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

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, access via your institution.

Fig. 1

Notes

  1. 1.

    A pseudonym.

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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 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 

  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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

  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.

  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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google 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.

    Book  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. 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 

  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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

  51. 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 

  52. 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 

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

    Book  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

  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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Vincent Cho.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

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

Keywords

  • Whole student
  • One-to-one
  • Instrument development
  • Teacher beliefs