Running Head: ETEC 500 RESEARCH PROPOSAL

ETEC 500 Research Proposal

Stephen Lerch
ETEC 500 65a
UBC
Dr. Sunah Cho
April 6, 2014

Running Head: ETEC 500 RESEARCH PROPOSAL

Introduction
In classrooms around the world, technology is starting to play a major role in the
everyday life of students and teachers. With the amount of technology used in society,
students need to learn how to use it in the classroom proficiently (Miranda & Russell,
2012). Although the education field is not using technology as enthusiastically as the
business world or the home, governments and schools are contributing significant
amounts of money to make technology purchases for classrooms. In the United States of
America (USA) Internet access is available in 97% of all public schools, some districts
are experimenting with 1:1 student to laptop ratios (Miranda & Russell, 2012) and more
than $40 billion was invested on Educational Technology (ET) in K-12 schools between
1990 and 2000 (Ertmer, Ottenbreit-Leftwich, Sadik, Sendurur, & Sendurur, 2012). Some
of the main reasons for incorporating technology into the classroom are to improve active
student learning, critical thinking, collaborative learning, advance innovation in teaching
and engage the leaner in a different way (Garza Mitchell, 2011), but there are problems
associated with this recent enthusiasm.
Even after more than half a decade of incorporating technology into classrooms,
many institutions are still trying to figure what to buy while others purchase without first
questioning what works best to support learning (Garza Mitchell, 2011). To further
compound the problem, policy makers, misinformed by the promoters, buy too much or
the wrong technology based on very little evidence of what is effective for learning
(Petko, 2012) (Kirkpartick & Cuban, 1998).
The second problem is that once the ET is in the classroom, and the major barrier
of access to the technology has been removed, teachers seldom use it in practice (Petko,

Running Head: ETEC 500 RESEARCH PROPOSAL

2012). Researchers originally thought that if teachers access to ET was increased, their
pedagogical beliefs would shift, and they would use it more in the classroom. Studies are
showing this idea to be false (Ertmer et al., 2012). Implementation of any kind of policy
in a school is only successful and useful to the extent that teachers adopt them (Miranda
& Russell, 2012). So researchers began to look for other ways to successfully implement
ET and found that teachers played a key role, particularly their attitudes and beliefs about
technology use (Ertmer et al., 2012) (Petko, 2012).
Rationale
As a teacher, I work in schools and was involved in deciding what technology was
the best to buy for our school, Hudson Elementary in Vancouver. After completing the
purchases and installing five Epson interactive projectors, I realized that the decision to
buy this technology was based on little evidence of what was useful to teachers. When I
started reading the literature on ET such as Computers Make Kids Smarter Right? by
Kirkpatrick & Cuban (1998), and The effectiveness of educational technology
applications for enhancing mathematics achievement in K-12 classrooms: A metaanalysis by Cheung & Slavin (2013), I found few studies that investigated which
technologies were useful to teachers overall; most looked at one ET and how it affected a
specific subject. If I can find out which technologies are being used the most in
classroom, and which technologies are the most useful for teachers, this data could can
help guide schools or districts with their buying decisions and allocation of limited funds.
If a technology is not being used in a classroom then it should not be purchased. If
teachers are using a technology a lot, then this technology is valuable to them in the
classroom and useful as a learning tool.

Running Head: ETEC 500 RESEARCH PROPOSAL

Research Question
To avoid unnecessary, costly purchases of technology, it is essential to determine
what technologies teachers are using in the classroom to enhance their teaching by asking
teachers the following questions:
1) What specific ETs are being used most frequently in your classroom?
2) What ETs do teachers find the most useful for instructional purposes and
preparation?
3) What problems or barriers with these ETs are teachers encountering?
4) Out of the technologies mentioned, which ones would the teachers like to see in
their classrooms that they dont already have?
Predictions
1)
2)
3)
4)

ETs that have a high use also have a high value to teachers as teaching tools.
There will be ETs available in classrooms, which are not being used.
ETs that are not being used have a low value to teachers as teaching tools.
That the barriers to implementing ET into classrooms are similar to the barriers
mentioned in the literature.

Definitions:
ET is defined as any electrical technology that is being used in a classroom by teachers or
student.

Hardware includes:
Overhead projectors, digital Liquid Crystal Display (LCD) colour projectors or any other
computer projection system, interactive LCD projector, Compact Discs (CDs), Digital
Versatile Discs (DVDs), digital cameras, wired internet access, desktop computers, laptop
computers, a tablet (Android, Widows or Apple operating systems), e-readers (such as the

Running Head: ETEC 500 RESEARCH PROPOSAL

Kindle), smartphones, personal music devices (iPod or MP3 player) and classroom
printers.

Software includes:
Word processing programs (similar to Microsoft Word), spreadsheet programs (similar to
Microsoft Excel), presentation software (similar to Microsoft PowerPoint or Prezi),
email, online collaboration websites (such as Google Docs or a Wiki), web browsers,
blogs, social media (such as Facebook or Twitter), online learning platforms for assigning
or handing in homework (such as Moodle), and websites for online practice of skills
(such as reading websites or math drill practice websites).

Although the term ET is the main term used to describe technology used in the
classroom, other terms will be mentioned including Information and Communications
Technology (ICT), Instructional Technology (IT), Learning Technology (LT), and
Teacher-Directed Student use of technology (TDS).

Literature Review
This literature review examines papers that attempted to understand the factors
behind why ET implementation in classrooms is a success or a failure. Several common
themes emerge from the literature, the most obvious being the importance of teachers for
success of ET, but there is a need for more studies that investigate how often the specific
technologies are used in the classroom.

Running Head: ETEC 500 RESEARCH PROPOSAL

Three of the studies mined data from a larger project called Use, Support, and
Effect of Instructional Technology (USEIT). The Technology and Assessment Study
Collaborative at Boston College conducted the study over a three-year period beginning
in 2001, across 22 districts in Massachusetts. The researchers spent the first year piloting
the survey instruments and later collected survey data from 120 district level
administrators, 122 principals, 4,400 teachers, and 14, 200 students. USEIT considered
how teachers and students used technology, what factors influenced use, and the impact
of the use of technology on student learning (Russell, Bebell, ODywer, & OConnor,
2003). The large sample size, many times the minimum required, lends to a very high
validity and many opportunities for different types of analysis (Gay, Mills, & Airasian,
2012). The projects involved with USEIT will be reviewed first.
The first quantitative study Examining teacher technology use: implications for
preservice and inservice teacher preparation conducted by Russell et al. (2003), was the
only study found to look directly at overall teacher technology use in the classroom. The
authors wanted to determine the extent to which technology was used for actual
instructional purposes versus for preparation and communication, whether there were
differences in use between new teachers and experienced teachers and what technologies
were the most used.
The authors used 44 items from the USEIT study and conducted a factor analysis
on them. A factor analysis takes a large number of variables and computes the
correlations, creating groups or categories (Gay et al., 2012).
The analysis found six major categories for teacher use of technology:
preparation, delivery, special education accommodation, e-mail, recording grades and

Running Head: ETEC 500 RESEARCH PROPOSAL

Teacher-Directed Student use of technology (TDS). The two most frequently used
categories were email use and preparation at several times a year and several times a
month respectively (Russell et al., 2003). This information suggests that technology is
being used to help teachers plan and organize rather than for teaching. My study will
investigate the use of technology for delivery and teacher-directed student use.
Finally, Russell et al.s (2003) study found that items such as a classroom printer,
wired internet access in the classroom, and desktop or laptop computer for teacher use,
were utilized the most by teachers. Since the USEIT study was conducted between 2001
and 2004 the data is outdated, my study will be able to provide a more up to date
assessment on the most popular ETs. I suspect that new technologies, such as wireless
Internet and tablets, which have become cheaper, will be more frequently used in
classrooms now.
The second study, Predictors of teacher-directed student use of technology in
elementary classrooms: a multilevel SEM approach using data from the USEIT study by
Miranda & Russell (2011) takes a closer look at the factors affecting TDS in the
classroom. The researchers hypothesize from previous literature, that factors affecting the
TDS in the classroom fall into two categories, a macro-level involving state, district,
industry, and district leaders and a micro-level involving student and teacher needs. Since
the previous research provided little evidence of the magnitude of these factors, they
decided to revisit the issue with more vigor.
Miranda and Russell (2011) used the data from the USEIT survey and analyzed
the responses from 104 district-level personnel (superintendents, assistant-superintendent,
curriculum development directors, head technicians, professional development directors

Running Head: ETEC 500 RESEARCH PROPOSAL

and directors of technology), 81 principals and 1,040 teachers. They calculated results
with Structured Equation Modeling (SEM), a complicated mixture of path analysis and
factor analysis using software to explain the interactive relations between large numbers
of variables (Gay et al., 2012).
The researchers found that the two strongest predictors increased TDS at the
district level were how much district personnel were aware of standards and held
accountable to them and a principals decision making on technology budgets. At the
school level, the most important predictors of TDS success were teachers belief about
the instructional benefit of technology, teachers experience with technology, and
teachers perceived pressure to use the technology. They also confirmed that a mix of
macro- and micro-level factors affect TDS and should be considered when developing
technology integration strategies (Miranda & Russell, 2011).
This data is significant because it shows that in order to successfully integrate
technology into a classroom, all levels of an education system need to be involved. One
problem though is that the data used for this 2011 study was from 2003 and more recent
studies have indicated that the barrier of access to technology by the teacher have been
significantly reduced (Ertmer et al., 2012), so the claim that macro-level factors influence
TDS might have been abridged by now. With that said Miranda & Russell (2011) also
indicated that micro-level factors are important and that means teachers are still very
important to increasing TDS. This study highlights how important a principals role is in
integrating technology into the classroom. My study, on the other hand, is designed to
inform them about the best technology to buy.

Running Head: ETEC 500 RESEARCH PROPOSAL

The third study reviewed that used the USEIT data, Understanding factors
associated with teacher-directed student use of technology in elementary classrooms: a
structural equation modeling approach by Miranda & Russell, (2012) was chosen
because it focused on the effects of the teacher and the micro-level factors on TDS.
Through literature reviews, the author pointed out that, although Macro-level factors are
important, they still do not contribute to widespread use of technology in the classroom.
It seems that teacher-related factors such as educational philosophy beliefs, experience,
background and confidence with technology are more important. Miranda and Russell
attempted to add to and strengthen this body of knowledge by again using SEM on 1,040
of the teacher participant surveys to analyze their data.
They discovered that teachers who believe technology is beneficial and important
for learning, and were more experienced tended to lead their students to use it more often.
Other factors that contributed to improved TDS included pressure to use the technology;
using technology more often and building confidence; and increased professional
development opportunities. Teachers used technology less when they experienced
technical problems that required support because it lowered their confidence (Miranda &
Russell, 2012).
Their study is relevant to my research proposal because I will be asking questions
about which ETs teachers use and prefer in the classroom. If they do use the technology,
the above study implies that teachers are comfortable with it, and have built confidence,
making the technology valuable and effective in the classroom. My survey will also ask
about problems associated with specific ETs, which will shed light on whether or not they
experienced technical problems, lowering confidence.

Running Head: ETEC 500 RESEARCH PROPOSAL

10

The USEIT study was conducted in 2003 and many things have changed in the
classroom since. There are newer, cheaper technologies available to teachers, such as
smartphones. Faster wireless Internet has become common in schools and websites have
become more developed. All these advances lend to a more technology-savvy school,
where the most commonly used ET is not the classroom printer anymore, but an iPad or
interactive projector. This is another reason why there needs to be a current study, to see
how the use of technology has changed since 2003.
Teachers pedagogical beliefs and their use of digital media in classrooms:
sharpening the focus of the will, skill, tool model and integrating teachers
constructivist orientations by Petko (2012) is a study that replicates past findings on
characteristics influencing the use of technology in schools. Previous research shows that
that three factors explain a high variance of ICT use in classrooms, will, skill, and tools.
Will refers to the attitudes of the teacher in regards to technology, skill represents how
competent a teacher is when working with technology and tool signifies access to ET for
the classroom. Petko (2012) believed that there were problems in previous research, so
the questions were modified. The author also examined if teacher affiliation with
constructivist-style teaching affected ICT integration.
Petko (2012) surveyed all teachers in a district of Switzerland who taught lowersecondary school. The district had compulsory curriculum that stated all courses needed
to use digital media. The total number of participants was 357, 58% men and 42%
women with an average teaching experience of 19 years. The participants answered a 5point Likert-scale online questionnaire that asked about their level of ICT use, personal
competencies and opinions and the conditions of their classrooms. The participants also

Running Head: ETEC 500 RESEARCH PROPOSAL

11

filled out a constructivist learning environment survey to help researchers determine the
teachers constructivist orientation. The researchers used SPSS19, a statistical software
package that can perform a multiple regression analysis to determine relationships
between variables (Gay et al., 2012) to analyze the data.
Petko (2012) confirmed the will, skill, tool with high correlation, meaning that
teachers who have high will, skill, tool levels also often integrate ICT into their
classrooms. The researchers added validity to the concept, by repeating the experiment
with modified questions, yet still maintaining the same results. Petko (2012) also
confirmed, with a small positive correlation, that teachers with higher constructivist
orientation tended to be more likely to use ICT in their classroom.
All of the Petkos (2012) results are consistent with Miranda & Russells (2012)
findings even though they were measured in a different country with a different culture.
There is a problem with the sample though, because the participants were selected from
an area that had compulsory ICT use in all classes, a rule which does not exist in many
other places around the world, and which adds bias to the experiment; the teachers in
Switzerland are more likely to use ET because they are forced to. With this said, the study
still confirms the importance of teacher attitudes when trying to incorporate technology
into a classroom.
School environment and technology implementation in K-12 classrooms by Lu &
Overbaugh (2009) is a mixed qualitative and quantitative study that also investigated
factors enhancing or inhibiting the use of technology in the classroom. They found,
through literature research, contrary to what Miranda & Russell (2012) discovered, that
teachers who are very experienced with technology do not necessarily integrate it into

Running Head: ETEC 500 RESEARCH PROPOSAL

12

their lessons as a learning or teaching tool. This could be because these experienced
teachers were using the technology more for preparation and communication as Russell et
al. (2003) determined. Lu & Overbaugh (2009) found three factors in the literature that
contributed to ET use: well equipped facilities, access to ongoing professional
development, and technical support. These factors are similar to Petkos (2012) skill,
will and tool model. Lu & Overbaugh (2009) wanted to see if there was a difference
between these factors in different locations (suburban, urban and rural) and grade level
(elementary, middle and high).
They contacted 177 K-12 teachers in Virginia State via email who had
volunteered to take part in an instructional technology professional development course.
The participants completed a survey developed by the researchers and ten percent of
them were randomly picked and interviewed to better understand the barriers affecting
technology integration. The survey was analyzed using a one-way analysis of variance
(ANOVA) a test for comparing multiple groups (Gay et al. 2012).
Lu & Overbaugh (2009) found that the most serious detriment to implementation
of ET was time constraints, followed by technical problems that were not dealt with in a
timey fashion. Access to adequate and appropriate software was also somewhat
problematic. They established that there were significant differences in terms of access to
hardware, software, support staff and timely solutions to technical problems between
suburban, urban and rural area schools. Suburban schools had the most favorable
conditions in all aspects of technology implementation and there was no significant
difference between the elementary, middle and high school.

Running Head: ETEC 500 RESEARCH PROPOSAL

13

This information is relevant because it shows that I must choose a mix of urban,
suburban and rural schools for my survey. One large source of error was in the participant
selection, all of them had previously participated in a voluntary technology professional
development course and therefore the results might be biased because of a tendency for
the participants to be technologically savvy. Overall Lu & Overbaughs (2009) results
contribute to the growing evidence that teachers are key to technology implementation in
the classroom.
Trends from the reviewed articles indicate a need to investigate the technologies
important to teachers in the classrooms and has established the significance of access to
technology, training, technical support, experience with technology and the importance of
teacher attitudes towards the technology for ET success. My study will investigate
teacher attitudes towards the technology by finding out what technologies they use the
most, why they use them and what problems they experience.
Methods
This will be a mixed qualitative and quantitative study. Participants will fill out a
survey in which the first section will be a Likert scale questionnaire and the second
section will include open-ended questions.
Participants
Participants will be teachers in elementary schools in the Vancouver school board
and the Abbotsford school board. The Vancouver school board was chosen because it
contains a very diverse, multicultural population that includes some of the richest and
some of the poorest urban neighborhoods in the country (http://www.vsb.bc.ca/aboutvsb). The Abbotsford school board was chosen because it is a rural area of Canada, yet is

Running Head: ETEC 500 RESEARCH PROPOSAL

14

still the third most ethnically and culturally diverse school district in Canada
(http://www.sd34.bc.ca/district). Vancouver school board contains 92 elementary schools
and Abbotsford contains 30 elementary schools, which will give me a large sample size.
Elementary teachers were chosen because in British Columbia (BC), they teach
every subject to the students in their grade, and generally stay in one classroom
throughout the year. This is advantageous because a stable working environment means
that a teacher can develop teaching practices based on the technologies available in their
classroom. Elementary teacher can also integrate the technology across many different
subject levels for the same class, compared to high school teachers who might have to
move between two or three classrooms in which technology may or may not be installed.
Participants will be limited to teachers who have spent at least a year teaching in
their classroom. It will exclude supply or substitute teachers or any teacher on a
temporary contract less than a year; the survey will be asking teachers how much they
use technology over the period of a year, and supply teachers might not have been in a
classroom for a full year.
I will recruit participants by contacting the schools and asking permission to
contact the teachers via the principal. The surveys will then be mailed to the schools with
instructions and distributed to the teachers via their work mailboxes. There will be an
addressed and stamped envelope provided with each survey so that the participants can
mail the surveys back. To further incentivize, participants will be entered into a draw to
win a prize if they complete the survey.
The main ethical concern is to gain informed consent, respect cultural differences
and to maintain the anonymity of the participants (Gay et al. 2012). Informed consent

Running Head: ETEC 500 RESEARCH PROPOSAL

15

will be assumed if the participants fill out the survey after reading the explanation of the
study and cultural sensitivity will be observed throughout the design of the survey by
having reviewers. Anonymity will be maintained by assigning a coded number to each
survey rather than the teachers name; the code will include a number to allow the
researchers to determine the school but not the individual. As an added layer of
protection, the participants will be allowed to mail the survey directly to the researchers,
rather than having it pass through other peoples hands.
Instruments, Materials, Design and Analysis
A Likert scale survey will be used to list each type of technology in the classroom,
asking if the technology is available to the participant, how much they use this
technology and how valuable they find the technology. Each answer will be assigned a
point and point values will be averaged out and comparisons made between variables
using the statistics software package SPSS 19 to run a t-test. For example, if teachers
indicate that they use a technology in their school frequently and they find the technology
very valuable, then this shows a positive correlation and a strong relationship between
those factors. Alternatively, if the teacher has the technology available in the classroom,
but is not using it and does not find it useful, this indicates a strong negative correlation
and I can conclude that this technology is not valuable. By using this software package, I
can look at each technology individually, the relationships between the three factors, and
I can also see if there is a difference between rural and urban schools. Finally, at the end
of the survey, two qualitative questions will be asked regarding problems and barriers that
teachers encounter trying to use ET and technologies that teachers would like to see in

Running Head: ETEC 500 RESEARCH PROPOSAL

16

their classroom. A factor analysis can be used to group the common ideas together for the
qualitative questions.
Discussion
First, I hope to discover the most valuable technologies to teachers. These would
be the ones that teachers scored highly on all three variables. This information alone
would be useful to schools or districts when purchasing ET. Secondly, if there are
technologies that score high on availability and low on usefulness, then I can conclude
this is a wasteful expenditure, supporting my hypothesis.
I expect that the results for the qualitative answer will indicate similar problems
with integrating technology such as lack will, skill and tools, and time constraints as
mentioned by Petko (2012), and Lu & Overbaugh (2009).
There will be some sources of error associated with conducting surveys and selfreporting. People who self-report might provide inflated answers, even though they will
be anonymous (Gay et al., 2012). Although I have picked a large sample size, it is still
not representative of the whole population of teachers in Canada and the USA. There will
also be problems associated with getting responses from the total of the targeted
participants. Many teachers will not fill out the surveys, and principals might not
distribute them to the teachers properly. The teachers who do fill out the surveys might be
more likely to understand technology, thus creating sampling bias. Finally, I will have a
much larger sample of urban than rural teachers, so this will have to be taken into account
when interpreting the data.

Schedule of Activities

Running Head: ETEC 500 RESEARCH PROPOSAL

Month 1
Contact schools and ask permissions
Prepare surveys and envelopes
Mail surveys to schools
Months 2-5
Collect data from the mail and enter information into database
Month 6
Analyze data
Send out participation prize
Months 7 - 8
Write research report

Appendix A Cover Letter

Understanding Technology Use in Elementary Schools

17

Running Head: ETEC 500 RESEARCH PROPOSAL

18

Thank you for participating in this study. By filling out this survey, you will assist
researchers in understanding how teachers use technology in the classroom. This
information will eventually help schools and administrators make informed decisions
about what technology ends up in schools.

Please note that the location of the district, and gender will be used in the data
analysis, but your name will not be attached to this survey. Your survey will be assigned
a coded number instead of a name, so you can be assured of total anonymity.

It is important that you fill out every question on the survey. When you are
finished, please place the survey into the provided pre-addressed envelope and mail it.
The envelope already has the address and a stamp on it.

Thank you,
UBC Educational Technology Research Team

Survey

19

Running Head: ETEC 500 RESEARCH PROPOSAL

Please answer all questions as completely as possible. If you do not know what the
technology is then you can answer No, strongly disagree, never.
I have been teaching in my classroom for a continuous year or more (Y / N)
I am a supply teacher, teacher on call, employee on call or substitute teacher (Y / N)
I teach including and between the grades of Kindergarten to Grade 7 (Y / N)
Gender: M / F / T
Grade taught for the last year: __________
Technology

I have this
technology
available
to me in
my school
Y YES
N - NO

Overhead
projectors
Liquid Crystal
Display (LCD)
digital
projectors (or
any other
computer
projection system)
Interactive LCD
projector
Compact discs
(CDs)
Digital Versatile
Discs (DVDs)
Digital cameras
Wired internet
access in the
classroom
Wireless internet
access in the
classroom
Desktop
Computer for
teacher use
4 or less Desktop
Computers for
student use in
the classroom

This technology is
valuable to me as a tool
in the classroom
12345-

Strongly disagree
Disagree
Not sure
Agree
Strongly agree

I use this
technology
1- Never
2- Several times
a year
3- Several times
a month
4- Several times
a week
5- Several times
a day

I would like
to have this
technology in
my
classroom
1- Strongly
disagree
2- Disagree
3- Not Sure
4- Agree
5- Strongly
Agree

Running Head: ETEC 500 RESEARCH PROPOSAL

5 or more
Desktop
Computers for
student use in
the classroom
A set of Desktop
Computers in a
computer lab
4 or less Laptop
Computers for
student use in
the classroom
5 or more Laptop
computers for
student use in
the classroom
A Laptop for
teacher use
A Tablet (Android,
Windows, or
Apple) for
teacher use
4 or less Tablets
for student use
in the classroom
4 or more Tablets
for student use
in the classroom
4 or less ereaders (such as
a Kindle Fire) for
student use
4 or more ereaders for
student use
A smartphone
for teacher use
Smartphones for
student use
Personal music
devices (iPod,
MP3 player) for
student use.
Classroom
Printer
Word
processing
programs (similar
to Microsoft Word)
Spreadsheet
programs (similar
to Microsoft Excel)
Presentation
software (similar
to Microsoft
PowerPoint or
Prezi)
The following is for students and teacher use

20

Running Head: ETEC 500 RESEARCH PROPOSAL

21

E-mail
Online
collaboration
websites (such as
Google Docs or a
Wiki)
Blogs
Social Media
(such as Facebook
or Twitter)
Online learning
platforms for
assigning and
handing in
homework (such
as Moodle)
Websites for
online practice of
skills (such as
reading or math
drills)

In one or two sentences please explain any problems or barriers that you have
experienced while trying to use technology in your classroom:
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Are there any other technologies that were not in the survey, which you would like to use
in your classroom?
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Running Head: ETEC 500 RESEARCH PROPOSAL

22

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

References
Cheung, A. C. K. & Slavin, R. E. (2013). The effectiveness of educational technology
applications for enhancing mathematics achievement in K-12 classrooms: A metaanalysis. Educational Research Review, 9, 88-113.
doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2013.01.001
Ertmer, P.A., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A.T., Sadik, O., Sendurur, E., & Sendurur, P. (2012).
Teacher beliefs and technology integration practices: A critical relationship.
Computers & Education, 59, 423-435. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.02.001
Garza Mitchell, R.L. (2011). Planning for Instructional Technology in the Classroom.
New Directions For Community Colleges, 154, 45-52. doi:10.1002/cc.445
Gay, L.R., Mills, G.E., & Airasian, P.W. (2012). Educational research: competencies for
analysis and application (10th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.
Kirkpatrick, H & Cuban, L. (1998). Computers Make Kids Smarter -- Right? Technos
Quarterly, 7, 26-31. Retrieved from http://www.ait.net/technos/tq_07/2cuban.php
Lu, R., & Overbaugh, R.C. (2009). School Environment and Technology Implementation
in K-12 Classrooms. Computers in the Schools, 26, 89-106.
doi:10.1080/07380560902906096

Running Head: ETEC 500 RESEARCH PROPOSAL

23

Miranda, H.P., & Russell, M. (2011). Understanding factors associated with teacherdirected student use of technology in elementary classrooms: A structural equation
modeling approach. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43, 652-666.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2011.01228.x
Petko, D. (2012). Teachers pedagogical beliefs and their use of digital media in
classrooms: Sharpening the focus of the will, skill, tool model and integrating
teachers constructivist orientations. Computers & Education, 58, 1351-1359.
doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.12.013
Russell, M., Bebell, D., ODwyer, L. (2003). Use, support, and effect of instructional
technology study: An overview of the USEIT study and the participating districts.
Boston, MA: Technology and Assessment Study Collaborative. Retrieved from
http://www.intasc.org/PDF/useit_r1.pdf
Russell, M., Bebell, D., ODwyer, L., & OConnor, K. (2003). Examining Teacher
Technology Use: Implications for Preservice and Inservice Teacher Preparation.
Journal of Teacher Education, 54, 297-310. doi.10.1177/0022487103255985
Russell, M., & Miranda, H. (2011). Predictors of Teacher-Directed Student Use of
Technology in Elementary Classrooms: A Multilevel SEM Approach Using Data
from the USEIT Study. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 43, 301323. Retrieved from www.iste.org/JRTE

Running Head: ETEC 500 RESEARCH PROPOSAL

24