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

Research Article

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.

Keywords

Whole student One-to-one Instrument development Teacher beliefs 

References

  1. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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
  4. 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.
  5. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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.
  8. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Carlile, P. (2002). A pragmatic view of knowledge and boundaries: Boundary objects in new product development. Organization Science, 13(4), 442–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. Christakis, D., Zimmerman, F., DiGiueseppe, D., & McCarthy, C. (2004). Early television exposure and subsequent attentional problems in childhood. Pediatrics, 113(4), 708–713.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Crocker, L., & Algina, J. (2008). Introduction to classical and modern test theory. Mason: Cengage Learning.Google Scholar
  15. Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.Google Scholar
  16. 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
  17. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ertmer, P. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for technology integration. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53, 25–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Falloon, G., & Khoo, E. (2014). Exploring young students’ talk in an iPad-supported collaborative learning environments. Computers & Education, 77, 13–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fleischer, H. (2012). What is our current understanding of one-to-one computing projects. Educational Research Review, 7, 107–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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
  22. Gay, G. (2010). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  23. Gentile, D. (2009). Pathological video game use among youth ages 8 to 18. Psychological Science, 20(5), 594–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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
  25. Greenhow, C., & Gleason, B. (2012). Twitteracy: Tweeting as a new literacy practice. The Educational Forum, 76(4), 464–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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
  28. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Heckman, J. J. (2000). Policies to foster human capital. Research in Economics, 54, 3–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Homana, G., & Barber, C. (2006). Assessing school citizenship education climate: Implications for the social studies. College Park, MD: CIRCLE Working Paper 48.Google Scholar
  31. 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.Google Scholar
  32. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 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
  34. 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
  35. 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
  36. Krosnick, J. A. (1999). Survey research. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 537–567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). But that is just good teaching! The case for culturally relevant pedagogy. Theory into Practice, 34(3), 159–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lei, J., & Zhao, Y. (2008). One to one computing: What does it bring to schools? Journal of Educational Computing Research, 39(2), 97–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Leonardi, P. (2009a). Crossing the implementation line: The mutual constitution of technology and organizing across development and use activities. Communication Theory, 19, 278–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Mathison, C. (1999). How teachers feel about character education: A descriptive study. Action in Teacher Education, 20(4), 29–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Mayer, D. (1999). Measuring instructional practice: Can policymakers trust survey data. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 21, 29–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 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.
  45. Netemeyer, R., Beaden, W., & Sharma, S. (2003). Scaling procedures: Issues and applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publicans.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Orlikowski, W. (1996). Improvising organizational transformation over time: A situated change perspective. Information Systems Research, 7(1), 63–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Orlikowski, W. (2000). Using technology and constituting structures: A practice lens for studying technology in organizations. Organization Science, 11(4), 404–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 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.Google Scholar
  51. Penuel, W. (2006). Implementation and effects of a one-to-one computing initatives. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38, 329–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Pintrich, P. (2004). A conceptual framework for assessing motivation and self-regulation in college students. Educational Psychology Review, 16(4), 385–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Rencher, C. A., & Christensen, W. F. (2012). Methods of multivariate analysis. New York: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 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
  55. 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
  56. 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
  57. Schafer, J. L. (1999). Multiple imputation: A primer. Statistical Methods in Medical Research, 8(1), 3–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Seider, S. (2012). Character compass: How powerful school culture can point students toward success. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  60. Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs. New York: Houghton Miffin Company.Google Scholar
  61. Shirley, D. (2011). The fourth way of technology and change. Journal of Educational Change, 12, 187–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Shuler, C. (2009). Pockets of potential: Using mobile technologies to promote children’s learning. New York: The Joan Ganz Conner Center.Google Scholar
  63. Supovitz, J., & Turner, H. (2000). The effects of professional development on science teaching practices. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(9), 963–980.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Turkle, S. (2011). Alone together: Why we expect more from technology and less from each other. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  65. Tyack, D., & Cuban, L. (2009). Tinkering toward Utopia. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  66. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 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.Google Scholar
  68. Vannatta, R. A., & Fordham, N. (2004). Teacher dispositions as predictors of classroom technology use. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 36, 253–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 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
  70. Wolters, C. (2003). Understanding procrastination from a self-regulated learning perspective. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(1), 179–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Educational Communications and Technology 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Lynch School of EducationBoston CollegeChestnut HillUSA
  2. 2.Center for Collaborative EducationBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations