Advertisement

Journal of Computing in Higher Education

, Volume 28, Issue 3, pp 307–325 | Cite as

Extending the will, skill, tool model of technology integration: adding pedagogy as a new model construct

  • Gerald Knezek
  • Rhonda Christensen
Article
First Online:

Abstract

An expansion of the Will, Skill, Tool Model of Technology Integration to include teacher’s pedagogical style is proposed by the authors as a means of advancing the predictive power of the model for level of classroom technology integration to beyond 90 %. Suggested advantages to this expansion include more precise identification of areas to be targeted for teacher professional development, and the prospect for aligning teaching-with-technology style with student learning styles, in order to better serve educational system goals such as student engagement, learning and achievement. Initial findings are that pedagogical preference or style regarding old and new technologies accounts for approximately 30 % of level of classroom technology integration. The authors contend this is worthy of retaining as a fundamental model improvement.

Keywords

Technology integration Predictors Will Skill Pedagogy Access to technology tools 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest due to external funding.

References

  1. Agyei, D. D., & Voogt, J. M. (2011). Exploring the potential of the will, skill, tool model in Ghana: Predicting prospective and practicing teachers’ use of technology. Computer & Education, 56, 91–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson, S. E., & Maninger, R. M. (2007). Preservice teachers’ abilities, beliefs, and intentions regarding technology integration. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 37(2), 151–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Christensen, R. (1997). Effect of technology integration education on the attitudes of teachers and their students. Doctoral dissertation, University of North Texas. Dissertation Abstracts International, 58(11), 4242. UMD # AAT9816134.Google Scholar
  4. Christensen, R. (2002). Impact of technology integration education on the attitudes of teachers and students. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 34(4), 411–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Christensen, R., & Knezek, G. (1999). Stages of Adoption for technology in education. Computers in New Zealand Schools, 11(4), 25–29.Google Scholar
  6. Christensen, R., & Knezek, G. (2008). Self-report measures and findings for information technology attitudes and competencies. In J. Voogt & G. Knezek (Eds.), International handbook of information technology in primary and secondary education (pp. 349–365). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Christensen, R. W., & Knezek, G. A. (2009). Construct validity for the teachers’ attitudes toward computers questionnaire. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 25(4), 143–155.Google Scholar
  8. Christensen, R., & Knezek, G. (2014). The technology proficiency self-assessment (TPSA): Evolution of a self-efficacy measure for technology integration. In Paper presented to IFIP KEYCIT. Germany: Pottsdam. July 2, 2014.Google Scholar
  9. Coughlin, E., & Lemke, C. (1999). Professional competency continuum: Professional skills for the digital age classroom. Santa Monica, CA: Milken Exchange. Available https://depts.washington.edu/academy/professional/files/milken_pro_competency_continuum-prodevo.pdf.
  10. DeMars, C. (2001). Group differences based on IRT scores: Does the model matter? Educational and Psychological Measurement, 61(1), 60–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dwyer, D. C., Ringstaff, C., & Sandholtz, J. H. (1990). Teacher beliefs and practices. Part I: Patterns of change. Retrieved 2-9-2005 from Apple Classrooms Tomorrow http://images.apple.com/education/k12/leadership/acot/pdf/rpt08.pdf.
  12. Hall, G. E., Loucks, S. F., Rutherford, W. L., & Newlove, B. W. (1975). Levels of use of the innovation: A framework for analyzing innovation adoption. In S. F. Loucks, B. W. Newlove, & J. E. Hall (Eds.), Measuring levels of use of the innovation: A manual for trainers, interviewers, and raters. Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Developement Laboratory.Google Scholar
  13. Hancock, R., Knezek, G., & Christensen, R. (2007). Cross-validating measures of technology integration: A first step toward examining potential relationships between technology integration and student achievement. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 24(1), 15–21.Google Scholar
  14. Joreskog, K. G., & Sorbom, D. (1993). LISREL8: Structural equation modeling with the SIMPLIS command language. Chicago, IL: Scientific Software International.Google Scholar
  15. Klausmeir, H. J., & Goodwin, W. (1975). Learning and human abilities: Educational psychology (4th ed.). New York: Harper & Row Publishers.Google Scholar
  16. Knezek, G., & Christensen, R. (2008). The importance of information technology attitudes and competencies in primary and secondary education. In J. Voogt & G. Knezek (Eds.). International handbook of information technology in primary and secondary information (pp. 321–331). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  17. Knezek, G., & Christensen, R. (2015). The will, skill, tool model of technology integration: Adding pedagogy as a new model construct. In D. G. Sampson, J. M. Spector, D. Ifenthaler, & P. Isaias (Eds.), Proceedings of the cognition and exploratory learning in digital age, 2015 (pp. 84–91). Ireland: Maynooth.Google Scholar
  18. Knezek, G., Christensen, R., & Fluke, R. (2003). Testing a will, skill, tool model of technology integration. In Paper presented to the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (AERA). Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
  19. Knezek, G., Christensen, R., Hancock, R., & Shoho, A. (2000). Toward a structural model of technology integration. In A paper presented to the Hawaii Educational Research Association Annual Conference. Honolulu, HI.Google Scholar
  20. Knezek, G., Christensen, R., Miyashita, K., & Ropp, M. (2000b). Instruments for assessing educator progress toward technology integration. Denton, TX: The Institute for the Integration of Technology into Teaching and Learning.Google Scholar
  21. Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2008). Introducing TPCK. In J. A. Colbert, K. E. Boyd, K. A. Clark, S. Guan, J. B. Harris, M. A. Kelly, & A. D. Thompson (Eds.), Handbook of technological pedagogical content knowledge for educators (pp. 1–29). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  22. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Morales, C. (2006). Cross-cultural validation of the will, skill, tool model of technology integration. Doctoral dissertation, University of North Texas. Available http://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc5256/m2/1/high_res_d/dissertation.pdf.
  24. Morales, C., & Knezek, G. (2007). Testing a predictive model of technology integration in Mexico and the United States. In Paper presented to the American Educational Research Association Annual Conference. Ill: Chicago.Google Scholar
  25. Morales, C., Knezek, G., Christensen, R., & Avila, P. (Eds.) (2005). The will, skill, tool model of technology integration. A conceptual approach to teaching and learning with technology. Mexico City, Mexico: ICLE.Google Scholar
  26. Niess, M. L. (2005). Preparing teachers to teach science and mathematics with technology: Developing a technology pedagogical content knowledge. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(5), 509–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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(4), 1351–1359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Rogers, P. L. (1999). Barriers to adopting emerging technologies in education. ERIC Document Reproduction. No. ED429556.Google Scholar
  29. Ropp, M. M. (1999). Exploring individual characteristics associated to learning to use computers in preservice teacher preparation. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 31(4), 402–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Russell, A. L. (1995). Stages in learning new technology: Naive adult email users. Computers in Education, 25(4), 173–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Schumacker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (2015). A beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling (4th ed.). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  32. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Slavin, R. E. (2015). Educational psychology: Theory and practice (11th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.Google Scholar
  34. Thompson, B. (2004). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis: Understanding concepts and applications. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Vannatta, R. A., & Fordham, N. (2004). Teacher dispositions as predictors of classroom technology. Journal of Research Technology in Education, 36(3), 253–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Wang, L., Ertmer, P. A., & Newby, T. J. (2004). Increasing preservice teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs for technology Integration. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 36(3), 231–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Watkins, C., & Mortimore, P. (1999). Pedagogy: What do we know? In P. Mortimore (Ed.), Understanding pedagogy and its impact on learning. London: Paul Chapman Publishing.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of North TexasDentonUSA
  2. 2.Institute for the Integration of Technology into Teaching and Learning (IITTL)DentonUSA

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options