that the cohort is
interested, not terribly apprehensive, and willing to learn
more about how to implement instructional technology in the
curriculum.
Research Question 2. Are there significant
relationships between teachers’ stages of concern and years
of teaching experience? The findings were consistent with
the theory of concerns development. Results indicated that
a significant univariate relationship was found only on the
awareness stage of concern (see Table 5). The univariate
relationships on the other six dependent variables were
nonsignificant. Teachers with 2 years of teaching
experience had the highest mean of concern for the
awareness stage (M=13.33) as opposed to more experienced
teachers who had the lowest mean of concern (M=5.00).
According to George et al. (2006), individuals with a high
score on the awareness stage is an indication that other
initiatives and tasks are of more concern to him or her.
Therefore, integrating instructional technology in the
69
curriculum is not the only thing that these respondents may
be concerned about.
These results corroborates with findings by Fuller
(1969), where she mentions that beginning teachers are more
concerned about self-concerns such as teaching students and
coping with the class, rather than concerned about
instructional design and methods of presenting subject
matter. To help bring about change to these beginning
teachers, it is imperative that the awareness concern is
addressed by involving teachers in discussions and
decisions about implementing instructional technology in
the curriculum (Holloway, 2003). Sharing enough information
without overwhelming teachers and acknowledging that a lack
of awareness is expected, can help bring about change at
the study site. Nevertheless, by teachers being directly
involved with the innovation, it can assist them in moving
away from being unconcerned.
According to Fuller (1969), when it comes to more
experiences teachers, their concerns appear to be based on
students’ gains and self-evaluation. In this study,
although there was not a significant relationship for the
consequence stage in regards to years of teaching
experience; teachers with five or more years of teaching
experience scored the highest mean (M=29.00)in the
70
consequence stage. The consequence stage deals with
interest in the impact on students or the school.
Holloway (2003) mentioned that teachers in the
consequence stage are concerned about change to ensure that
students learn better with the innovation. Unlike beginning
teachers who had early self-oriented concerns (awareness),
more experienced teachers had impact-oriented concerns
(consequence). This shows that more experienced teachers
feel more comfortable implementing instructional technology
in the curriculum and can be actively engaged in
establishing the best use of the technology. It is evident
that with more experience self concerns can be shifted to
higher impact concerns.
Research Question 3. Are there significant
relationships between teachers’ stages of concern and grade
level taught? After conducting a one-way MANOVA to
determine the relationships of grade levels on the
dependent variables of the seven stages of concern, no
significant relationships were found. Hence, the null
hypotheses H20: Grade level taught has no significant
relationship to the reported stages of concern is accepted.
This indicates that all teachers regardless of the grade
level taught must go through the change process involved
when learning to incorporate technology in the curriculum.
71
However, lower grade teachers scored a higher mean in
the collaboration stage (M=28.75), than upper grade
teachers who had the lowest mean (M=22.75). A possible
explanation of this would be that lower grade teachers are
interested in working with colleagues to make the change
effective, but have more of a desire to learn from what
others know and are doing. This result corroborates the
findings of DeVore (2000), who found that collaboration is
a must to enhance the quality of instruction.
Research Question 4. Research question 4 was the
following: What do researchers indicate as best practices
for professional development when it comes to technology
integration in the curriculum? This review of best
practices for professional development included the use of
collaboration, connection to student learning,
administrative support, and exposure to technology.
Collaboration. According to Sawyer (2002), to break
teacher isolation and establish a school culture of
problem-solving, collaboration among teachers is essential.
Grouping teachers by grade level or subject allows teachers
to model classroom examples and listen to each other’s
needs (Barnett, 2003). In addition, peer-coaching and
modeling provide the opportunity for teachers to become
coaches and facilitators of learning with technology as the
72
tool (Cunningham, 2003).
With the implementation of learning communities and
teacher teamwork, Schmoker (2006) ensured that schools can
be more successful; because they are working in using the
same empirical processes when it comes to implementing
technology in the curriculum. Jovanova-Mitkovska (2010)
suggested that for purposeful professional development,
teachers should work with master teachers to acquire a
higher level in developing technology skills. Consequently,
case development is another method in allowing teachers to
“create records of practice that could be shared and
critiqued by other colleagues” (Mouza, 2011, p. 25).
Connection to student learning. Barnett (2003)
mentioned that “the first step of any sound professional
development program is to develop a belief about technology
that includes the idea the curriculum drives the use of
technology, not vice-versa” (para. 2). Extensive practice
of how teachers can use their technology skills aids in
augmenting student learning (Schrum, 1999).
Furthermore, Cunningham (2003) stated that a clear
definition of learning goals and tactical strategies for
using technology in the classroom, allows for effective
implementation. To improve classroom instruction, teachers
should be comfortable with the use of technology and
73
integrate it in the curriculum where it is aligned with
students’ learning goals (Cunningham). Teachers can also
increase their use of technology to a more innovative,
student-centered practice if professional development
includes pedagogical strategies that are culturally
relevant to the urban setting (Mouza, 2011).
Administrative support. According to Cunningham
(2003), “The districts where technology has transformed
teaching and instruction are districts where the
administrative leadership is committed to the use of
technology to enhance learning for all students” (para. 4).
Employing the tools of reward, recognition, and celebration
can greatly help a district leader achieve improvement in
his or her school (Schmoker, 2006) and establish a results-
oriented culture.
In support of teachers changing their attitude about
their own professional development, administration can
create social and professional conditions for career
development (Jovanova-Mitkovska, 2010). This can be
achieved by monitoring and providing support of the work
performed by teachers with feedback and evaluations in
order to meet their needs. Administration can also as
recommended by Rosenfeld (2008), match the level of the
training instruction to teachers’ abilities.
74
Exposure to technology. Easy access is a necessary
component for teachers to use technology with their
students (Rosenfeld, 2008) and manipulate these tools with
ease. Creating a technology enhanced lesson plan and
providing access to appropriate hardware and software is
fundamental (Barnett, 2003). Schrum (1999) mentioned that
teachers need to be placed in a technology rich field
environment. This allows them to receive guidance as they
are implementing technology supported lessons.
Mouza (2011) stated that repeated classroom
experiences with technology, would be beneficial for novice
teachers to achieve effective knowledge of technology
integration. Technology activities offered that are hands-
on and non-threatening, aid in providing practice to
teachers and allows them to gain competence (Rosenfeld,
2008). Ongoing in-service technology training, along with
providing teachers with current information on classroom
technology use, assures that exposure to this innovation is
always present.
Summary of Findings
The results of the analysis revealed that a set of
characteristic concerns emerged during the implementation
process of technology. Teachers displayed a combination of
concerns reflected in two or more stages, where some were
75
more intense than others. Performance is affected by an
individual’s concern and according to Hall et al. (1977);
lower level concerns must be removed before higher level
concerns emerge.
This quantitative study has shown that attending to
teacher concerns is essential for successful technology
implementation. The findings support the conclusion in the
study conducted by Rakes and Casey (2002), where it was
discovered that in order for teachers to feel comfortable
with the implementation of instructional technology as a
tool and use it in the classroom, they must become more
personally comfortable with it. The data indicates areas
that serve as barriers to readiness, which can be applied
in designing more effective staff-development activities
and focus training plans on needs. It appears that
responders don’t have enough information about implementing
technology in the curriculum, because there is no clear
structure or place to get information at the target site.
In general, by specifically providing teachers with
technology specialists, offering consistent training, and
support, information concerns can be lowered. This in turn,
broadens teachers’ application of the technology at the
school and allows for more focus to be placed on students.
In order for the institutionalization of technology to take
76
place effectively in the curriculum, the outcome-oriented
concern of consequence is needed for the teacher cohort.
Strategies should first be designed to attend to lower-
level concerns such as informational and personal, in order
to allow teachers to focus on the higher-level concerns of
management, consequence, and collaboration.
According to Rakes and Casey (2002), when technology
concerns remain intense, teachers may attempt to
discontinue its use. Furthermore, Dunn and Rakes (2010b)
noted that teachers with low consequence concerns fail to
implement innovations in their classroom, due to the fact
that they are likely to resist any change. However,
professional development will aid in arousing teachers’
consequence and refocusing concerns (George et al., 2006).
Equally important, this study found that more efforts
are needed at the target school to support teachers in
making the transition to a technology-rich environment and
impact student learning. The analysis of the data indicated
that the teachers’ focus should be shifted away from
concerns about self and geared more towards evaluating the
management, consequence, collaboration, and refocusing
stages; which are essential for the innovation of
instructional technology to be successful at the study
site. Moreover, ongoing evaluations of progress for the
77
change process will be important. Ensuring that the
technology is being used and that teachers do not have
negative feelings about teaching with it; will be essential
due to the expense involved in providing the equipment.
Implication of Findings
This study gathered data using quantitative methods to
assess teachers’ concerns in regards to technology within
the target site. The CBAM has been proven to be an
appropriate tool in identifying concerns. This research is
significant and offers implications to leaders of
institutions implementing technology within the curriculum.
It is evident that there is a need for staff training
before teaching with the technology. Findings of this study
determine that the teachers are ready for change. Data
reinforced the need for administration to assist in
providing a clear demonstration of how the use of
instructional technology can address the concerns that
teachers have; therefore, allowing for student learning to
be positively impacted.
It became apparent that technology integration in the
curriculum cannot be effectively implemented without
support from administration. This is because implementing
effective technology tools requires resources, appropriate
training, sufficient time and attention to teachers’
78
concerns. Al-Rawajfih, Fong and Idros (2010) suggested that
to have effective technology adoption, acknowledgement of
teachers’ concerns needs to take place by administration
and professional development provided to them. Lawless and
Pellegrino (2007) mentioned that an active engagement of
teachers aids in building communities of colleagues within
the school, and helps sustain efforts after the conclusion
of training. Developing trainings that encourage peer
collaboration and coaching would be beneficial for
teachers.
Administration is encouraged to continue professional
development, not only prior to implementation, but also
during implementation. Enabling sharing and interaction
among peers and not just with a trainer would be helpful
for this cohort. When there is a deeper understanding of
the usefulness of tools and teachers are able to
collaborate with peers, their confidence is strengthened
(Williams, Foulger & Wetzel, 2009). Moving beyond workshops
and working towards providing demonstrations and mentoring
to teachers can aid with staff development in technology.
In addition, leaders must focus on training which targets
teachers’ individual concerns first before addressing
concerns of how students will use the technology.
79
Limitations of the Study
There were several limitations inherent in the study.
The first limitation was the fact that only teachers from
the study site were asked to participate in the online
questionnaire. As such, they may not have been
representative of all teachers in the school district.
Nevertheless, a sample of educators that was most
characteristic of the school was selected for
participation.
The second limitation was the sample size. Teachers at
the study site numbered 10. The study was limited to
teachers who volunteered to participate in the survey. Nine
teachers completed the survey. A limitation was recognized
because of this relatively small number. Although the
sample was small, it did not diminish the importance of
acknowledging teachers’ concerns at the school.
The third limitation that may have affected the
conclusion of the study was the fact that the analysis of
teachers’ concerns was limited to their concerns toward
instructional technology as assessed by the SoCQ. Moreover,
the concerns analysis of this teacher cohort may not be
applicable to all school settings elsewhere. The analysis
was designed for this specific private urban middle-school,
and the results may not apply to other types of schools.
80
Recommendations for Future Research
A number of recommendations emerged as a result of the
analysis of the data and the implications of the findings.
The scope of this research was limited to middle school
teachers employed within a private urban school that
services low-income students. Consequently, to provide a
more comprehensive view of instructional technology
innovations, the researcher makes the following
recommendations:
1. Future research that incorporates a longitudinal
study is needed. Administering a pre and post assessment of
the SoCQ can be useful in supporting professional
development and in allowing teachers to see their own
concerns change process over time. This in turn can make a
difference in the quality of use of instructional
technology in the curriculum and in student learning.
2. Further studies should be conducted to investigate
if a relationship exists between teacher professional
development and the implementation of technology.
3. Additional research should be replicated with a
larger sample size and in different school settings to
determine if similar patterns exist. A more diverse teacher
population would be beneficial.
81
4. To gain a richer understanding of the causes of
teachers’ concerns, further studies should examine these
concerns using a mixed-methods approach. Collecting data
qualitatively, using open-ended questions and interviews,
can provide insight in identifying teachers’ perceptions,
attitudes, and concerns to the implementation of
instructional technology in the curriculum.
Summary
In this chapter, the discussion of the results of the
study was presented. The purpose of the study, as a means
of adding to the limited knowledge on the topic of the
stages of concern for teachers working with low-income
students was achieved. Instructional technology integration
has been a challenge since computers have been in existence
in schools almost three decades ago (Lu & Overbaugh, 2009).
A lack of progress has been made in integrating technology
effectively in the classroom even after decades of rigorous
effort (Dunn & Rakes, 2010a). Dunn and Rakes accounted that
because of concerns; many teachers are not using technology
at all or are using it ineffectively.
Concerns are often due to a perceived lack of
competence for the undertaking of new activities, which
must be dealt with for implementation of an innovation to
take place (Van den Berg, Sleegers, Geijsel & Vandenberghe,
82
2000). Overall, with the use of this data, leaders could
incorporate requests for funding from state agencies and
sponsors to support professional development and
instructional technology initiatives. These elements are
essential for sustainability, as technology cannot be
effectively implemented without the allocation of time and
support for training initiatives.
83
References
Al-Bataineh, A., Anderson, S., Toledo, C., & Wellinski,
S. (2008). A study of technology integration in the
classroom. International Journal of Instructional
Media, 35(4), 381-387.
Al-Rawajfih, K., Fong, S., & Idros, S. (2010). Stages of
concern in integrating e-learning in discovery
schools. Asian Social Science, 6(8), 54-63.
Atkins, N., & Vasu, E. (2000). Measuring knowledge of
technology usage and stages of concern about
computing: A study of middle school teachers. Journal
of Technology and Teacher Education, 8(4), 279.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory
of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191-
215. doi:10.1037//0033-295X.84.2.191
Barnett, H. (2003). Technology professional development:
Successful strategies for teacher change. Retrieved
from http://eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED477616.pdf
Bray, J. & Maxwell, S. (1982). Analyzing and interpreting
significant MANOVAs. Review of Educational Research,
52(3), 340-367. doi:10.2307/1170422
Brown, J. S., & Adler, R. P. (2008, Jan-Feb). Minds on
fire: Open education, the long tail, and learning 2.0.
Educause Review, 17-32.
Clausen, J. (2007). Beginning teachers’ technology use:
First-year teacher development and the institutional
context’s affect on new teachers’ instructional
technology use with students. Journal of Research on
Technology in Education, 39(3), 245-261.
Collins, A. & Halverson, R. (2009). Rethinking education in
the age of technology: The digital revolution and
schooling in America. New York: Teachers College
Press.
Connecticut Commission for Educational Technology. (2010).
Technology and learning in Connecticut. Retrieved from
http://www.ct.gov/ctedtech/lib/ctedtech/Jan2010_Final%
283%291.pdf
84
Connecticut Commission on Educational Achievement. (2010).
A plan to help close Connecticut’s achievement gap.
Retrieved from http://www.ctachieve.org/pdf/
commission_report.pdf
Connecticut State Department of Education. (2010). Title
IID-enhancing education through technology. Retrieved
from www.sde.ct.gov/sde/cwp/view.asp?a=2618&q=322380
Creswell, J. (2008). Educational research: Planning,
conducting, and evaluating quantitative and
qualitative research (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River,
NJ: Pearson Education Inc.
Culp, K., Honey, M., Spielvogel, R., Martin, W., & Light,
D. (2002, November). Local relevance in educational
technology evaluation. Paper presented at the American
Evaluation Association Conference. Abstract retrieved
from http://cct.edc.org/report.asp?id=100
Cunningham, J. (2003). Between technology and teacher
effectiveness: Professional development. Tech and
Learning. Retrieved from www.techlearning.com/article/
between-technology-and-teacher-effectiveness-
professional-development/41214
DeVore, J. (2000, September). Professors’ usage of computer
mediated technology. Academic Exchange Quarterly.
Donovan, L., & Green, T. (2010). One-to-one computing in
teacher education: Faculty concerns and implications
for teacher educators. Journal of Digital Learning in
Teacher Education, 26(4).
Dunn, K., & Rakes, G. (2010a). Learner-centeredness and
teacher efficacy: Predicting teachers’ consequence
concerns regarding the use of technology in the
classroom. Journal of Technology and Teacher
Education, 18(1), 57-83.
Dunn, K., & Rakes, G. (2010b). Producing caring qualified
teachers: An exploration of the influence of pre-
service teacher concerns on learner-centeredness.
Journal of Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, 516-
521.
Education Development Center. (2002). Strategies for
improving academic achievement and teacher
85
effectiveness. Retrieved from http://www.neirtec.org/
products/techbriefs/1.pdf
Federation of American Scientists. (2006). Summit on
educational games. Retrieved from http://www.fas.org/
gamesummit/Resources/Summit%20on%20Educational%20Games
Fuller, F. (1969). Concerns of teachers: A developmental
conceptualization. American Educational Research
Journal, 6(2), 207–226. doi:10.2307/1161894
George, A., Hall, G., & Stiegelbauer, S. (2006). Measuring
implementation in schools: The stages of concern
questionnaire. Austin, TX: SEDL.
Gokcek, T. (2009). How mathematics teachers’ concerns
changed within the context of curriculum reform.
Social and Behavioral Sciences, 1(1), 1052-1056.
Gorder, L. (2008). A study of teacher perceptions of
instructional technology integration in the classroom.
Delta Phi Epsilon Journal, 50(2), 63-76.
Gray, L., Thomas, N., and Lewis, L. (2010). Teachers’ Use
of Educational Technology in U.S. Public Schools:
2009. National Center for Education Statistics,
Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of
Education. Washington, DC.
Greene, M. (1991). Teaching: The question of personal
reality. In A. Lieberman & L. Miller (Eds.), Staff
development for education in the 90s: New demands, new
realities, new perspectives. New York: Teachers
College Press.
Gros, B. (2007). Digital games in education: The design of
games-based learning environments. Journal of Research
on Technology in Education, 40(1), 23-38.
Hall, G. E., George, A. & Rutherford, W. L. (1977).
Measuring stages of concern about the innovation: A
manual for use of the SoC questionnaire. Austin, TX:
University of Texas. Retrieved from http://www.eric.
ed.gov:80/PDFS/ED147342.pdf
Hall, G. E., & Hord, S. M. (2005). Implementing change:
Patterns, principles, and potholes (2nd ed.). Boston:
86
Allyn & Bacon.
Hall, G. & Loucks, S. (1979). Implementing innovations in
schools: A concerns-based approach. Austin, TX:
Research and Development Center for Teacher Education,
University of Texas
Hamman, D., Gosselin, K., Romano, J. & Bunuan, R. (2010).
Using possible-selves theory to understand the
identity development of new teachers. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 26(7), 1349-1361. doi:10.1016/
j.tate.2010.03.005
Havelock, R. G. (1995). The change agent’s guide (2nd ed.).
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology
Publications.
Hersey, J. C. & Jordan, A. (2007). Reducing children's TV
time to reduce the risk of childhood overweight: The
children's media use study. Retrieved from
http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dnpa/obesity/pdf/TV_Time_Hi
ghligts.pdf
Hess, M., & Leal, L. (2001). A shrinking “digital divide”?
The provision of classroom computers across urban
school systems. Social science Quarterly, 82(4), 765-
778.
Hill, R. (1998). What sample size is "enough" in internet
survey research? Interpersonal Computing and
Technology: An Electronic Journal for the 21st
Century, 6(3-4). Retrieved from http://www.emoderators
.com/ipct-j/1998/n3-4/hill.html
Holloway, K. (February/March, 2003). A measure of concern:
Research-based program aids innovation by addressing
teacher concerns. Tools for Schools. Retrieved from
http://www.edzone.net/~mascd/Events/06BootCamp/Cohort1
-2007/Boot%20Camp%20Day%205/Hord.change%20stages.pdf
Hur, J., Cullen, T. & Brush, T. (2010). Teaching for
application: A model for assisting pre-service
teachers with technology integration. Journal of
Technology and Teacher Education, 18(1), 161-182.
International Society for Technology in Education. (2007).
Maximizing the impact: The pivotal role of technology
in a 21st century education system. Retrieved from
87
http://www.setda.org/c/document_library/get_file?folde
rId=191&name=P21Book_complete.pdf
International Society for Technology in Education. (2008).
The ISTE NETS and Performance Indicators for Teachers.
Retrieved from http://www.iste.org/Libraries/
PDFs/NETS_for_Teachers_2008_EN.sflb.ashx
Jimoyiannis, A. (2010). Designing and implementing an
integrated technological pedagogical science knowledge
framework for science teachers’ professional
development. Computers & Education, 55, 1259-1269.
Joseph, B. (2008). “Why Johnny can’t fly: Treating games as
a form of youth media within a youth development
framework”. In Salen, K. (Ed.), The ecology of games:
Connecting youth, games, and learning (pp. 253-66).
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Jovanova-Mitkovska, S. (2010). The need of continuous
professional teacher development. Social and
Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 2921-2926. doi:10.1016/
j.sbspro.2010.03.441
Keengwe, J., Onchwari, G., & Wachira, P. (2008). Computer
technology integration and student learning: Barriers
and promise. Journal of Science Education and
Technology, 17(6), 560-565. doi:10.1007/s10956-008-
9123-5
Kelchtermans, G. & Ballet, K. (2002). Teachers’
professional development as the core of school
improvement. International Journal of Educational
Research, 37, 653-659.
King, L., Williams, J., & Warren, S. (2011). Preparing and
supporting teachers for 21st century expectations
through universal design for learning. Delta Kappa
Gamma Bull, 77(2), 51.
Koehler, M. & Mishra, P. (2005). Teachers learning
technology by design. Journal of Computing in Teacher
Education, 21(3), 94-102.
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
88
Research, 77(4), 575-614. doi:10.3102/0034654307309921
Lee, J., Cerreto, F. & Lee, J. (2010). Theory of planned
behavior and teachers' decisions regarding use of
educational technology. Educational Technology &
Society, 13(1), 152-164.
Lei, J. (2010). Quantity versus quality: A new approach to
examine the relationship between technology use and
student outcomes. British Journal of Educational
Technology, 41(3), 455-472. doi:10.1111/j.1467-
8535.2009.00961.x
Lu, R. & Overbaugh, R. (2009). School environment and
technology implementation in k-12 classrooms.
Computers in the Schools, 26(2), 89-106. doi:10.1080/
07380560902906096
Marcoux, E. & Loertscher, D. (2009). Achieving teaching and
learning excellence with technology. Teacher
Librarian, 37(2), 14-22.
McCormack, S., & Ross, D. (2010). Teaching with technology.
Science Teacher, 77(7), 40-45.
McDonald, R. A., Seifert, C. F., Lorenzet, S. J., Givens,
S., & Jaccard, J. (2002). The effectiveness of methods
for analyzing multivariate factorial data.
Organizational Research Methods, 5(3), 255-274. doi:10.
1177/10928102005003004
Mouza, C. (2011). Promoting urban teachers’ understanding
of technology, content, and pedagogy in the context of
case development. Journal of Research on Technology in
Education, 44(1),1-29.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2002).
Technology in schools: Suggestions, tools and
guidelines for assessing technology in elementary and
secondary education. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.
gov/pubs2003/2003313.pdf
National Science Foundation. (2008). Fostering learning in
the networked world: The cyberlearning opportunity and
challenge. Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/
pubs/2008/nsf08204/nsf08204.pdf
O’Brien, D. & Scharber, C. (2010). Teaching old dogs new
89
tricks: The luxury of digital abundance. Journal of
Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 53(7), 600-603. doi:10.
1598/JAAL.53.7.7
Rakes, G. & Casey, H. (2002). An analysis of teacher
concerns toward instructional technology.
International Journal of Educational Technology, 3(1).
Razfar, A. (2008). Developing technological literacy: A
case study of technology integration in a Latina
liberal arts college. AACE Journal, 16(3), 327-345.
Robinson, C. & Sebba, J. (2010). Personalizing learning
through the use of technology. Computers & Education,
54, 767-775.
Rosenfeld, B. (2008). The challenges of teaching with
technology: From computer idiocy to computer
competence. International Journal of Instructional
Media, 35(2), 157-166.
Russell, M., Bebell, D., O’Dwyer, L., & O’Connor, K.
(2003). Examining teacher technology use: Implications
for preservice and inservice teacher preparation.
Journal of Teacher Education, 54(4), 297-310. doi:10.
1177/0022487103255985
Sawyer, R. (2002). Situating teacher development: The view
from two teachers’ perspectives. International Journal
of Educational Research, 37, 733-753.
Schlosser, L., & Simonson, M. (2006). Distance education:
Definition and glossary of terms (2nd ed.). Greenwich
CT: Information Age.
Schmoker, M. (2006). Results now: How we can achieve
unprecedented improvements in teaching and learning.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.
Schrum, L. (1999). Technology professional development for
teachers. Educational Technology Research and
Development, 47(4), 83-90. doi:10.1007/BF02299599
Smith, A. & Peck, B. (2010). The teacher as the digital
perpetrator: Implementing web 2.0 technology activity
as assessment practice for higher education innovation
or imposition? Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2),
90
4800-4804. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.03.773
State of CT Technology Plan (2010). Retrieved
from http://www.docstoc.com/docs/58768439/CT-
Technology-Plan-2010
Turns, J., Eliot, M., Neal., & Linse, A. (2007).
Investigating the teaching concerns of engineering
educators. Journal of Engineering Education, 96(4),
295-308.
U.S. Department of Commerce. (2010). Digital nation: 21st
century America’s progress toward universal broadband
internet access. Washington, DC: U.S. Government
Printing Office. Retrieved from www.ntia.doc.gov
/reports/.../NTIA_internet_use_report_Feb2010.pdf
U.S. Department of Education. (2010a). A blueprint for
reform: The reauthorization of the elementary and
secondary education act. Washington, DC: U.S.
Government Printing Office. Retrieved from
http://www.2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/blueprint
/blueprint.pdf
U.S. Department of Education. (2010b). Transforming
American education: Learning powered by technology.
Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/sites/default/
files/NETP-2010-final-report.pdf
Van den Berg, R., Sleegers, P., Geijsel, F., &
Vandenberghe, R. (2000). Implementation of an
innovation: Meeting the concerns of teachers. Studies
in Educational Evaluation, 26(4), 331-350.
Vandenberghe, R. (2002). Teachers’ professional development
as the core of school improvement. International
Journal of Educational Research, 37, 653-659.
Vawter, D. (2009). Mining the middle school mind. National
Association of Elementary School Principals. Retrieved
from www.naesp.org/resources/2/Middle_Matters
/2009v17n4a2.pdf
Warschauer, M., & Matuchniak, T. (2010). New technology and
digital worlds: Analyzing evidence of equity in
access, use, and outcomes. Review of Research in
Education, 34(1), 179-225. doi:10.3102/0091732X09349791
91
Watzke, J. (2007). Longitudinal research on beginning
teacher development: Complexity as a challenge to
concerns-based stage theory. Journal of Teaching and
Teacher Education, 23(1), 106-122. doi:10.1016/
j.tate.2006.04.001
Wedman, J. & Diggs, L. (2001). Identifying barriers to
technology-enhanced learning environments in teacher
education. Computers in Human Behavior, 17(4), 421-
430. doi:10.1016/S0747-5632(01)00012-7
Wetzel, D. (2001, July). A model for pedagogical and
curricula transformation with technology. Paper
presented at the National Educational Computing
Conference, Chicago, IL. Abstract retrieved from
http://amoyemaat.org/wetzel.pdf
Wetzel, K., & Zambo, R. (1996). Innovations in integrating
technology into student teaching experiences. Journal
of Research on Computing in Education, 29, 196-215.
Williams, M., Foulger, T., & Wetzel, K. (2009). Preparing
preservice teachers for 21st century classrooms:
Transforming attitudes and behaviors about innovative
technology. Journal of Technology and Teacher
Education, 17(3), 393-418.
Yang, S., & Huang, Y. (2008). A study of high school
English teachers’ behavior, concerns and beliefs in
integrating information technology into English
instruction. Computers in Human Behavior, 24, 1085-
1103.
92
Appendix
Stages of Concern Questionnaire
93
94
Note. From “Measuring implementation in schools: The stages of concern
questionnaire,” by George et al., 2006, Austin, TX: SEDL. Copyright
2006 by SEDL. Reprinted by Yaritza Gonzalez with permission from SEDL.
