Measuring Teacher Technology Integration: Going Beyond Teacher Use

Measuring Teacher Technology Integration: Going Beyond Teacher Use Rachel A. Vannatta Professor Education 550 Bowling Green State University Bowling Green, OH 43403 rvanna@bgsu.edu 419-372-0451 Savilla Banister Associate Professor Education 438 Bowling Green State University Bowling Green, OH 43403 sbanist@bgsu.edu 419-372-7297

Abstract This study sought to examine the validity and reliability of the Teacher Technology Integration Survey (TTIS). Previous instruments have sought to separately measure teacher technology use, self-efficacy, attitudes, or beliefs. In contrast, the TTIS attempts to measure teacher technology integration, which encompasses risk-taking behaviors and comfort with technology; perceived benefits of using classroom technology; beliefs and behaviors about classroom technology use; technology support and access; teacher technology use for administrative, communication, and instructional purposes; and facilitation of student technology use. Factor analysis supported the original subscales. Results indicate that the TTIS provides a reliable and multi-dimensional measure of teacher technology integration. Measuring Teacher Technology Integration: Going Beyond Teacher Use Developing a valid and reliable instrument that efficiently measures teacher technology integration continues to be a challenge for K-12 practitioners, researchers, and policy-makers (Cuban, 2001; Roblyer & Knezek, 2003). As technology and the pedagogy of its uses have evolved, so have the definition and measures of technology use (Bebel, et al., 2004). Previously developed self-reporting instruments have often focused on measuring the frequency of using certain applications. While such measures provide information regarding how often a teacher uses a specific technology, it typically has not indicated HOW teachers are using technology to facilitate student learning. In addition, past measures have often generated a composite score to represent teacher technology use, which is often misinterpreted by administrators and other officials (Bebel, et al., 2004). Bebel et al. (2004) contend that a valid instrument of teacher technology use should be multi-dimensional, such that multiple measures are utilized to represent specific types of technology use. Bebel et. al created the Use, Support, and Effect of Instructional Technology (USEIT) teacher

survey to measure 7 categories of teacher technology use: preparation, professional email, delivering instruction, accommodation, student use, student products, and grading. Although the USEIT was utilized in the construction of the Teacher Technology Integration Survey (TTIS), the TTIS was developed to assess teachers technology integration practices by measuring a variety of beliefs and behaviors with respect to classroom technology use (see Appendix). Since technology integration is more than just using technology in the classroom, construction of the TTIS was based upon the premise that teachers who effectively integrate technology in the classroom typically demonstrate the following: Comfort and risk-taking with troubleshooting and trying new technology (Hogarty, 2003; Vannatta & Fordham, 2004); Belief that technology enhances the teaching and learning experience (Hogarty, 2003; MacArthur & Malouf, 1991); Consideration for appropriate technologies, resources, and standards when planning instruction (Rowland, 2000); Utilization of technology for administrative, communication, and instructional purposes to increase efficiency and quality (Rowland, 2000); Modeling of effective uses of technology with students (Rowland, 2000); and Facilitation of student technology use (Becker, 1994) to enhance constructivist learning (Honey & Moeller, 1990). Therefore, the TTIS sought to measure technology integration through even a more holistic approach. Obviously, technology competency is also a teacher prerequisite for effective technology use; however, in an effort to keep the TTIS fairly short, this construct was excluded. This article presents the development of the TTIS and the study that was conducted to establish its validity and reliability.

Instrumentation The TTIS was developed to measure six constructs of teacher technology integration: 1. Risk-taking behaviors and comfort with technology; 2. Perceived benefits of using technology in the classroom; 3. Beliefs and behaviors about classroom technology use; 4. Teacher technology use; 5. Facilitation of student technology use; and 6. Teacher support for technology use and access to technology. Each construct generated a unique subscale within the TTIS, with the exception of Teacher Technology Use and Facilitation of Student Technology Use, each of which were further divided into two subscales. The survey consisted of 61 items with four additional demographic items and took approximately 15 minutes to complete. Each subscale was developed in consultation with the literature and several existing instruments. The subscale of Risk-taking Behaviors and Comfort with Technology measured emotional responses of comfort and anxiety when troubleshooting or risk-taking with new technology. This subscale adapted items from two existing instruments: the Teacher Attribute Survey (TAS) (Vannatta & Fordham, 2004) and the Computer Self-Efficacy Scale (Cassidy & Eachus, 2002). Four items (26, 27, 29, 30) from the TAS that addressed openness to change and risk-taking among teachers were considered in the development of the TTIS items. In addition, seven items (1, 6, 10, 12, 16, 23, 30) from the 30-item Computer Self-Efficacy Scale were considered. In the end, the TTIS Risk-taking Behaviors and Comfort with Technology subscale consisted of nine items (Items 1-9) and applied a 4-point Likert scale, ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. The subscale of Perceived Benefits in using Technology in the Classroom was addressed in items 10-14 of the TTIS and measured how one perceives the emotional and academic benefits of

using technology for both the teacher and the students. Twelve items (38-49) in Technology Beliefs and Competencies Survey, Section III Technology Beliefs (Brinkerhoff, et. al., 2002) were considered/adapted in developing this construct. Seven items (7, 9, 18, 20, 24, 27, 30) from the Computer Self-Efficacy Scale also contributed to this subscale. A 4-point Likert scale of agreement was applied. The subscale of Beliefs and Behaviors about Classroom Technology Use was measured through the TTIS items 16-20. Although these items are embedded in classroom use, these items are more general beliefs and behaviors that support technology integration but do not require the actual use of technology. These five items were developed by the researcher in consultation with the literature. Example items include: Using technology in the classroom is a priority for me; When planning instruction, I consider state and national technology standards. A 4-point Likert scale of agreement was applied. Technology Support and Access was measured by items 21-25 in the TTIS. These items were based upon the Essential Conditions for Preparation of New Teachers presented in the NETS- T (ISTE, 2002) with specific focus on shared vision, access, technical assistance and support policies. Support statements utilized a 4 point Likert scale from strongly disagree to strongly agree. Access and availability was measured with the following scale: 1= Not available/present in my building; 2=Available but not accessible; 3=Available but have limited access; 4=Available and have easy access. The construct of Teacher Technology Use sought to measure three areas of use for: administration, communication, and instruction. The USEIT teacher survey by Bebell, Russell, and O Dwyer (2004) heavily contributed to this construct. USEIT items from five categories that specifically addressed teacher technology use preparation, professional email, delivering instruction, accommodation, and grading were adapted to create the 13 items of the TTIS overall

subscale of Teacher Technology Use. These items applied the USEIT s five point scale: never, once or twice a year, several times a year, several time a month, and several times in a week. Teacher administrative use was addressed in items 30-35and measured activities such as: using spreadsheet to maintain grades; preparing or maintaining IEPs on the computer; and using a handheld device to organize information. Teacher communication use was addressed in items 36-38 and measured: using email to communicate with colleagues, administrators, parents, or student; and posting class information on a website or blog. Teacher use for instruction was addressed in items 39-42. These items measured activity such as: using technology to present information to students; using content-specific software for concept reinforcement; and using the Internet to gather information for lesson planning. Although these items measured frequency of technology use in the classroom, they also attempted to measure planning and integration methods that facilitate more constructive learning. Facilitation of Student Technology Use is also another important indicator of teacher technology integration in the classroom. This construct was measured in items 43-61 in the TTIS. Student specific items from the USEIT (the subscales of student use and product) were also adapted in creating TTIS student use items. The USEIT s five-point frequency scale was also applied. Items indicated a specific application and use to better indicate HOW technology was integrated. Items 43-45 required teachers to indicate the frequency for applying a computer use configuration: work individually on a computer in the classroom; work individually on a computer in a computer lab; work in pairs or small groups on the computer. Items 46-57 indicated uses of technology for a variety of purposes, such as to produce paper-based products, to solve problems, or to communicate or collaborate with peers. Items 58-61 examined student use of specific tools/software such as handheld devices, content-specific software, Inspiration, and simulation/gaming software.

Content validity of the TTIS was evaluated by an expert panel of five educators: two teacher education faculty with expertise in K-12 technology integration, one K-12 district technology coordinator, and two K-12 teachers with backgrounds in classroom technology integration. The panel examined items with respect to: content in measuring the proposed constructs; instrument format; and language clarity and readability for the proposed sample. Several revisions specific to language and content were made based upon the suggestions of the panel. The Study At the conclusion of spring semester 2007, the Teacher Technology Integration Survey (TTIS) was administered online to K-12 teachers who were serving as cooperating teachers through a large Midwest state university. Potential respondents (N=457), located throughout northwest Ohio, received an email inviting them to complete the TTIS and were directed to the survey web address. Once respondents completed the survey they were directed to a separate page where they entered contact information to be eligible for a drawing of a $50 gift certificate. A reminder email was sent after two weeks from the initial invitation. Of the 457 asked to participate, 279 completed the survey for a 61% return rate. The sample consisted of 76% female teachers. Thirty percent of the participants taught primary grades; 32% taught intermediate or middle school grades; and 38% taught high school. Factor Analysis Results A confirmatory factor analysis was conducted using principal components analysis to evaluate the underlying structure of the TTIS. A preliminary factor analysis of all items, limiting extraction to six factors, confirmed the general structure (although a bit messy) of the proposed subscales with the addition of two factors. Since items among similar subscales often overlapped, three subsequent factor analyses were conducted to generate cleaner factors. After factor analysis

was complete, internal reliability was evaluated by calculating Cronbach s alpha for each of the generated factors. The factor analysis examining items that measured Risk-taking Behaviors and Comfort with Technology, Perceived Benefits in using Technology in the Classroom, and Beliefs and Behaviors about Classroom Technology Use (items 1-20) created three factors that accounted for 71% of the original variance (see Table 1). The first factor, Risk-taking Behaviors and Comfort with Technology, confirmed items 1-9 as a subscale with most items loaded above.6. Top items loaded included: 2) Learning new technologies is confusing to me (reversed); 3) I get anxious when using new technologies because I don t know what to do if something goes wrong (reversed). Reliability for this factor was quite high (α =.8540). The second factor generated was Perceived Benefits in using Technology in the Classroom. Items with the highest loadings included: 11) Computer technology allows me to create materials that enhance my teaching; 12) Computer technologies help me be better organized in my classroom. Internal reliability for this factor was calculated at α =.8490. The third factor generated was Beliefs and Behaviors about Technology Use. Highest loading items were: 16) Using technology in the classroom is a priority for me; 19) I regularly plan learning activities/lessons in which students use technology Table 1. Factor Analysis Results for Comfort and Benefit Items Risk-taking Behaviors and Comfort with Technology (α =.8540) Loading 2 Learning new technologies is confusing for me. (reversed).769 3 I get anxious when using new technologies because I don t know what to do if something goes wrong..729 (reversed) 7 I am confident in trying to learn new technologies on my own..729 1 I feel comfortable about my ability to work with computer technologies..728 8 I enjoy finding new ways that my students and I can use technology in the classroom..657 6 I get excited when I am able to show my students a new technology application or tool..653 5 I get anxious when using technology with my students. (reversed).632 4 I am confident with my ability to troubleshoot when problems arise while using technology..625 9 Learning new technologies that I can use in the classroom is important to me..596 Perceived Benefits in using Technology in the Classroom (α =.8490) Loading 11 Computer technology allows me to create materials that enhance my teaching..801 12 Computer technologies help me be better organized in my classroom..753 13 Technology can be an effective learning tool for students..740

10 Using technology to communicate with others allows me to be more effective in my job..735 14 My students get excited when they use technology in the learning process..611 Beliefs and Behaviors about Classroom Technology Use (α =.8790) Loading 16 Using technology in the classroom is a priority for me..857 19 I regularly plan learning activities/lessons in which students use technology..850 17 When planning instruction, I think about how technology could be used to enhance student learning..849 20 I try to model effective technology use for my students..836 15 Teaching students how to use technology is a part of my job..781 18 When planning instruction, I consider state and national technology standards..596 The second factor analysis was conducted with all teacher technology support, access, and use items (items 21-42). This analysis generated three factors that accounted for only 59% of the original variance (see Table 2). The first factor was Technology Support and Access (items 21-29) with item 23 (A vision for technology use in our school is clearly communicated to faculty) and 25 (Curriculum support is available in my building to assist with technology integration ideas) having the highest loadings. Items addressing access and availability had the lowest loadings. The reliability coefficient for this factor was α =.6600. The second factor addressed items of teacher use for Administrative & Instructional Purposes (items 30-35, 39-42). Items 39 (Use technology to present information to students) and 40 (Demonstrate computer applications) had the largest loadings. Items addressing handheld use, spreadsheet use, and technology use for the development/maintenance of IEPs had the lowest loadings likely due to the low level of use for these technologies and/or purposes. The reliability coefficient for this factor was α =.7350. The third factor created addresses teacher use for Communication Purposes (items 36-38). Items with the largest loadings include: 37) Use Email to communicate with students or parents; and 38) Post class information (homework, products) on an electronic bulletin board, website, or blog. Internal reliability for Communication Uses was calculated at α =.4760, likely due to the few items in this factor. Table 2. Factor Analysis Results for Teacher Technology Use, Support and Access Items Technology Support and Access (α =.6600) Loading 23 A vision for technology use in our school is clearly communicated to faculty..831 25 Curriculum support is available in my building to assist with technology integration ideas..766

22 Technology support is available in my building to assist with troubleshooting..723 24 My colleagues are committed to integrating technology in the classroom..664 21 My building principal encourages faculty to integrate technology in the classroom..661 29 Availability and access to a computer lab (10-30 computers).422 28 Availability and access to a mobile computer lab (cart of computers).297 26 Availability and access to an instructor computer..292 27 Availability and access to a set (2-5) of computers in the classroom..290 Administrative and Instructional Uses (α =.7350) Loading 39 Use technology to present information to students.792 40 Demonstrate computer applications.781 31 Use the Internet to gather information for lesson planning.694 32 Create electronic templates to guide student computer use.671 42 Use technology to adapt an activity to students individual needs.670 30 Use the computer to create instructional handouts or assessments for students.578 41 Provide/create electronic learning centers.570 34 Use a handheld device (Palm Pilot) to organize information.317 35 Use spreadsheet (or grading program) to maintain grade book and/or attendance.220 33 Prepare or maintain IEPs on the computer.122 Communication Uses (α =.4760) Loading 37 Use Email to communicate with students or parents.743 38 Post class information (homework, products) on an electronic bulletin board, website, or blog.726 36 Use Email to communicate with colleagues and administrators in your school/district.707 A final factor analysis was conducted with items that address student use of technology as facilitated by the teacher (items 46-61) (see Table 3). Items 43-45 were not included in the analysis as these address the different computer configurations that may be utilized when having students use technology information that is important and needs to remain as independent variables. Two factors were generated. The first factor addressed Student General Use of technology for a variety of purposes (items 46-57). Items with the highest loadings for the first factor were items 46, 51, and 52 and addressed Internet, word processor, and presentation software uses. This factor generated an internal reliability of α =.9140. The second factor measured Student Use of Specific Software/Tools programs, such as simulation/gaming, content-specific, Inspiration, and handheld devices (items 58-61). Internal reliability for the factor of Student Use of Specific Software/Tools was α =.5750, which is most likely due to the few items in this factor.

Table 3. Factor Analysis Results for Student Use Items General Student Use (α =.9140) Loading 46 Use Internet to research topics and gather information.766 51 Use writing tools in word processor (such thesaurus, spell-check) to improve writing.757 quality 52 Use presentation software to present information.735 49 Use email to communicate and collaborate with peers.728 50 Use word processor for writing assignments.722 55 Use technology to produce multimedia projects that use digital images, video, audio.717 54 Use technology to produce paper-based products (newsletters, brochures).675 53 Use technology to produce pictures/artwork.666 57 Use technology to solve problems.655 48 Use spreadsheets to create graphs or charts.634 47 Use spreadsheets or tables to organize and analyze data.606 56 Use technology to produce web pages or websites.550 Student use of Specific Software (α =.5750) Loading 61 Use simulation/gaming software (Timeliner, Hollywood High) to learn and apply.739 information 60 Use content-specific software for concept reinforcement.716 59 Use Inspiration (or other) to create concept maps or graphic organizer.594 58 Use a handheld device to gather and/or organize data, create concepts maps, write.464 Although several of the factors have items with low loadings, these items often had little discrimination with this particular sample. The content of these items is still valid and important with respect to technology integration. As such, all original items were retained. The factor analysis results confirmed, for the most part, the six proposed subscales with eight subscales emerging as fairly reliable entities. As such subscale scores were generated by calculating the mean of item responses within each subscale. This eliminates the weighting of items within each factor (as calculated in factor loadings) and essentially treats each item equally. Sample Results Item and subscale means and standard deviations are presented in Table 4. The sample reported fairly high levels of Risk-taking and Comfort with Technology, which created a slightly negatively skewed distribution. The item that had the lowest mean response within this subscale was (item 4) I am confident with my ability to troubleshoot when problems arise while using technology. The item with the highest mean response in this factor was (item 9) Learning new

technologies that I can use in the classroom is important to me. Perceived Benefits of Technology Use was very positive with the greatest benefit as (item 13) Technology can be an effective learning tool for students. All items within this subscale scored very high, generating an subscale mean of M=3.40. Table 4. Descriptive Statistics for Items and Subscales # Subscales and Items M SD Risk Taking and Comfort with Technology 2.99 0.45 1 I feel comfortable about my ability to work with computer technologies. 3.17 0.61 2 Learning new technologies is confusing for me. 2.93 0.68 3 I get anxious when using new technologies because I don t know what to do if something goes wrong. 2.78 0.73 4 I am confident with my ability to troubleshoot when problems arise while using technology. 2.56 0.70 5 I get anxious when using technology with my students. 2.96 0.65 6 I get excited when I am able to show my students a new technology application or tool. 3.28 0.60 7 I am confident in trying to learn new technologies on my own. 2.83 0.69 8 I enjoy finding new ways that my students and I can use technology in the classroom. 3.21 0.59 9 Learning new technologies that I can use in the classroom is important to me. 3.25 0.62 Perceived Benefits of Technology Use 3.40 0.46 10 Using technology to communicate with others allows me to be more effective in my job. 3.35 0.60 11 Computer technology allows me to create materials that enhance my teaching. 3.45 0.56 12 Computer technologies help me be better organized in my classroom. 3.25 0.66 13 Technology can be an effective learning tool for students. 3.48 0.53 14 My students get excited when they use technology in the learning process. 3.45 0.57 Beliefs and Behaviors about Classroom Technology Use 2.80 0.55 15 Teaching students how to use technology is a part of my job. 2.95 0.67 16 Using technology in the classroom is a priority for me. 2.76 0.75 17 When planning instruction, I think about how technology could be used to enhance student learning. 2.89 0.66 18 When planning instruction, I consider state and national technology standards. 2.49 0.78 19 I regularly plan learning activities/lessons in which students use technology. 2.72 0.70 20 I try to model effective technology use for my students. 3.00 0.60 Technology Support and Access 2.81 0.48 21 My building principal encourages faculty to integrate technology in the classroom. 3.08 0.62 22 Technology support is available in my building to assist with troubleshooting. 3.00 0.72 23 A vision for technology use in our school is clearly communicated to faculty. 2.66 0.77 24 My colleagues are committed to integrating technology in the classroom. 2.75 0.61 25 Curriculum support is available in my building to assist with technology integration ideas. 2.64 0.78 26 Instructor computer 3.33 1.09 27 Set of computers (2-5) in classroom 2.85 1.32 28 Mobile computer lab (cart of computers) 1.83 1.15 29 Computer lab (10-30 computers) 3.21 0.91 Teacher Administrative and Instructional Use 2.88 0.68 30 Use the computer to create instructional handouts or assessments for students 4.37 0.86 31 Use the Internet to gather information for lesson planning 3.99 1.00 32 Create electronic templates to guide student computer use 2.09 1.22 33 Prepare or maintain IEPs on the computer 1.94 1.37 34 Use a handheld device (Palm Pilot) to organize information 1.37 1.08 35 Use spreadsheet (or grading program) to maintain grade book and/or attendance 3.95 1.61 39 Use technology to present information to students 3.44 1.28 40 Demonstrate computer applications 2.78 1.28

41 Provide/create electronic learning centers 2.18 1.32 42 Use technology to adapt an activity to students individual needs 2.70 1.27 Teacher Communication Use 3.58 0.92 36 Use Email to communicate with colleagues and administrators in your school/district 4.78 0.63 37 Use Email to communicate with students or parents 3.70 1.40 38 Post class information (homework, products) on an electronic bulletin board, website, or blog 2.29 1.65 Student General Use 2.15 0.87 46 Use Internet to research topics and gather information 2.69 1.16 47 Use spreadsheets or tables to organize and analyze data 1.71 1.05 48 Use spreadsheets to create graphs or charts 1.60 0.91 49 Use email to communicate and collaborate with peers 2.04 1.55 50 Use word processor for writing assignments 3.15 1.34 51 Use writing tools in word processor (such thesaurus, spell-check) to improve writing quality 2.96 1.45 52 Use presentation software to present information 2.06 1.24 53 Use technology to produce pictures/artwork 2.37 1.28 54 Use technology to produce paper-based products (newsletters, brochures) 1.98 1.18 55 Use technology to produce multimedia projects that use digital images, video, audio 1.80 1.08 56 Use technology to produce web pages or websites 1.29 0.83 57 Use technology to solve problems 2.13 1.28 Student Specific Use 1.63.68 58 Use a handheld device to gather and/or organize data, create concepts maps, write 1.19 0.68 59 Use content-specific software for concept reinforcement 2.28 1.36 60 Use Inspiration (or other) to create concept maps or graphic organizer 1.52 0.94 61 Use simulation/gaming software (Timeliner, Hollywood High) to learn and apply information 1.53 1.00 Configuration of Student Use (not a subscale) 43 Work individually on the computer in the classroom 2.69 1.16 44 Work individually on the computer in a computer lab 1.71 1.05 45 Work in pairs or small groups on the computer 1.60 0.91 Overall Teacher Technology Use (items 30-42) 3.04.63 Overall Student Use (items 46-61) 2.02.75 Teacher Beliefs and Behaviors about Classroom Technology are fairly positive with most participants believing that: I try to model effective technology use for my students. (item 20). Unfortunately, considering state and national technology standards when planning instruction was not a frequent behavior for many participants. Technology Support and Access revealed that most participants see that their building principal encourages faculty to integrate technology in the classroom (item 21). Access to various computer configurations varied in that most have easy access to an instructor computer as well as a computer lab, but have limited access to sets of computers in the classroom and have very limited access to mobile computer labs.

Teacher Use for Administration and Instruction was relative low, with many uses only being completed a 1-2 times per semester or less. Most teachers often (several times in a month or more) used the computer to create instructional handouts or assessments for students while very few are using handhelds to organize information. Teacher Use for Communication was primarily limited to emailing colleagues and administrators in one s school/district. Very few teachers electronically post class information on a website or blog. Participating teachers did not facilitate student technology use on a frequent basis, with most uses occurring only once or twice a semester. Student General Use most frequently reported was (item 50) using the word processor for writing assignments while the least frequent was (item 56) using a technology to produce web pages or web sites. Student Use of Specific Software was also low with (item 50) use of content-specific software for concept reinforcement as the most frequent for this factor. Student use of handheld devices was the lowest. Finally, the computer configuration of student use was also measured in items 34-36. The majority of teachers have students individually work on a computer in the classroom. In contrast, few teachers are utilizing a computer lab or having students work in pairs or small groups at the computer. Since the TTIS examines several subscales contributing to Teacher Technology Integration, it is reasonable to assume that subscales would be related to one another. Thus, a correlation matrix was constructed to examine the Pearson correlation coefficients among the subscales. All relationships were positive and produced low to strong correlations. The strongest correlation with Teacher Technology Use for Administration and Instruction was Teacher Beliefs and Behaviors about Classroom Use (r=.616). Overall Teacher Technology Use was moderately related to Overall Student Use (r=.575).

Table 6. Correlation Matrix of Subscales 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1. Risk-taking & Comfort 1.00 2. Benefits.503 3. Beliefs & Behaviors.583.597 4. Support & Access.251.237.348 5. T Admin & Instruct Use.485.395.616.308 6. T Communication Use.170.153.201.113.348 7. T overall.462.379.581.295.949.625 8. Student General Use.299.167.423.226.532.260.534 9. Student Specific Use.241.206.398.201.512.206.496.498 10. Student Overall Use.312.189.454.236.577.272.575.980.659 1.00 Note: Shaded cell correlations are significant at p<.01 Conclusions This study sought to examine the validity and reliability of the Teacher Technology Integration Survey. Previous instruments have sought to separately measure teacher technology use, self-efficacy, attitudes, or beliefs. In contrast, the TTIS attempts to measure teacher technology integration, which is certainly broader than one s technology use and therefore utilizes measures of attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors related to technology. Factor analyses results suggested the structure of eight factors: 1) Risk-taking Behaviors and Comfort with Technology; 2) Perceived Benefits of Classroom Technology Use; 3) Beliefs and Behaviors about Classroom Technology Use; 4) Technology Support and Access; 5) Teacher Technology Use for Administration and Instruction; 6) Teacher Technology Use for Communication; 7) Student General use of Technology; and 8) Student Use of Specific Software/Tools. The researcher felt that previous literature and established instruments supported the separation of certain subscales in order to increase the clarity and interpretation of results. Although the loadings of some items were extremely low, these items typically created minimal discrimination among the sample since these items represented technologies that are not available in many schools. Ten subscale scores (eight subscales along with two overall scales for teacher and student use) were utilized in the further examination of sample s technology integration. The range in

subscale means along with moderate correlations among the subscales support the use of multiple scales in measuring technology integration. The TTIS s 10 subscale scores provide school leaders with a fairly reliable and accurate picture of technology integration among teachers. In addition, the moderate to strong correlation of Teacher Technology Use for Instruction with Teacher Beliefs with Behaviors about Classroom Technology Use supports the use of belief and behavioral items related to classroom technology use in the measurement of technology integration. Not only will school leaders be able to determine how teachers and students are using technology in the classroom, but also understand the supporting perceptions, beliefs and behaviors that are present or lacking among teachers. Such information can aid educational leaders in creating professional development and support activities that facilitate such beliefs, behaviors and ultimately technology use among teachers Works Cited Bebell, D., Russell, M. & O Dwyer (2004). Measuring teachers technology uses: Why multiplemeasures are more revealing. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 37 (1), 45-63. Becker, H. (1994). Analysis and trends of school use of new information technologies. Washington, DC: Office of Technology Assessment. Brinkerhoff, J. D., Ku, H., Glazewski, K., & Brush, T. (2002) Development, results and validation of technology integration surveys for preservice and practicing teachers. Paper presented at the annual meeting for the Association of Educational Communications and Technology, Atlanta, GA. Available at: http://pt3.ed.asu.edu/docs/aect2001_technology_survey.doc Cassidy, S. & Eachus, P. (2002) Developing the computer user self-efficacy (CUSE) scale: Investigating the relationship between computer self-efficacy, gender, and experience with computers. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 26 (2), 133-153.

Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold & Underused: Computers in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Hogarty, K. Y. & Lang, T. R. (2003). Another look at technology use in classrooms: The d3evelopment and validation of an instrument to measure teachers perceptions. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 63 (1), 139-162. Honey, M., & Moeller, B. (1990). Teachers beliefs and technology integration: Different values, different understandings (Technical Report 6): Center for Technology in Education. International Society for Technology in Education (2002). National Educational Technology Standards for Teachers: Preparing Teachers to Use Technology. Eugene, OR: Author. MacArthur, C.A., & Malouf, D.B. (1991). Teachers beliefs, plans, and decisions about computer - based instruction. The Journal of Special Education, 25(5), 44-72. Roblyer, M. D. & Knezek, G. A. (2003). New millennium research for educational technology: A call for a national research agenda. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 36 (1), 60-71. Rowland, C. (2000). Teacher use of computers and the Internet in public schools. Stats in brief. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Stevens (1992). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences (2 nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Vannatta, R. A. & Fordham, N. (2004). Teacher dispositions as predictors of classroom technology. Journal of Research Technology in Education, 36 (3), 253-272. Vannatta, R.A. & O Bannon, B. (2002). Beginning to put the pieces together: A technology infusion model for teacher education. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 18 (4), 112-123.