{"id":8255,"date":"2019-01-02T21:42:00","date_gmt":"2019-01-02T21:42:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/citejournal.org\/\/\/"},"modified":"2019-06-05T11:10:47","modified_gmt":"2019-06-05T11:10:47","slug":"an-examination-of-social-studies-educators-to-facilitate-preservice-teacher-development-of-technology-integration","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/citejournal.org\/volume-19\/issue-1-19\/social-studies\/an-examination-of-social-studies-educators-to-facilitate-preservice-teacher-development-of-technology-integration","title":{"rendered":"An Examination of Social Studies Educators to Facilitate Preservice Teacher Development of Technology Integration"},"content":{"rendered":"
Educational technologies provide social studies teachers an ability to create a student-centered learning environment and promote 21st-century skills. Social studies classrooms that employ high-usage frequencies of technology demonstrate superior levels of critical thinking, problem solving, and communication skills (Chai & Kong, 2017). The U.S. Department of Education (2010) stated that \u201ctechnology is at the core of virtually every aspect of our daily lives and work, and we must leverage it to provide engaging and powerful learning experiences and content\u201d (p. ix).<\/p>\n
Technology may lessen common issues faced during instruction, such as damaged resources, outdated content, and lack of accessibility. Well-planned learning activities that incorporate technology allow teachers to foster collaboration and move away from traditional delivery styles such as worksheets and lecture (Spencer, 2017).<\/p>\n
The quantitative study reported in this paper sought to provide a better understanding of usage, perceptions, and acquisition of technology among social studies teachers, along with barriers to implementing technology. Previous studies (Babatunde, Benedict, & Adu, 2017; Heafner, 2013) have focused on the concept of perceived technology integration in social studies teaching but not usage frequencies or perceptions of specific technologies. Furthermore, although researchers have examined barriers to technology integration within other subject areas (Coley, Warner, Stair, Flowers, & Croom, 2015; Kraft & Papay, 2014), there is little research related to barriers social studies teachers encounter.<\/p>\n
With the rapid pace of technology development, it is important for teacher educators to recognize specific technologies to equip students with effective resources. In addition, teacher educators should make students aware of the most common obstacles and ways to overcome them encountered in the professional environment.<\/p>\n
Current trends related to technology in other subject areas necessitate the continued incorporation of innovative technology in social studies. In the science classroom, augmented and virtual realities have become popular. These allow students to experience a virtual layer on top of the real world to learn about topics in a student-centered environment. However, virtual reality technology features a time-to-adoption lag of two to three years (Avwiri, 2016). Therefore, it is important that social studies teachers begin to incorporate this technology immediately.<\/p>\n
With an ever-increasing demand to learn English, the market for language learning and development technologies has increased. Mobile applications such as dictionaries and gamification \u2014 using games for a task to promote learning \u2014 benefit teachers and students to promote fluency and retention (Zazulak, 2016). On average, social studies teachers utilize these two technologies less than teachers in nearly every other subject area (Hong, 2016).<\/p>\n
For this study, usage was operationally defined as the frequency in which a teacher implements a specific web-based educational technology into curriculum design and implementation inside and outside of the physical classroom. Perception was defined as the way in which a teacher regards, understands, and interprets the effectiveness of educational technology within the framework of teaching and learning.<\/p>\n
Educational technologies have become commonplace in social studies classrooms of all grade levels regardless of location. In 2012\u20132013, American schools purchased $8.4 billion of educational technology, which was a 6% increase from the previous year, and budgets are predicted to expand through 2020 (Chen, 2015). A 2016 study revealed that 97% of U.S. public school teachers had at least one computer in the classroom and 84% had a projector. Teachers most commonly used technology for word processing, presentation software, Internet access, grade maintenance, and attendance records (Herold, 2016).<\/p>\n
Kraft and Papay\u2019s (2014) study of 9,000 teachers from 174 schools found educational technology fulfills multiple roles, such as instructional preparation and instructional delivery. Professional use of technology includes instructional preparation, such as material gathering, locating digital resources, and creating interactive activities. When used for content delivery, teachers may present via projectors or online platforms using computer-assisted learning applications, such as animated tutorials and \u00ad\u00adreal-time document creation (Chai & Kong, 2017).<\/p>\n
A 2016 study of social studies teachers in Colorado revealed significant usage of technology as an assessment tool (Hong, 2016). The incorporation of assessment technologies such as Socrative allow for real-time student feedback, while others like TurnItIn help promote student accountability and discourage plagiarism (Yentes & Gaskill, 2015). For the purpose of this study, technology integration is composed of any of these uses to support classroom instruction.<\/p>\n
Technology use can ameliorate a variety of challenges through improved accessibility, increased understanding of scope, availability of resources, and more opportunities for writing and communication (Coley et al., 2015). In relation to social studies, schools have made advances in the use of technology to support learning. With more resources available, in addition to Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) policies, social studies teachers should leverage technology to personalize learning.<\/p>\n
Technology permits students to choose appropriate ways to demonstrate mastery of social studies content (Johnson, Adams Becker, Estrada, & Freeman, 2015). Preservice teachers are especially in need of proper technology training. The Council for Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP) has identified three broad strands of skills students should be able to demonstrate in the classroom related to technology. One CAEP indicator specifies that preservice teachers should model instruction capable of enhancing learning with technology, including classroom management and assessment of student learning.<\/p>\n
Successful technology adoption and integration is a slow and complex process with many moving parts. Factors originating from teachers or their school setting, such as beliefs and attitudes, demographic characteristics of teachers and students, access to computers and the Internet, and school support structure, may all affect technology use (National Center for Educational Statistics [NCES], 2016a, 2016b; Spencer, 2017).<\/p>\n
Prior research has shown that disappointing outcomes are associated with teachers who lack necessary skills to integrate technology effectively (Doolittle & Hicks, 2003; Januszewski & Molenda, 2013). Teachers supported by an array of sources such as peers, administrators, technology coordinators, and professional development report higher levels of motivation and effectiveness. In addition, they are more likely to explore new technologies and strengthen those currently used (Falloon & Khoo, 2014). A 2014 study by the NCES revealed that only 30% of teachers felt confident in their technology integration skills. Yet, only approximately 20% of states require technology training or professional development for recertification.<\/p>\n
Increased availability of technology has brought potential to revolutionize social studies teaching and learning. The National Council for the Social Studies (NCSS, 2018) recognized the important role of technology with the creation of content-specific technology standards. The goal is for teachers to utilize common applied techniques to diffuse and integrate technological concepts into the curriculum. Technology integration within social studies has been a relatively slow process. Nearly every other subject area has adopted more technology for instruction and done so at a faster rate (Karchmer-Klein, Mouza, Shinas, & Park, 2017). The current era of high-stakes testing has impacted authentic social studies instruction. A focus on test scores has increased rote memorization of facts and concepts at the expense of technology usage (Manfra, Friedman, Hammond, & Lee, 2009).<\/p>\n
Another challenge social studies teachers encounter is the rapid pace of technology development. However, diffusion and adoption of technology is relatively slow by comparison and is often not focused on student learning (Bolick, 2017). In addition, there is a void of consistent theory and practice in the social studies classroom (Hicks et al., 2014).<\/p>\n
Despite the sluggish start, technology can help students in a number of ways. Previous studies have indicated that social studies teachers\u2019 technology usage could help motivate student engagement, increase subject appeal, and enhance research skills (Berson, 1996; Gulbahar & Guven, 2008; Hong, 2016). Successful completion of technology-based tasks also raises student self-efficacy and self-confidence levels (Heafner, 2004). Educational technologies provide teachers an opportunity to prepare students for a global world and create digital citizens.<\/p>\n
Numerous educational technologies have been developed and implemented to enhance social studies learning. Since the 1990s, teachers can find an ever-expanding amount of historical content online. Increased access to materials such as primary sources and artifacts has positively affected the teaching and learning of social studies (Friedman, 2014). History classes have employed web-based historical resources and databases to enhance student historical thinking and inquiry skills (Friedman, 2006).<\/p>\n
Other teachers have incorporated historical simulations and digital games into their curriculum, though less frequently than in other subject areas (Lee & Probert, 2010). Geospatial technologies such as Google Earth may provide students an interactive visual experience to illustrate geographic concepts in a multimedia environment. Also, geospatial technologies promote student spatial thinking and geographic reasoning skills (Falloon & Khoo, 2014; Goldstein & Alibrandi, 2013).<\/p>\n
Students can collaborate with others in real time to produce class materials and learning tools. For the social studies classroom, this innovation has led to a more interactive and student-centered learning environment (Friedman, 2014). An increasing quantity of smartphone and tablet mobile apps for teaching and learning in a social studies context is another method of implementation. Incorporation of mobile technologies into the curriculum has elicited higher levels of student engagement (Mouza & Barrett-Greenly, 2015).<\/p>\n
Technology integration has increased in popularity among social studies teachers. Since 2009, teachers have reported higher levels of technology incorporation into classroom instruction each year (Partnership for 21st Century Learning, 2016). For this trend to continue, it is essential that preservice social studies teachers receive adequate technology training.<\/p>\n
Prior research uncovered numerous positive effects of technology integration in the social studies classroom. However, new social studies teachers with limited experience and unfamiliarity with technology often hesitate to seek and find new technology for their classroom. Those who lack knowledge and skills related to technology integration are more likely to feel burned out, hindering consistent adoption of technology in social studies instruction (Doolittle & Hicks, 2003; Hong, 2016; Shriner, Clark, Nail, Schlee, & Libler, 2010). To prevent this, it is important to develop knowledge and skills to enhance preservice teacher confidence and abilities through necessary training (Lanahan & Yeager, 2008).<\/p>\n
Teacher development is useful when participants receive training with ready-to-use classroom materials or technologies that match their curriculum and teaching style. Rather than teaching basic skills of technology, curriculum-based training is much more effective and less time-consuming (Karchmer-Klein et al., 2017).<\/p>\n
It is also important for teacher education programs to implement one-on-one mentoring. Personalized instruction, along with substantial follow-up support focused on improved skills, makes preservice teachers more likely to adopt technology (Shriner et al., 2010). Professional development benefits teacher educators and students. Effective teacher training creates a positive impact on teacher knowledge and capabilities along with student learning (Falloon & Khoo, 2014).<\/p>\n
The descriptive study reported here employed survey research methodology to examine teacher acquisition of technological skills, frequency of use, perception of effectiveness, and barriers to technology integration. Respondents consisted of Grades 6-12 social studies teachers from across a mid-Atlantic state during the 2017-2018 academic year. The researcher-developed survey included items from prior research and instruments developed by Kotrlik and Redmann (2009) and Coley et al. (2015).<\/p>\n
The initial part of the survey included 20 questions related to teacher integration of technology, acquisition of technological skills, usage of technological equipment, and barriers to technology integration. The final part consisted of demographic questions, including gender, age, years of teaching experience, and education level. An expert panel of social studies teachers from across the state established content validity. A pilot study was performed using 26 social studies teachers in another state. Based upon feedback, I added one answer option related to perceived effectiveness. Because survey items were considered mutually exclusive, instrument reliability could not be established by internal consistency.<\/p>\n
Contact information was obtained from an email list provided by the State Department of Education for each K-12 public school principal. Qualtrics, an online survey platform, was used to contact principals individually with a request to forward the survey to their social studies faculty. The email included the informed consent, description of purpose, and hyperlink to the survey. Fourteen days later, each principal received a follow-up email with a second request to forward the survey to faculty as a reminder to participate. The survey remained open for 28 days.<\/p>\n
The survey generated 398 volunteer responses from Grades 6-12 social studies teachers during the 2017-2018 academic year. Of 368 respondents who shared their gender, females (n <\/em>= 242; 66%) comprised the majority of participants, while males comprised 34% (n <\/em>= 126). The mean age was 43 with 14 years\u2019 experience as a full-time teacher. Participants self-identified whether their school building was located in an urban, rural, or suburban setting. The majority of respondents (n = <\/em>240; 60%) reported teaching in a suburban school, followed by rural (n = <\/em>120; 31%) and urban (n = <\/em>38; 9%). The majority of participants had attained a master’s degree (n <\/em>= 258; 65%), followed by bachelor’s (n = <\/em>92; 23%), doctoral (n = <\/em>7; 4%) and associate\u2019s (n = <\/em>3; 2%).<\/p>\n Research Area 1.<\/strong><\/em> The first research area explored the usage frequencies of technology for instructional purposes. Results indicated that teachers utilized web-based technologies to conduct class nearly as much as technology in general. This finding may be attributed to the ever-increasing number of online applications available for students and educators.<\/p>\n As an example, Google Drive applications (i.e., Docs, Sheets, and Slides) require an online connection while Microsoft Word, Excel, or PowerPoint do not. Although these programs are available outside of school, teachers rarely utilized educational technology to assign out-of-class work. A large number of respondents (n <\/em>= 152; 39%) indicated that they never assigned work online to be completed during nonclass hours. Teachers were more likely to communicate with parents of students outside of school hours than with students.<\/p>\n In a typical week, 35% (n <\/em>= 140) communicated with a parent at least three times, compared to only 26% (n <\/em>= 106) with students. Responses revealed that 34% (n <\/em>= 134) never used technology to communicate with students, but only 10% (n <\/em>= 37) did not utilize it to communicate with parents (Table 1).<\/p>\n Table 1 <\/p>\n Research Area 2. <\/strong><\/em>The second research area examined the sources of social studies teachers\u2019 acquisition of information and skills related to technology. The majority (n <\/em>= 230; 61%) of respondents acquired new skills through personal trial and error. Faculty and staff (n <\/em>= 117; 30%) were most likely to always be a source, followed by personal trial and error (n <\/em>= 114; 29%) and Internet searches (n <\/em>= 91; 24%). These results may indicate potential effectiveness of departmental level adoption of technology usage.<\/p>\n Teachers were more likely to never or rarely develop new knowledge at an in-service workshop (n <\/em>= 96; 26%) than from their students (n <\/em>= 67; 18%). Online training modules (n <\/em>= 323; 59%) and social media communities (n<\/em>= 181; 48%) were most likely to either rarely or never be used for knowledge acquisition (Table 2). The research indicated low usage of online professional development communities via social media such as Google Hangouts and Facebook. Most respondents (n <\/em>= 231; 58%) never participated in online communities, compared to 18% (n <\/em>= 68) who did so often or always.<\/p>\n Table 2 <\/p>\n Research Area 3. <\/strong><\/em>The third research area measured usage frequencies of specific instructional technologies. Document creation (n <\/em>= 208; 52%) was most likely to be used at least once per week, then class websites (n <\/em>= 168; 43%) and classroom management (n <\/em>= 142; 36%). Teachers indicated usage of technology for assessment purposes less than a few times a semester. The majority of teachers (n <\/em>= 310; 79%) utilized programs such as Socrative or Google Forms a few times a year or less. However, a notable number of teachers (n <\/em>= 98; 25%) utilized assessment tools on at least a weekly basis.<\/p>\n Geospatial programs such as Google Earth and asynchronous communication (e.g., Remind) were the only other technologies employed at least a few times a semester. Microblogging (n <\/em>= 316; 80%) was the least likely to be used at all, followed by role play\/simulation (n <\/em>= 310; 79%).<\/p>\n The majority of teachers incorporated video sharing (n <\/em>= 182; 48%) on at least a monthly basis, while 26% (n <\/em>= 104) never utilized the technology. Also, teachers infrequently utilized animated tutorials, as the majority of participants (n = <\/em>266; 72%) never utilized the technology (Table 3).<\/p>\n Table 3 <\/p>\n Social studies teachers may consider increased usage of animated tutorials to encourage student learning outside of the classroom. If students learn a new technology through an online tutorial outside of class, less class time may be required to teach the technology itself. As a result, class time for the utilization of technology would be maximized and the teacher may help individual students throughout the lesson.<\/p>\n Research Area 4. <\/strong><\/em>Research Area 4 examined perceived effectiveness of the same selected technologies. Document creation was viewed most positively, as the majority of respondents labeled it moderately effective (n = <\/em>108; 27%) or extremely effective (n = <\/em>184; 46%). In addition, over half of respondents (n = <\/em>214; 59%) perceived assessment tools, learning and classroom management (n = <\/em>202; 51%), and asynchronous communication (n = <\/em>198; 52%) technologies to be effective (Table 4).<\/p>\n Table 4<\/strong> <\/p>\n Teachers indicated class websites were very beneficial for class use. A teacher’s ability to communicate related information to an entire class may be of large benefit. For example, a teacher may be able to post all assignments, readings, and outside resources, such as hyperlinks, embedded videos, online textbooks, and study guides. A well-executed website may also provide a calendar along with all course resources for the entire year. The majority of respondents considered social media to be either not at all (n <\/em>= 152; 38%) or slightly (n <\/em>= 86; 20%) effective. Teachers also indicated a low perception of podcasts. Most respondents felt they were not effective (n <\/em>= 204, 51%) and only 30% (n <\/em>= 107) felt they were either moderately or extremely effective.<\/p>\n Research Area 5. <\/strong><\/em>The fifth research area described teacher usage frequency of instructional software programs. As the amount of available online tools for learning has increased, along with it has come a need for Internet access. Most respondents reported utilizing an Internet browser on either a weekly (n <\/em>= 104; 26%) or daily (n <\/em>= 218; 55%) basis. Other software used at least once a week by a majority of respondents were learning management systems (n<\/em> = 276; 70%), word processors (n <\/em>= 266; 68%), and presentation programs (n <\/em>= 210; 53%). Learning management systems had the highest standard deviation of any variable as 28% (n <\/em>= 106) never used the software. This gap may be attributed to a school district’s financial resources or professional development programs. Video editing (n <\/em>= 270; 68%) and photo editing (n <\/em>= 244; 61%) were both likely to never be used or used only a few times a year. Table 5 lists specific types of software programs and descriptive statistics regarding their frequencies of use.<\/p>\n Table 5<\/strong> <\/p>\n Research Area 6. <\/strong><\/em>Research Area 6 explored teacher perceptions of software program effectiveness. Internet browser (n <\/em>= 342; 87%), word processing (n <\/em>= 318; 80%), presentation (n <\/em>= 310; 78%) and learning management systems (n <\/em>= 281; 70%) were report to have the highest levels of moderate or extreme effectiveness. These findings suggested that these types of software programs were the most used and best perceived technologies in the teaching of social studies. Respondents perceived learning management systems as a moderately effective educational technology.<\/p>\n The vast majority of teachers (n <\/em>= 266; 68%) perceived the technology as either moderately or extremely effective. Only 12% (n <\/em>= 51) of respondents perceived learning management systems as \u201cnot at all\u201d effective. Photo and video editing reported the lowest usage frequencies and perception averages. While many respondents viewed photo (n <\/em>= 144; 36%) and video editing (n <\/em>= 132; 33%) as not at all or slightly effective, 53% (n <\/em>= 212) indicated audio\/video players were moderately or extremely effective. Table 6 lists types of software measured for effectiveness.<\/p>\n Table 6<\/strong> <\/p>\n Research Area 7. <\/strong><\/em>The final research area examined barriers to technology integration. Financial cost was identified as being either a moderate (n <\/em>= 142; 35%) or extreme barrier (n <\/em>= 98; 22%) by most participants. A minority (n <\/em>= 56; 13%) viewed it as not a barrier at all. The majority of respondents indicated student knowledge of technology as a moderate or extreme barrier (n <\/em>= 248; 63%). This result may indicate that students are not receiving appropriate instruction on the usage of educational technology.<\/p>\n Participants identified appropriate preparation time related to technology integration, along with student access to technology and the Internet at home, as additional significant barriers. The findings revealed student interest in technology as the smallest barrier. In particular, 71% (n <\/em>= 251) perceived student interest in technology as no barrier at all. This finding would suggest that teachers properly train students on proper usage of technology. With appropriate levels of interest and knowledge, students are more likely to use technology during the learning process in an effective manner. Teacher knowledge, access, and interest in technology were seen as minimal barriers to technology inclusion (Table 7).<\/p>\n Table 7<\/strong>Research Areas<\/h3>\n
\n<\/strong>Comparison of Teacher Usage Frequency of Technology<\/p>\n\n\n
\n Item<\/strong><\/td>\n N<\/em><\/strong><\/td>\n M<\/em><\/strong><\/td>\n SD<\/em><\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Incorporate technology into lesson plans<\/td>\n 379<\/td>\n 2.99<\/td>\n 0.97<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Access web-based technologies to conduct class<\/td>\n 375<\/td>\n 2.98<\/td>\n 0.98<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Require students to access Internet in classroom<\/td>\n 376<\/td>\n 2.54<\/td>\n 0.99<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Communicate with parents of students outside school hours<\/td>\n 378<\/td>\n 2.44<\/td>\n 0.92<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Assign classwork that requires web-based technologies<\/td>\n 377<\/td>\n 2.42<\/td>\n 0.91<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Communicate with students outside school hours<\/td>\n 379<\/td>\n 2.06<\/td>\n 1.02<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Assign out-of-class work on web-based technologies<\/td>\n 377<\/td>\n 1.74<\/td>\n 1.02<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Notes<\/em>: 1 = never<\/em>, 2 = 1\u20132 times a week<\/em>, 3 = 3\u20134 times a week<\/em>, 4 = daily<\/em>.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n
\n<\/strong>Sources of Personal Technology Acquisition<\/p>\n\n\n
\n Source<\/strong><\/td>\n N<\/em><\/strong><\/td>\n M<\/em><\/strong><\/td>\n SD<\/em><\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Personal trial and error<\/td>\n 378<\/td>\n 3.43<\/td>\n 1.09<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Other faculty\/staff<\/td>\n 376<\/td>\n 3.26<\/td>\n 1.18<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Internet searches<\/td>\n 372<\/td>\n 3.04<\/td>\n 1.09<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n In-services or workshops<\/td>\n 377<\/td>\n 2.23<\/td>\n 1.12<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Students<\/td>\n 376<\/td>\n 2.19<\/td>\n 1.24<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Undergraduate\/Graduate coursework<\/td>\n 377<\/td>\n 1.78<\/td>\n 1.17<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Online training modules<\/td>\n 375<\/td>\n 1.75<\/td>\n 1.03<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Social media communities\/groups<\/td>\n 372<\/td>\n 1.57<\/td>\n 1.31<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Notes.<\/em> 1 = never<\/em>, 2 = rarely<\/em>, 3 = sometimes<\/em>, 4 = often<\/em>, 5 = always<\/em>.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n
\n<\/strong>Comparison of Teacher Usage Frequency of Technology<\/p>\n\n\n
\n Technology Type<\/strong><\/td>\n N<\/em><\/strong><\/td>\n M<\/em><\/strong><\/td>\n SD<\/em><\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Create\/edit\/share documents<\/td>\n 372<\/td>\n 4.23<\/td>\n 1.70<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Class\/teacher website<\/td>\n 372<\/td>\n 3.56<\/td>\n 1.99<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Video sharing<\/td>\n 370<\/td>\n 3.23<\/td>\n 1.70<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Classroom management<\/td>\n 371<\/td>\n 3.08<\/td>\n 2.09<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Formative or summative assessment<\/td>\n 371<\/td>\n 2.99<\/td>\n 1.78<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Geospatial programs<\/td>\n 371<\/td>\n 2.88<\/td>\n 1.43<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Asynchronous communication<\/td>\n 372<\/td>\n 2.86<\/td>\n 1.93<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Social networks<\/td>\n 371<\/td>\n 1.79<\/td>\n 1.43<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Photo sharing<\/td>\n 370<\/td>\n 1.78<\/td>\n 1.31<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Animated tutorials<\/td>\n 370<\/td>\n 1.58<\/td>\n 1.21<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Podcasts<\/td>\n 370<\/td>\n 1.54<\/td>\n 1.09<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Role play\/simulation<\/td>\n 371<\/td>\n 1.52<\/td>\n 1.05<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Microblogging<\/td>\n 370<\/td>\n 1.50<\/td>\n 1.08<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Notes<\/em>. 1 = never<\/em>, 2 = a few times a year<\/em>, 3 = a few times a semester<\/em>, 4 = monthly<\/em>, 5 = weekly<\/em>, 6 = daily<\/em>.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n
\nComparison of Teacher Perceived Effectiveness of Technologies<\/p>\n\n\n
\n Technology Type<\/strong><\/td>\n N<\/em><\/strong><\/td>\n M<\/em><\/strong><\/td>\n SD<\/em><\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Create\/edit\/share documents<\/td>\n 371<\/td>\n 4.15<\/td>\n 1.10<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Class\/teacher website<\/td>\n 372<\/td>\n 3.76<\/td>\n 1.24<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Formative or summative assessment<\/td>\n 370<\/td>\n 3.69<\/td>\n 1.22<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Classroom management<\/td>\n 371<\/td>\n 3.47<\/td>\n 1.32<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Video sharing<\/td>\n 370<\/td>\n 3.40<\/td>\n 1.27<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Asynchronous communication<\/td>\n 371<\/td>\n 3.36<\/td>\n 1.33<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Geospatial programs<\/td>\n 371<\/td>\n 3.32<\/td>\n 1.26<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Role play\/simulation<\/td>\n 369<\/td>\n 2.98<\/td>\n 1.18<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Animated tutorials<\/td>\n 369<\/td>\n 2.89<\/td>\n 1.16<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Photo sharing<\/td>\n 371<\/td>\n 2.79<\/td>\n 1.18<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Microblogging<\/td>\n 372<\/td>\n 2.71<\/td>\n 1.20<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Podcasts<\/td>\n 370<\/td>\n 2.77<\/td>\n 1.40<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Social networks<\/td>\n 371<\/td>\n 2.47<\/td>\n 1.37<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Notes<\/em>. 1 = not at all<\/em>, 2 = slightly<\/em>, 3 = neutral<\/em>, 4 = moderately<\/em>, 5 = extremely<\/em>.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n
\nComparison of Teacher Usage Frequency of Software Programs<\/p>\n\n\n
\n Technology Type<\/strong><\/td>\n N<\/em><\/strong><\/td>\n M<\/em><\/strong><\/td>\n SD<\/em><\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Internet browser<\/td>\n 376<\/td>\n 5.22<\/td>\n 1.27<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Word processing<\/td>\n 377<\/td>\n 4.81<\/td>\n 1.51<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Learning management systems<\/td>\n 375<\/td>\n 4.63<\/td>\n 1.96<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Presentation programs<\/td>\n 374<\/td>\n 4.25<\/td>\n 1.69<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Video\/audio player<\/td>\n 376<\/td>\n 3.18<\/td>\n 1.77<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Spreadsheets<\/td>\n 376<\/td>\n 3.06<\/td>\n 1.73<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Photo editing<\/td>\n 376<\/td>\n 2.20<\/td>\n 1.43<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Video editing<\/td>\n 375<\/td>\n 2.03<\/td>\n 1.29<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Notes.<\/em> 1 = never<\/em>, 2 = a few times a year<\/em>, 3 = a few times a semester<\/em>, 4 = monthly<\/em>, 5 = weekly<\/em>, 6 = daily<\/em>.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n
\nComparison of Teacher Perceived Effectiveness of Software Programs<\/p>\n\n\n
\n Technology Type<\/strong><\/td>\n N<\/em><\/strong><\/td>\n M<\/em><\/strong><\/td>\n SD<\/em><\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Internet browser<\/td>\n 376<\/td>\n 4.50<\/td>\n 0.74<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Word processing<\/td>\n 375<\/td>\n 4.27<\/td>\n 0.99<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Presentation programs<\/td>\n 374<\/td>\n 4.23<\/td>\n 1.11<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Learning management systems<\/td>\n 374<\/td>\n 4.18<\/td>\n 1.17<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Video\/audio player<\/td>\n 373<\/td>\n 3.42<\/td>\n 1.32<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Spreadsheets<\/td>\n 374<\/td>\n 3.21<\/td>\n 1.32<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Video editing<\/td>\n 375<\/td>\n 2.93<\/td>\n 1.24<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Photo editing<\/td>\n 376<\/td>\n 2.81<\/td>\n 1.21<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Notes<\/em>. 1 = not at all<\/em>, 2 = slightly<\/em>, 3 = neutral<\/em>, 4 = moderately<\/em>, 5 = extremely<\/em>.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n
\nTeacher Perceptions of Barriers to Technology Integration<\/p>\n\n\n
\n Barrier<\/strong><\/td>\n N<\/em><\/strong><\/td>\n M<\/em><\/strong><\/td>\n