Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Digital devices and teaching the whole student: developing and validating an instrument to measure educators’ attitudes and beliefs

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Educational Technology Research and Development Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Even as digital devices (e.g., tablets, smart phones, laptops) have become increasingly ubiquitous in schools, concerns have also been raised that such devices might hinder students’ social, emotional, and personal development. Educators’ perspectives on such matters could shape the success or failure of 1:1 technology initiatives. Thus, there is a need for a way to measure educators’ attitudes and beliefs toward the potential impact of digital devices on educating the whole student. This paper describes the development of the Digital Devices and Educating the Whole Student instrument and the results from a pilot study of 59 educators. The results suggested three potential domains of teacher attitudes toward the impact of devices on students; holistic learning outcomes, classroom learning processes, and concerns about digital distraction. Overall, the survey instrument demonstrated reliability and validity suggesting that the survey instrument may be a useful tool for school technology researchers and practitioners alike.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. A pseudonym.

References

  • Barley, S. R., Meyerson, D. E., & Grodal, S. (2010). E-mail as a source and symbol of stress. Organization Science, 22(4), 887–906. doi:10.1287/orsc.1100.0573.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baylor, A. L., & Ritchie, D. (2002). What factors facilitate teachers skills, teacher morale, and perceived student learning in technology-using classrooms. Computers & Education, 39, 395–414.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bebell, D., & Kay, R. (2010). One to one computing: A summary of the quantative results from the berkshire wireless learning initative. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 9(2), 5–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bebell, D., & O’Dwyer, L. (2010). Educational outcomes and research from 1:1 computing settings. The Journal of Technology, Learning and Assessment, 9(1). Retrieved http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/jtla/article/view/1606.

  • Becker, B., & Luther, S. S. (2002). Social-emotional factors affecting achivement outcomes among disadvanataged students: Closing the achievement gap. Educational Psychologist, 37(4), 197–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bellur, S., Nowak, K. L., & Hull, K. S. (2015). Make it our time: In class multitaskers have lower academic performance. Computers in Human Behavior, 53, 63–70. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2015.06.027.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brooks, C. (2011). Locating leadership: The blind spot in Alberta’s technology policy discourse. Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 19(26). Retrieved http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/910.

  • Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (1991). Organizational learning and communities-of-practice: Toward a unified view of working, learning, and innovation. Organization Science, 2(1), 40–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carlile, P. (2002). A pragmatic view of knowledge and boundaries: Boundary objects in new product development. Organization Science, 13(4), 442–455.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cho, V., & Wayman, J. C. (2014). Districts’ efforts for data use and computer data systems: The role of sensemaking in system use and implementation. Teachers College Record, 116(2), 1–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cho, V., & Wayman, J. C. (2015). Assumptions, strategies, and organization: Central office implementation of computer data systems. Journal of School Leadership, 25(6), 1203–1236.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christakis, D., Zimmerman, F., DiGiueseppe, D., & McCarthy, C. (2004). Early television exposure and subsequent attentional problems in childhood. Pediatrics, 113(4), 708–713.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. (2006). Social, emotional, ethical, and academic education: Creating a climate for learning, participation in democracy, and well-being. Harvard Educational Review, 76(2), 201–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crocker, L., & Algina, J. (2008). Introduction to classical and modern test theory. Mason: Cengage Learning.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duckworth, A., Peterson, C., Matthews, M., & Kelly, D. (2007). Grit: Perseverance and passion for long-term goals. Personality Processes and Individual Differences, 92(6), 1087–1101.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duckworth, A. L., & Yeager, D. S. (2015). Measurement matters: Assessing personal qualities other than cognitive ability for educational purposes. Educational Researcher, 44(4), 237–251. doi:10.3102/0013189X15584327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ertmer, P. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for technology integration. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53, 25–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Falloon, G., & Khoo, E. (2014). Exploring young students’ talk in an iPad-supported collaborative learning environments. Computers & Education, 77, 13–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fleischer, H. (2012). What is our current understanding of one-to-one computing projects. Educational Research Review, 7, 107–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gardner, H., & Davis, K. (2013). The app generation: How today’s youth navigate identity, intimacy, and imagination in a digital world. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gay, G. (2010). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice. New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gentile, D. (2009). Pathological video game use among youth ages 8 to 18. Psychological Science, 20(5), 594–602.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • George, D., & Mallery, P. (2003). SPSS for windows step by step: A simple guide and reference 11.0 update (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenhow, C., & Gleason, B. (2012). Twitteracy: Tweeting as a new literacy practice. The Educational Forum, 76(4), 464–478.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenhow, C., Robelia, B., & Hughes, J. (2009). Web 2.0 and classroom research what path should we take now. Educational Researcher, 38(3), 246–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hardy, J. V. (2014). Teacher attitudes toward and knowledge of computer technolgoy. Computers in the Schools: Interdisciplinary Journal of Practice, Theory, and Applied Research, 13(3–4), 119–136.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hatakka, M., Andersson, A., & Gronlund, A. (2013). Students’ use of one to one laptops: A capability approach analysis. Information Technology & People, 26(1), 94–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heckman, J. J. (2000). Policies to foster human capital. Research in Economics, 54, 3–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Homana, G., & Barber, C. (2006). Assessing school citizenship education climate: Implications for the social studies. College Park, MD: CIRCLE Working Paper 48.

  • Hotelling, H. (1951). A generalized T test and measure of multivariate dispersion. Proceedings of the second Berkeley symposium on mathematical statistics and probability. Berkely, CA: The Regents of the University of California.

  • Howard, G., Schmek, R., & Bray, J. H. (1979). Internal invalidity in studies employing self-report instruments: A suggested remedy. Journal of Educational Measurement, 16(2), 129–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hughes, J. E., Guion, J. M., Bruce, K. A., Horton, L. R., & Prescott, A. (2011). A framework for action: Intervening to increase adoption of transformative Web 2.0 learning resources. Educational Technology, 51(2), 53–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ito, M., Gutierrez, K., Livingstone, S., Penuel, B., Rhodes, J., Salen, K., & Watkins, S. (2013). Connected learning: An agenda for research and design. Irvine, CA: Digital Media and Learning Research Hub.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, L. (2007). Rethinking successful school leadership in challenging U.S. schools: Culturally responsive practices in school-community relationships. International Studies in International Education, 35(3), 49–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krosnick, J. A. (1999). Survey research. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 537–567.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuznekoff, J. H., & Titsworth, S. (2013). The impact of mobile phone usage on student learning. Communication Education, 62(3), 233–252. doi:10.1080/03634523.2013.767917.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). But that is just good teaching! The case for culturally relevant pedagogy. Theory into Practice, 34(3), 159–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lei, J., & Zhao, Y. (2008). One to one computing: What does it bring to schools? Journal of Educational Computing Research, 39(2), 97–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leonardi, P. (2009a). Crossing the implementation line: The mutual constitution of technology and organizing across development and use activities. Communication Theory, 19, 278–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leonardi, P. (2009b). Why do people reject new technologies and stymie organizational changes of which they are in favor? Exploring misalignments between social interactions and materiality. Human Communication Research, 35, 407–441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mathison, C. (1999). How teachers feel about character education: A descriptive study. Action in Teacher Education, 20(4), 29–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, D. (1999). Measuring instructional practice: Can policymakers trust survey data. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 21, 29–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nagel, D. (2010). Computing programs on the rise with netbooks leading adoption. The Journal. Retrieved http://thejournal.com/articles/2010/10/19/1-to-1-computing-programs-on-the-rise-with-netbooks-leading-adoption.aspx.

  • Netemeyer, R., Beaden, W., & Sharma, S. (2003). Scaling procedures: Issues and applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publicans.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Orlikowski, W. (1996). Improvising organizational transformation over time: A situated change perspective. Information Systems Research, 7(1), 63–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orlikowski, W. (2000). Using technology and constituting structures: A practice lens for studying technology in organizations. Organization Science, 11(4), 404–428.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T., Glazewski, K. D., Newby, T. J., & Ertmer, P. A. (2010). Teacher value beliefs associated with using technology: Addressing professional and student needs. Computers & Education, 55(3), 1321–1335. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2010.06.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pagani, L., Fitzpatrick, C., Barnett, T., & Dubow, E. (2010). Prospective associations between early childhood television exposure and academic, psychological, and physical well-being by middle childhood. Archives of pediatric and adolescent medicine, 164(5), 425–431. doi:10.001/archpediatrics.2010.50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pellegrino, J., & Hilton, M. (2012). Education for life and work: Developing transferable knowledge and skills in the 21st century. National Research Council, Center for Education; Divison on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, D.C.: The National Academic Press.

  • Penuel, W. (2006). Implementation and effects of a one-to-one computing initatives. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38, 329–348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pintrich, P. (2004). A conceptual framework for assessing motivation and self-regulation in college students. Educational Psychology Review, 16(4), 385–406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rencher, C. A., & Christensen, W. F. (2012). Methods of multivariate analysis. New York: Wiley.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Richardson, J., McLeod, S., Flora, K., Sauers, N., Kannan, S., & Sincar, M. (2013). Large scale 1:1 computing initiatives: An open access database. International Journal of Education and Development Using Information and Communication Technology, 9(1), 418.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sauers, N., & Kruse, J. (2012). Do pocket-assisted technologies, such as the iPod and iPhone and iPad, provide mainly educational benefits or distractions to students in today’s schools. In C. J. Russo & A. Osborne (Eds.), Debating issues in American education (Vol. 10). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sauers, N., & McLeod, S. (2012). What does research day about school one-to-one computing initatives. Lexington, KY: UCEA Center for the Advanced Study of Technology Leadership in Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schafer, J. L. (1999). Multiple imputation: A primer. Statistical Methods in Medical Research, 8(1), 3–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, D., Baran, E., Thompson, A. D., Mishra, P., Koehler, M. J., & Shin, T. S. (2009). Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK). Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(2), 123–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seider, S. (2012). Character compass: How powerful school culture can point students toward success. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs. New York: Houghton Miffin Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shirley, D. (2011). The fourth way of technology and change. Journal of Educational Change, 12, 187–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shuler, C. (2009). Pockets of potential: Using mobile technologies to promote children’s learning. New York: The Joan Ganz Conner Center.

    Google Scholar 

  • Supovitz, J., & Turner, H. (2000). The effects of professional development on science teaching practices. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(9), 963–980.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turkle, S. (2011). Alone together: Why we expect more from technology and less from each other. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tyack, D., & Cuban, L. (2009). Tinkering toward Utopia. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Uhls, Y., Michikyan, M., Morris, J., Garcia, D., Small, G., Zgourou, E., & Greenfield, P. (2014). Five days at outdoor education camp without screen improves preteen skills with nonverbal emotion cues. Computers in Human Behavior, 39, 387–392. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.05.036.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vannatta, R., & Banister, S. (2009). Validating a measure of teacher technology integration. Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 1134–1140). Charleston, SC: Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference.

  • Vannatta, R. A., & Fordham, N. (2004). Teacher dispositions as predictors of classroom technology use. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 36, 253–271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wallis, C. (2010). The impacts of media multitasking on children’s learning and development: Report from a research seminar. New York: The Joan Ganz Conney Center.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolters, C. (2003). Understanding procrastination from a self-regulated learning perspective. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(1), 179–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • You, J. W., & Kang, M. (2014). The role of academic emotions in the relationship between perceived academic control and self-regulated learning in online learning. Computers & Education, 77, 125–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhao, Y., & Frank, K. (2003). Factors affecting technology uses in schools: An ecological perspective. American Educational Research Journal, 40(4), 807–840. doi:10.3102/00028312040004807.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Lynch School of Education, Boston College, Campion Hall 220, 140 Commonwealth Avenue, Chestnut Hill, MA, 02467, USA

    Vincent Cho

  2. Center for Collaborative Education, 33 Harrison Ave, 6th Floor, Boston, MA, 02111, USA

    Joshua Littenberg-Tobias

Authors
  1. Vincent Cho
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Joshua Littenberg-Tobias
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Vincent Cho.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Cho, V., Littenberg-Tobias, J. Digital devices and teaching the whole student: developing and validating an instrument to measure educators’ attitudes and beliefs. Education Tech Research Dev 64, 643–659 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-016-9441-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-016-9441-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation