TEACHERS? BELIEF SYSTEMS REGARDING CLASSROOM TECHNOLOGY USE ? PLANNING FOR PERCEPTIONS

The purpose of this interpretive qualitative study will be to explore the relationship between teacher beliefs, perceptions and attitudes towards technology and how it affects their use of technology in classroom instruction. Research shows quantitative studies which document causes to teacher non-use of technology in classroom instruction such as the lack of technology TRAINING, lack of TIME to incorporate technology into established lesson plans, and the lack of RELIABILTY of hardware and software systems will be evaluated. The literature review must cover topics such as:

1. Examining Teacher Perceptions, Attitudes, and Barriers towards Technology Use. (Note: the central underlying theme of the study is to delve into, examine and identify specific teacher perceptions, attitudes, and barriers (the actual causes/effects). The core central phenomenon associated with millions of dollars allocated to meet technology and academic initiatives which state governments and school systems (educational stakeholders) continue to spend in their quest to provide a more rigorous academic standards fail because teachers are not using educational technology (student workstations, laptops, white boards/promethean board, Turning Point Technologies, integrated and interactive technologies; as appropriated for classroom instruction.

2. How beliefs, perceptions and attitudes are formed (bio/psych)?
3. History of technology integration into public schools.
4. NCLB: Improving Technology Initiative versus Integration
5. The global value and significance for teacher technology use
6. The importance of , and need for ongoing technology training for teachers.
7. Effect of reliability of technological equipment on teacher usage.
8. This is a State of Georgia qualitative study and the purpose of this qualitative case study is to utilize a ?single public High School? as a ?purposeful sampling? of teachers to examine their beliefs, perceptions and attitudes towards technology and how these affect their use of technology in classroom instruction. Please include Department of Georgia Education ?statistics? and any other pertinent information to support the vast amount of technology inventory already installed and integrated into each school for this literature review.

CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW
(Requirements)
The following questions should be used to help you organize your literature review:
1. What do we already know in the immediate area concerned?
2. What are the characteristics of the key concepts or the main factors or variables?
3. What are the relationships between these key concepts, factors or variables?
4. What are the existing theories?
5. Where are the inconsistencies or other shortcomings in our knowledge and understanding?
6. What views need to be (further) tested?
7. What evidence is lacking, inconclusive, contradictory or too limited?
8. Why study (further) the research problem?
9. What contribution can the present study be expected to make?
10. What research designs or methods seem unsatisfactory? (p. 3)
*** I require at least 80 references and 95% of all references must be within 5 years of this study. *** You may wish to use these older scholarly references for the History portion only; however please use whatever references you desire to accomplish the mission:

Cuban, L. (1993). Computers meet classrooms: Classroom wins. Teachers College Record, 95(2), 185-210. (History part)
Cuban, L. (1999). The technology puzzle: Why greater access is not translating into The Role of a School Technology Coordinator 18 better classroom use? Education Week, 18(43), 47, 68. Retrieved January 20, 2010. (History part)
Cuban, L (2000). So much high-tech money invested, so little use and change in practice: How come? Paper prepared for the Council of Chief of State School Officers? annual Technology Leadership Conference. Washington, D.C. (History part)
Cuban, L. (2001). Why are most teacher?s infrequent and restrained users of computers in their classrooms? In (Dexter, Doering, & Riedel, 2006)J. Woodward & L. Cuban, (Eds.), Technology, curriculum and professional development, (pp. 121?137). Thousand Oaks, CA:Corwin Press, Inc. (History part)
Cuban, L., Kirkpatrick, H., & Peck, C. (2001). High Access and Low use of Technologies in High School Classrooms: Explaining an Apparent Paradox. American Educational Research Journal , 1-23. (History part)

Becker, H. J., & Ravitz, J. L. (2001). Computer use by teachers: Are Cuban?s predictions correct? Paper presented at 2001 annual meeting of American Educational Research Association. Seattle, Washington. Retrieved January 20, 2010. (History part)
Hutchins, D. (1998). Shadows of the Neanderthal: Illuminating the Beliefs that Limit Our Organizations (1st Edition ed.). Waltham: Pegasus Communications. (Interesting book that discusses ?Mental Models? ? These are perceptions that are built up over time that effect how we view world paradigms regarding techology and technology usage).
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods Approaches (3rd Edition ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc.

*** The literature review must be a minimum of 40 pages and include:

1. an introduction section (remember APA 6th edition does not included a header for the introduction),
2. Must be formatted with Level 1 and Level 2 Headings
3. a theoretical basis for your study (provide the reader with an understanding of the underlining theories that serve as the foundation of the study),
4. pertinent sections to support the concepts being explored in the study (use the questions above to help as you develop your literature review), and
5. a summary of the chapter.

Avoid the following:

1. Including a number of lists. Lists should be used sparingly.
2. Using a number of direct quotes. Direct quotes should be used if paraphrasing the information will change the author?s meaning. (When thinking about the information that you want to include in a list and direct quotes, the goal should be to synthesize the information.)
NOTE: I have already received approval for Chapter 1 (Introduction) and Chapter 3 (Methodology) and can forward these to you if needed.

Feedback

Dear Writer 50642,

I received and reviewed the draft literature review. There were definitive parts of your work that demonstrated quality work and research. However, understanding that this is a draft and not a final product, this literature review must show analysis and synthesis of the various authors’ research.

The introduction needs lots of work. “Cuban” is cited multiple times for background technology information with very few supplementary sources. I know I provided some sources but I am using this service to employ additional sources beyond that which I provided. Also, please look at the scope of instruction sent to you. There is no information about how beliefs, perceptions, and attitudes are formed (is it biological versus psychological – e.g. think cognitive psychology) that helps us to understand the psyche of why teachers make the decisions they do to use technology or not. Additionally, there is no information about the No Child Left Behind and its relationship to technology initiatives, data and statistics showing the millions of dollars spent already on technology in the schools (educational statistics – e.g. http://nces.ed.gov – tables and figures, fast facts, etc.), Turning Point (look it up…they are the hand-held clickers…why do both teachers and students like them…or maybe they don’t), improving technology versus integration, the effects of reliability of technology, just to name a few.

I believed that you covered your bases and provided the reader with some good information; however at the doctoral level my committee and I need more scholarly “precise” writing. Towards the end of the paper the writing and synthesis got much better than the beginning. I need to hit a “home run” with this literature review and I need your help in getting me there. Here is a good example of your writing that I like:

In the study by Judson (2006), 32 classroom teachers were asked to complete a survey to determine their beliefs regarding instructions. The teachers were also observed directly and rated using a tool known as FIT: COM (Focus on Integrated Technology: Classroom Observation Measurement). This tool is designed to measure the extent to which technology-integrated lessons have been aligned with constructivist principles. The analysis did not indicate any significant relationship between classroom practices and beliefs. These findings contradict the views that many researchers have held in the past (Rogers, 2003, Valdez, 2000).

Judson (2006) was used to make an argument against the views of Rogers and Valdez. Here is another:

Like Judson (2006), Chen (2010) focuses on the constructivist approach and a critical analysis on student-centered learning. Chen’s aim, however, is to address two limitations that have already been identified in previous research on factors influencing teachers’ integration of classroom technology into their teaching. Moreover, Chen tested the Structural Equation Model (SEM) with regard to the relationship among the main variables influencing the use of classroom technology by pre-service teachers to support student-centered learning. Methodologically, Chen’s literature review led him to a path model that offered the study’s design and analysis. In the study of 206 pre-service teachers in the US, Chen (2010) found out that the SEM model fitted moderately to the data that was observed. Unlike many other researchers who have in the past used self-reported data, direct observations were employed in Chen’s study. Most importantly, though, the study provides a foundation for further testing of the SEM model.

This was good analysis and synthesis although the reader does not get a good sense of what SEMS is and how it contributes to teacher belief systems and lack of technology integration.

Lastly, the flow of the paper is difficult to follow. I need you to “review and redraft” the paper to include strong transitions between the paragraphs that guide the reader systematically through the literature review in a logical, cohesive manner. The ideas must connect to one another with consistent analysis and synthesis throughout. Currently this reads like more of a research paper than a literature review.

Again, I think we are off to a good start but I need a polished presentation as soon as possible that demonstrates an exhaustive review of the recent (within the past 5 years) literature on this topic. It is imperative that all 8 points in the original set of instructions are addressed in a clear, concise manner. The ultimate deadline in July 31st, but I would like to see an updated draft by Saturday morning that is 40 pages with at least 80 references and proofread with the font, grammatical errors and typos corrected in APA format.

On a final note, while I received your email, I was unable to click on your draft attachment in the messaging system. I had to contact Customer Support who in turn forwarded the draft to my email.

Thank you in advance for your time and efforts.

God Bless,

Michael

Dear Writer,

***IMPORTANT***
**IMPORTANT***

I was re-reading your original draft and I did not see any explanation/definition of the central phenomenon terminology “perceptions”, “attitudes”, and “barriers” since these words are associated with my dissertation. These terms are warranted of further discussion and explanation by scholarly-reviewed peers. Please include these terms and scholarly sources where appropriate in the paper.

Many thanks,

Michael
Customer at July 29 17:13
Dear Writer,

I have already sent the Dept of Education, pdf. file last night.

It is located under “view order” at the very bottom of the page titled, “Additional instructions and files: 2007-2012_Georgia_State_Technology_Plan.pdf

The attachment is the Georgia’s Dept of Education technology plan still in effect for another school year. In consideration of this document, I am sure Georgia is already in the process of developing the 2013-2017 technology plan for all Georgia schools.

Does this technology plan effectively meet the needs of every student? Will its implementation contribute to higher student achievement and test scores? Crafting a technology plan, does it ensure that teachers beliefs, perceptions and attitudes towards the usage of technology in instruction will be addressed and that educational stakeholders (such as the state lawmakers, politicians, taxpayers, parents and school systems) will “perceive” a return on their investment? (the millions of dollars spent towards improving education, especially those dollars allocated for technology initiatives.)

I surmise the gap in the literature is that we do not have enough research documenting the central phenomenon associated with teacher beliefs, their perceptions, and attitudes towards the usage in technology; and secondly, educational stakeholder would must rather “throw money” towards concrete issues they believe they can resolve, rather than address the more difficult abstract ones which involves determining which factors contribute to a teachers’ non-use of technology in the classroom. This whole idea is epidemic because society will continue to ineffectively spend dollars inappropriately until they address these issues.