Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
The intersection of technology, pedagogical beliefs, and constructivism: a case study of teachers in 1:1 computing classrooms
(USC Thesis Other)
The intersection of technology, pedagogical beliefs, and constructivism: a case study of teachers in 1:1 computing classrooms
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
TEACHER BELIEFS AND PRACTICES 1
THE INTERSECTION OF TECHNOLOGY, PEDAGOGICAL BELIEFS, AND
CONSTRUCTIVISM: A CASE STUDY OF TEACHERS IN 1:1 COMPUTING
CLASSROOMS
by
Luciana T. Lang
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
Dissertation Chair – Dr. Patricia Burch
Committee Members- Dr. Guilbert Hentschke and Dr. Corinne Hyde
August 2015
Copyright 2015 Luciana T. Lang
TEACHER BELIEFS AND PRACTICES 2
Acknowledgments
I dedicate this dissertation to my parents (Mark and Ann) for instilling in me the importance of
learning and academic excellence and for making the sacrifices they have throughout my life.
I also want to thank the following individuals for making this achievement possible:
Jay – I appreciate your unconditional support and love. Thank you for believing in me.
My siblings (Lanean, Endrell, Mark, Michael, Kelly and Maurice – For supporting my
educational goals
Dr. Kimberly Peoples – For your inspiration
All my professors at Rossier – For challenging me to be a better writer and leader
My dissertation committee – For your advice and flexibility
TEACHER BELIEFS AND PRACTICES 3
Table of Contents
Acknowledgments 2
Table of Contents 3
List of Tables 5
List of Figures 6
Abstract 7
Chapter One: Overview of the Study 8
Background of the Problem 8
Statement of the Problem 9
Purpose and Research Questions 11
Importance of the Study 12
Definition of Terms 14
Chapter Two: Literature Review 17
Teacher Beliefs and Technology 18
The impact of beliefs in technology-rich settings 19
Important findings 25
Teaching Practices and Technology Integration 26
Constructivism 27
Constructivist-compatible practices and technology integration 29
Conceptualizing constructivism and technology integration 31
Important findings 37
Teacher Change and Professional Development 39
Professional development concerns 40
Transforming teaching practices and beliefs 41
Important findings 47
Summary 48
Conceptual framework 48
Chapter Three: Methodology 49
Research Design 49
Qualitative methods 49
Case study 49
Research setting 50
Participants 51
Data collection 52
Data analysis 53
Cross-case analysis and coding 54
Limitations 59
Design controls 59
Triangulation 60
Respondent Validation 60
Discrepant Case Analysis 60
Reflexivity 60
Rich Data 61
TEACHER BELIEFS AND PRACTICES 4
Chapter Four: Results 62
Individual Cases 62
Case 1: Chad 63
Pedagogical beliefs and practices 63
PC tablet uses 64
Perceptions of the 1:1 PC tablet environment 65
Case 2: Henry 66
Pedagogical beliefs and practices 66
PC tablet uses 67
Perceptions of the 1:1 PC tablet environment 68
Case 3: Annette 69
Pedagogical beliefs and practices 70
PC tablet uses 71
Perceptions of the 1:1 PC tablet environment 72
Case 4: Mark 73
Pedagogical beliefs and practices 73
PC tablet uses 74
Perceptions of the 1:1 PC tablet environment 75
Summary of individual cases 76
Cross-case Analysis 77
Findings (Part 1) 78
Teachers’ beliefs and practices 78
PC tablet uses 82
Teachers’ perceptions of the 1:1 PC tablet environment 85
Findings (Part 2) 86
Summary 88
Chapter Five: Discussion 90
Discussion 90
RQ1 90
RQ2 92
RQ3 96
Additional Findings 98
Limitations 100
Implications 101
Beliefs mediate teachers’ practices 101
1:1 Computing practices vary 102
School context and culture mediate technology integration 103
Improvements 104
Conclusion 104
References 106
Appendix A: Interview Protocol 116
Appendix B: Observation Protocol 119
TEACHER BELIEFS AND PRACTICES 5
List of Tables
Table 1: Categories of Classroom Practices 55
Table 2: Coding Matrix of Teachers Practices 57
TEACHER BELIEFS AND PRACTICES 6
List of Figures
Figure 1: Teacher’s pedagogical beliefs along a continuum 77
TEACHER BELIEFS AND PRACTICES 7
Abstract
As access to technology grows, researchers are increasingly seeking to better understand the role
instructional technologies have in positively influencing student learning in the classroom.
Pedagogical approaches teachers use and the beliefs that undergird them are a dualistic
phenomenon impeding effective technology integration. Specifically, a pedagogical belief that is
more student centered and that translates into constructivist-compatible practices is argued to be
the critical link toward successful integration of technology. This study’s purpose is to
understand teachers’ pedagogical beliefs and constructivist practices in a 1:1 PC tablet context.
This study included a sample of four classroom teachers and used a multiple case study approach
to address how teachers’ pedagogical beliefs are evident in their practices, how the goals of
constructivism are evident in teachers’ practices, and how teachers’ perceive that the context
influences their beliefs and practices. Data from semi-structured interviews, two classroom
observations, and documents were used for an individual and cross-case analysis. The findings
suggest that: (1) teachers’ beliefs mediate practices, (2) the type of practices in a 1:1 classroom
varies depending on the teacher, and (3) school context and culture are mediating variables for
technology integration. Overall, this study holds implications for researchers and practitioners
attempting to study and understand: (1) the role that teachers’ pedagogical beliefs play when
integrating technology, (2) the influence of technology when examining student-centered
approaches in technology-rich environments, and (3) suggested methods to support teacher
learning that transforms practices in these environments.
Keywords: pedagogical beliefs, constructivism, student-centered practices, 1:1 computing,
technology integration
TEACHER BELIEFS AND PRACTICES 8
CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
The value gained from the use of best practices and ideal learning environments for
effective technology integration are mitigated by ineffective teacher implementation. As such,
the pedagogical approaches teachers use and the beliefs that undergird them is a dualistic
phenomenon impeding effective technology integration. As a result, this study focuses on the
teacher who is enacting instruction and integrating technology in the classroom. The overall goal
of this study is to better understand teachers’ pedagogical beliefs and constructivist practices in a
technology-rich teaching and learning environment. This section will provide an overview of this
study by first discussing the background and current state of technology integration in
classrooms and the importance of addressing the relationship between teachers’ pedagogical
beliefs and constructivist practices in technology-rich contexts. The section then will conclude
with an overview of the study’s purpose and research questions followed by a list of important
terms and definitions found in literature and relevant to this study.
Background of the Problem
Educators began to experience greater access to technology resources beginning in the
early 2000s (National Center for Education Statistics, 2006). As access to technology increases,
researchers increasingly seek to better understand the role instructional technologies perform in
positively affecting student learning in the classroom. The positive impact however does not
come automatically but greatly depends on how teachers use technology (Bransford, Brown, &
Cocking, 2000). Results of the 2007 Speak Up survey suggested that 51% of K–12 teachers
reported using instructional technology for student completion of homework assignments and for
assigning practice work (Project Tomorrow, 2008). In a follow-up survey in 2008, 66% of
teachers reported using digital resources primarily as teaching aides (Project Tomorrow, 2009).
TEACHER BELIEFS AND PRACTICES 9
More recent reports indicated that teacher use of technology for student homework increased by
61% from the previous year (Project Tomorrow, 2011). Despite educators’ efforts to integrate
technology, educators have yet to achieve meaningful technology use in the majority of
American classrooms (U.S. Department of Education, 2010). Meaningful technology use means
using the computer as a “mind-tool,” which enables students to achieve higher levels of thinking
(Jonassen, 1996). This type of use would require teachers to employ pedagogical approaches and
strategies that cultivate deep understandings in (or between) learners and enables students to
construct knowledge that can be applied to real situations (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010;
Windschitl, 2001). Whereas studies demonstrate that the use of technology in classrooms can
help student learning, integration of technology is affected by certain barriers that are internal
and external to the teacher (Ertmer, 2012; Hew and Brush, 2007). As such, factors relating
specifically to teachers are most frequently cited as influencing technology integration in schools
(Levin & Wadmany, 2008).
Statement of the Problem
Ertmer (1999) described that first-order barriers and second-order barriers must be
overcome before teachers can begin to integrate technology effectively. First-order barriers are
impediments external to the teacher, and likely solutions include resources, access, support, and
training. In contrast, second-order barriers, which are internal to a teacher, include features such
as teacher attitudes, beliefs and knowledge. Several researchers since then have studied the
impact of these barriers to the integration of technology in classrooms (Ertmer, Ottenbreit-
Leftwich & York, 2007; Hew & Brush, 2007; Zhao et al., 2002). In a review of 48 research
studies, Hew and Brush (2007) found that lack of appropriate resources was the most significant
technology integration barrier; this lack included limited hardware, access, time, and technical
TEACHER BELIEFS AND PRACTICES 10
support. However, a great deal of progress has been made in addressing first-order barriers.
According to the National Center for Education Statistics (2006), access increased to an average
ratio of 3.8 students for every 1 student connected to a computer in classrooms. Although
considerable efforts have been made to provide ubiquitous technology access in schools and
classrooms (U.S. DOE, 2010), little will be gained if second-order barriers are not adequately
addressed (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2013).
The importance of how instructional technologies are integrated for student learning with
specific attention on the practices teachers has very much been the focus of recent scholarship
(Ertmer, 2012; Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2013; Judson, 2006; Levin & Wadmany, 2008).
Successful integration is achieved when educators use technology to enhance instruction and to
create rich environments to help each individual student develop depth of understanding and
critical thinking skills (Washington State, Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction, 2002).
To prepare students for the 21st century, educational reform efforts suggest student-centered
practices as being the most effective (Voogt, 2008). Reformers in educational technology
impress upon teachers to encourage inquiry and collaboration among students; however, reports
indicate that teachers are routinely using instructional technology for presentation, information
delivery, and as management tools (Levin & Wadmany, 2008). According to the Partnership for
21st Century Skills (2007), using technology to support lecture-based (teacher-centered)
instruction falls short of recommended best practices. This report suggests that teachers’ low-
level uses of technology in the classroom are not appropriate to meet the needs of the 21st-
century learner. Researchers studying practices in the classroom indicate student learning,
student engagement, and higher-order thinking are readily achieved when teaching practices in
TEACHER BELIEFS AND PRACTICES 11
technology-rich classrooms are more student-centered as opposed to teacher-centered (deKock,
2004; Lim, 2007; Sultan et al., 2011; Voogt, 2009; Wong et al., 2008).
The relationship between teacher’s beliefs and integration of technology has been
explored through research (Chen, 2008; Ertmer, 2012; Ertmer & Ottenbreit, 2010; Kim et al.,
2013; Palak &Walls, 2009; Prestridge, 2011). With a focus on beliefs as a variable affecting
successful integration of technology, studies have demonstrated close alignment between
teachers’ beliefs and technology integration practices (Ertmer et. al., 2012; Ertmer & Ottenbreit,
2010; Kim et al., 2013; Prestridge, 2011). Still others have found that teachers’ pedagogical
beliefs about teaching and learning in technology contexts were not aligned with teachers’
practices (Chen, 2008; Judson, 2008). Additionally, researchers have found that even when
external constraints such as time, resources, support, and curriculum are overcome, technology
use in the classroom remains modulated by internal factors. These factors include, but are not
limited to, how teachers value the role of technology, teachers’ beliefs about teaching and
learning, or teachers’ beliefs about the how technology should be used for classroom instruction.
Given the variety of beliefs that teachers might have, it is important for researchers to understand
which beliefs most affect teachers’ practice of technology integration. Specifically, a
pedagogical belief that is more student-centered and that translates into constructivist-compatible
instruction is argued to be the critical link toward successful integration of technology.
Purpose and Research Questions
This study’s purpose is to understand teachers’ pedagogical beliefs and constructivist
practices in a technology-rich environment. The context of a 1:1 PC tablet classroom will
provide a uniform technology environment to examine teachers’ practices. This study will use
TEACHER BELIEFS AND PRACTICES 12
qualitative research methods to capture and understand teachers’ beliefs and instructional
practices. Ultimately, this current study will be guided by the following research questions:
1. How, if at all, are teachers’ pedagogical beliefs evident in their teaching strategies in a
1:1 PC tablet classroom?
2. How, if at all, are the goals of constructivism evident in teachers’ practices in a 1:1 PC
tablet classroom?
3. What perceptions do teachers have about the influence of a 1:1 PC tablet environment
on their beliefs and practices?
Importance of the Study
As mentioned, the current study examines how teachers’ pedagogical beliefs and
instructional practices are affected in a 1:1 computing teaching environment. One-to-one
computing initiatives seek to provide laptop computers and Internet access to students for use at
home and school (Keengwe, Schnellert & Mills, 2011). Such initiatives have expanded rapidly
across the globe; the increasing availability of wireless connectivity, decreasing costs, and broad-
scale implementation make one-to-one computing a feasible initiative (Grimes & Warschauer,
2008; Keengwe, Schnellert & Mills, 2011). Early studies found that computer use in labs is
effective, at least over the short term (Kulik & Kulik, 1991; Kulik, 1994). However, it is argued
that for technology to be used powerfully in student learning, students must use computers more
than twice a week (Kozma, 1991). This widespread access makes it possible for teachers to
transition from occasional use of computers for instruction to more frequent use of technology.
Laptop use in the classroom also is perceived to change the way teachers and students
think about learning (Keengwe, Schnellert, & Mills, 2011). Current research on the effectiveness
of 1:1 computing in schools has studied issues of school implementation (Grimes & Warschauer,
TEACHER BELIEFS AND PRACTICES 13
2008), student perceptions (Keengwe, Schnellert & Mills, 2011), subject-specific integration
(McGrail, 2007), and large-scale implementation and professional development efforts (Dawson,
Cavanaugh & Ritzhaupt, 2006). Research, however, is limited examining how teachers integrate
technology in 1:1 computing contexts. At most, researchers studying the impact of 1:1
computing offer suggestive claims for their studies, recommending further research into the role
that teacher’ knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs play when integrating technology effectively.
Whereas laptops are perceived as powerful tools, the goal of technology in education is to
integrate technology into the classroom so its use advances learning goals, not the technology
itself (Wachira et al., 2008). Therefore, there is need for teachers to implement appropriate
computing practices to enhance student learning (Keengwe, Schnellert, & Mills, 2011).
Earlier efforts that examined the dispositions of teachers and their practices in
technology-rich settings contended that computers did not serve as catalysts toward change in
teachers’ beliefs or practices and that ubiquitous technology environments did not greatly
support student-centered or constructivist-compatible instruction (Cuban, Kirkpatrick & Peck,
2001; Windschitl & Sahl, 2002). Moreover, research is limited in its ability to examine the
relationship between ubiquitous technology integration and instructional practices and the
mediating effect, if any, this has on teachers’ beliefs and practices aligned with a constructivist
or student-centered orientation. There is a need to understand whether current instructional
technology advances (such as 1:1 computing) yield a similar or different pattern in teachers’
orientations and practices. This present study will examine the interplay between teachers’
pedagogical beliefs and teachers’ instructional practices and the role, if any, a 1:1 computing
environment plays in influencing teachers’ dispositions. Specifically, this study could add to the
existing knowledge regarding: (1) the role that teachers’ pedagogical beliefs play when
TEACHER BELIEFS AND PRACTICES 14
integrating technology, (2) the influence of technology when examining student-centered
approaches in technology-rich environments, and (3) suggested methods to support teacher
learning that transforms practices in these environments.
Definition of Terms
1:1 computing: computing technologies are defined by three core features: 1) providing students
with use of portable laptop computers loaded with contemporary software; 2) enabling students
to access the Internet through schools’ wireless networks; and 3) a focus on using laptops to help
complete academic tasks such as homework assignments, assessments, and presentations
(Penuel, 2006).
Constructivism: a synthesis of cognitive and social constructivist perspectives that views
knowledge as a personally constructed and socially mediated activity (Shepard, 2000). This
hybrid view describes the current reform vision of learning as a moderate version of cognitive
and social constructivism (Phillips, 1995).
Constructivist-compatible instruction: teacher beliefs and practices aligned with constructivist
learning theories categorized by: a) the tasks given to students, (b) the structure of the
curriculum, and (c) general teaching style. Student tasks resemble work in the real world and
require students to use a wide range of skills, handle a wide range of complex issues, and make
more significant choices than traditional tasks require. The curriculum focus is often thematic
and interdisciplinary; issues are explored in depth, sacrificing broad coverage to the goal of
making intellectual issues meaningful and substantively engaging. A teaching style is
characterized by a strong emphasis on facilitating initiative rather than closely scripting tasks.
Teachers in this conception model effective learning, presenting themselves as learners rather
than as the source of information (Becker & Ravitz, 1999).
TEACHER BELIEFS AND PRACTICES 15
Instructional technology: is the theory and practice of design, development, utilization,
management, and evaluation of processes and resources for learning (Seels & Richey, 1994).
Instructional technology help build knowledge bases, which engage learners more fully and
result in more meaningful and transferable knowledge. Learners function as designers, using the
technology as tools for analyzing the world, accessing information, interpreting and organizing
their personal knowledge, and representing what they know to others (Jonassen, 1996).
Meaningful technology use: using the computer as a “mind-tool,” which enables students to
achieve higher levels of thinking by reducing the cognitive load required to visualize and
represent problems (Jonassen, 2003).
Meaningful learning: pedagogical approaches and strategies that cultivate deep understandings
in (or between) learners and enable students to construct knowledge that can be applied to real
situations (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010; Windschitl, 2001).
Pedagogical beliefs: educational beliefs about teaching and learning (Ertmer, 2005; Hew and
Brush, 2007).
Student centered: learning environment facilitated by teachers to increase academic
performance and help students develop lifelong learning skills, such as self-regulation and
problem solving. Student-centered classrooms employ strategies that support inquiry,
collaboration, and reconfigured relationships among students and teachers (Culp et al., 2005).
Teacher beliefs: a filter through which new phenomena are interpreted; beliefs are instrumental
in defining tasks and selecting cognitive tools with which to interpret, plan, and make decisions
regarding such tasks. Therefore, beliefs play a critical role in defining behavior and organizing
knowledge and information (Nespor, 1987).
TEACHER BELIEFS AND PRACTICES 16
Technology integration: the use of computing devices such as desktop computers, laptops,
handheld computers, software, or Internet in K–12 schools for instructional purposes (Hew &
Brush, 2007).
Technology-rich environments: learning environments that actively implement and utilize
technology for a variety of teaching and learning endeavors.
TEACHER BELIEFS AND PRACTICES 17
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
Research analyzing teacher beliefs and technology-integrated teaching practices has
indicated that this relationship merits consideration of how and why technology is actualized in
the classroom. Additionally, research regarding the practices in technology-rich classrooms
suggests teachers’ beliefs that reflect a student-centered paradigm can be the link to successful
integration of classroom technology (Ertmer, 2005). The focus of past research has examined
issues of technology integration from a teacher and classroom perspective. The purpose of this
present literature review will be to discuss how the relationship between teacher beliefs and the
practices underlying these beliefs have been conceptualized and studied in the context of
technology integration in classrooms. The first section will present relevant literature on the topic
of teacher beliefs and highlight the importance of specifically examining pedagogical beliefs and
technology integration. The second section will discuss the teaching practices in technology-rich
classrooms aligned with a constructivist learning theory along with how researchers have
conceptualized this theory in their studies when determining whether computers and technology
integration support constructivist practices for teachers. The third section will present literature
that has attempted to address factors that can facilitate teacher belief and instructional change for
effective technology integration. A synthesis of the literature will be presented at the end of each
section along with a brief discussion of how and why the current study is relevant in light of the
current knowledge gaps in the literature.
The articles used in this literature review emanated from three search engines for research
literature: EBSCO, ProQuest, and Google Scholar. The first query conducted limited the article
search to peer-reviewed articles within the last 7 years using the following search topics:
“teachers’ beliefs and technology integration,” “instructional technology integration and teaching
TEACHER BELIEFS AND PRACTICES 18
practices,” “technology and teacher change,” and “technology and professional development.”
Although many researchers have discussed the importance and implications of studying teachers’
beliefs and practices and technology integration, relatively few articles analyzed empirically
based research. As a result, the query was expanded to articles written in the last 15 years.
Within this range, only empirically based studies were selected. An empirically based study, as
used here, means a study that employed either quantitative or qualitative methods as a primary
means for data collection to answer predetermined research questions. The keyword searches
additionally yielded relatively recent comprehensive reviews of literature discussing technology
integration practices specifically related to teachers’ beliefs and teacher support. From these
articles, additional studies were identified that met the previously mentioned criteria.
Teacher Beliefs and Technology
One of the most valuable constructs in teacher education is teacher beliefs (Kagan, 1992;
Pajares, 1992). Studying teacher beliefs helps us understand teaching practices and the influences
behind teaching behaviors (Pajares, 1992). Beliefs act as filters that guide teachers when making
decisions on curriculum and instruction (Pajares, 1992). Furthermore, teacher beliefs have also
been indicated to have some influence on the practices teachers implement in the classroom
(Kagan, 1992; Pajares; 1992). The trend of studying teachers’ beliefs and teachers’ practices has
continued into contexts where technology has been integrated into classrooms. Niederhauser and
Stoddart (2001) suggested that teachers use technology in ways that are consistent with their
personal beliefs. However, studying teachers’ beliefs is a complex endeavor. If teachers cannot
accurately communicate their beliefs, the motivation behind their behaviors can lead to
misjudgments and misrepresentations (Ertmer, 2005). When teachers have beliefs about a subject
area that are inconsistent with their practice, it might be that other or weightier beliefs are in fact
TEACHER BELIEFS AND PRACTICES 19
the cause (Munby, 1982). For example, teachers could believe that technology holds value for
high-level problem-solving activities but engage their students in daily drill-and-practice
software because these teachers hold a more central belief that their subject area is rooted in
foundational concepts and skills (Ertmer, 2005). These apparent contradictions make studying
teacher beliefs problematic—the chief problem being the difficulty in determining which beliefs
are influencing which actions.
All beliefs tend to be embedded within a larger “loosely bounded” belief system (Ertmer,
2005). Rokeach (1968) defined this larger belief system as “having represented within it, in some
organized psychological but not necessarily logical form, each and every one of a person’s
countless beliefs about physical and social reality” (p. 2). Given the hidden nature and
interrelatedness of beliefs, researchers studying teachers’ beliefs and practices have
circumscribed the scope of the inquiry by studying a specific belief topic. Related to contexts
that are technology rich, the focus guiding several studies have investigated if and to what extent
a relationship exists between teachers’ beliefs and actual practices (Ertmer et. al, 2012; Judson,
2006; Kim et al, 2013; Ottenbreit-Leftwich et al., 2010; Prestridge, 2011).
The impact of beliefs in technology-rich settings
Ottenbreit-Leftwwich et al. (2010) examined how and why teachers used technology to
enhance teaching and learning as a means to understand teachers’ value beliefs regarding
technology. This study specifically sought to understand the practices and value beliefs of eight
teachers who were recognized for their exemplary technology integration experience. This case
study first employed a phenomenological approach, looking for embedded common practices
through meanings gleaned from narratives produced from observations, interviews, and portfolio
analysis. Additionally, each teacher was analyzed individually as a single case, followed by a
TEACHER BELIEFS AND PRACTICES 20
cross-case comparison method for a multiple case design. From this data, two themes across all
eight participants indicated teachers’ value beliefs were evident in how they addressed both
student and professional needs. For example, the professional needs that teachers valued in using
technology included facilitating classroom operations, creating customized classroom materials,
and engaging in professional development. When it came to using technology to address student
needs, teachers were found to value technology that helped engage and motivate students,
improve comprehension and higher-level thinking, and facilitate technology skill development
for future application. This study highlighted the importance of examining teachers’ beliefs
about the value of technology when examining teachers’ classroom technology practices.
However, the importance of this study to the overall question is limited in that it did not explicate
the specific teaching practices the teachers used to engage students, and it made only general
connections about technology uses and their instructional value.
In addition to teacher beliefs about the role or value of technology, teachers’ beliefs may
also involve an epistemological dimension. Kim et al. (2013) examined both teacher beliefs
about the nature of knowledge and learning (epistemology) and beliefs about effective teaching
practices (pedagogy) to study how and to what extent these values are related to technology-
integrated practices. Participants in this study were purposefully selected from a 4-year
Comprehensive School Reform program funded by the U.S. Department of Education. Teachers
in this program had been active participants in the program for at least 2 years and were at the
time teaching in poor performing K–8 schools in the Southeastern region of the United States.
Teachers were given access to new technologies, professional development workshops, and
technical and pedagogical assistance. In this study, data were collected across three areas: (1)
surveys measuring epistemological and pedagogical beliefs, (2) classroom observations, (3) and
TEACHER BELIEFS AND PRACTICES 21
interviews. This study’s results demonstrated that epistemological beliefs and beliefs about
technology integration were positively correlated. Specifically, the study found that the more
sophisticated epistemology, the more teachers’ conceptions were closer to student-centered
teaching approaches along the teacher-centered/student-centered continuum. Additionally, the
teachers with sophisticated epistemologies regarding technology integration showed a more
seamless use of technology. Overall, generalizing this study to similar contexts would be
difficult due to its small sample size (22 teachers) and poor representation of school populations
(only rural schools were used.) Whereas this study only indicates a relationship between teacher
beliefs and technology integration and no causal relationships, the implications suggest that
continued efforts could be made in examining how fundamental beliefs affect ways of teaching
and decision-making practices for teaching with technology.
In addition to the prior studies that have shown some alignment between teachers’ values
and epistemological beliefs and technology integration, other studies have examined the
dimension of pedagogical beliefs. In 2012, Ertmer et al. examined how pedagogical beliefs and
classroom technology practices align and to what extent external barriers constrain teachers’
integration efforts. This study used a multiple case study design to examine the similarities and
differences among pedagogical beliefs and technology practices of 12 K–12 classroom teachers
recognized for their use of technology. Data collected came from two sources: teacher websites
and scale ratings of barriers. Document analyses of teacher websites followed by individual
interviews gave insights into the extent to which beliefs supported those practices. Ratings of
barriers were analyzed using descriptive statistics and interview data were used to identify
patterns of espoused beliefs. To triangulate the results, websites were additionally analyzed using
the criteria of student centeredness. The study’s results demonstrated that espoused and enacted
TEACHER BELIEFS AND PRACTICES 22
beliefs were well aligned. Also, the study demonstrated that teachers used technology to deliver
content and reinforce skills, to complement or enrich curriculum, and to transform teaching and
learning. This close alignment does not translate to mean that these teachers were using
technology identically. However, the variety of technology uses supported an earlier study by
Ertmer et al., in 1999, which classified technology uses in three ways: (1) those that
supplemented required curriculum; (2) those that supported the existing curriculum; (3) or those
that facilitated an emerging curriculum. Even though teachers in this study were using different
technology modalities, to a greater extent, the uses identified fell into similar categories.
Teachers in this study also viewed their own attitudes and barriers not as meaningful as were the
attitudes and beliefs of others. Overall, this study supports other research findings that support a
relationship between teachers’ pedagogical beliefs and integrated technology practices (Ertmer
et. al, 2012; Ertmer & Ottenbreit, 2010; Kim et al, 2013; Prestridge, 2011).
Unlike the previous studies that suggest parallels between teachers’ beliefs and
technology-integrated lessons, Judson (2006) found contrasting claims in a study measuring the
same. In this study, 32 classroom teachers of varying grade levels (ranging from primary to
secondary) were investigated to correlate classroom observations with stated beliefs. Data from
The Conditions that Support Constructivist Uses of Technology (CSCUT) survey measured
teaching philosophies, attitudes about computer use, computer use objectives, and knowledge
and skills regarding computer use. Means in all four categories were high. These scores indicate
a constructivist teaching philosophy. For teachers in this study, technology was seen as a positive
tool for teaching and learning, the teacher set grand goals for student use with technology in the
classroom, and teachers reported expertise (breadth and depth) when using technology. The last
three findings are not surprising, as teachers in this study were volunteers, willing to allow
TEACHER BELIEFS AND PRACTICES 23
researchers to observe technology-integrated lessons and had participated in professional
development focused on technology. The first finding demonstrated the relationship between
teacher self-reports and observed teaching practices. Even though a wide array of teaching
strategies were implemented in the classroom (lecturing, student presentations, conducting
research, and entering data into spreadsheets), the study showed no significant relationship
between reported beliefs aligned with a constructivist philosophy and teachers’ actual practice of
integrating technology. This study highlights the limitations of using self-reporting methods to
ascertain teachers’ beliefs. The significance of the misalignment between teachers’ beliefs and
enacted practices draws attention to teachers’ self-perception in research. Teachers may be
projecting a specific disposition when questioned because they either know or believe a
pedagogical orientation that is more student-centered, or they believe that constructivist practices
is ideal for student learning. Additionally, teachers may be at varying levels along the continuum
of expertise or feel a distinct activity is constructivist, therefore reporting a student-centered
belief.
Chen (2008) also revealed inconsistencies between teachers’ expressed beliefs and their
teaching practices. In this case study, 12 Taiwanese high school teachers reported high
agreement levels on constructivist concepts; however, technology use in the classroom did not
support this idealized approach to instruction. Although these teachers overwhelmingly self-
reported a belief in support of this pedagogy, the study highlighted important features that may
have impeded constructivist-compatible teaching strategies regarding technology. Three factors
were found to explain inconsistencies in the findings: (1) influence of external factors, (2)
teachers’ limited understanding of constructivist instruction, and (3) teachers’ conflicting beliefs
with their expressed pedagogical beliefs. Results from interviews illustrate these factors. For
TEACHER BELIEFS AND PRACTICES 24
example, teachers made note of insufficient technical support when needed, lack of time to plan,
and lack of access to computers. In addition, some teachers considered constructivist concepts
ideal rather than practical, and during interviews, no participant could confidently explain how to
apply those concepts to teaching. Additionally, teachers in this study held firm to the belief that
breadth of content held more value to them as a means to meet their teaching obligation. This
finding illustrates how a deeply held value related to curricular content as opposed to an
instructional approach can skew the overall pedagogical belief that teachers may have.
Additionally, similar to claims made in Judson (2006), self-reporting of teachers’ beliefs may
yield inconsistent results. However, unlike the Judson (2006) study, the Chen (2008) study did
not incorporate observations of teaching practices to support teachers’ claims.
Similar to the previous studies, Palak and Walls (2009) examined the relationship
between teachers’ pedagogical beliefs and technology-integrated practices. This mixed-methods
study was designed around two research questions: First, they wanted to know, “How do
teachers’ beliefs relate to their instructional technology practices?” Second, “How do factors
other than beliefs relate to teachers’ instructional technology practices?” Two self-reporting
surveys were administered to 113 PK–12 teachers. The Inventory of Philosophies of Education
(Sadker &Sadker, 2003) and the Perceptions of Computers and Technology (Hogarty, Lang, &
Kromey, 2003) measured teachers’ student-centered and teacher-centered beliefs and teachers’
technology use in the classroom, respectively. The qualitative phase of the study purposefully
selected two pairs of cases that exhibited maximal differences in teachers’ beliefs. The multiple
sources of qualitative data, including classroom observations, interviews, lesson plans, and
written reflections about beliefs and practices, provided a description of teacher beliefs,
experiences, opinions, values about education and technology, and why teachers’ enacted
TEACHER BELIEFS AND PRACTICES 25
technology integrated practices. Correlational analysis findings point to teacher attitudes toward
technology as the most important belief factor for teachers’ instructional technology decisions.
More revealing is that neither student-centered nor teacher-centered beliefs were powerful
predictors of teachers’ practices. In addition, in contrast to the quantitative results, the qualitative
analysis indicated those teachers’ positive attitudes toward technology do not have the same
influence on student use and instructional strategies that are compatible with the student-centered
paradigm. Various instructional strategies were reported, and observed teachers’ self- reported
data failed to capture teachers’ views on what constituted student-centered compatible
instructional strategies. However, of note is that those with teacher-centered beliefs employed
highly controlled strategies in which students worked independently and technology was used for
a reward, reinforcement and drill, and practice. The results of this study emphasized the concerns
and challenges when it comes to measuring teachers’ beliefs using self-reported data. This
supports arguments that contend the dichotomous distinction of placing teachers’ beliefs as
student centered or teacher centered are difficult to categorize and to measure via self-reporting
methods (Levin & Wadmany, 2006; Pajares, 1992; Nespor, 1987; Judson, 2006). This study also
supports what others have indicated; teachers in technology-rich schools did not transform
teaching into a more student-centered practice (Cuban, Kirkpatrick & Peck, 2001; Windschitl &
Sahl, 2002), and teachers in these contexts continue to use technology in ways that support
preexisting teaching approaches (Cuban, 2002; Judson, 2006).
Important findings
Overall, the studies discussed in this section highlight the complexity of examining
beliefs and practices. No consensus exists when defining teacher beliefs in relation to technology
integration (Kim et al., 2013). Pajares (1992) noted that conceptualizing beliefs as a system
TEACHER BELIEFS AND PRACTICES 26
means recognizing that the belief system contains other interconnected beliefs. In some of the
studies presented the focus of the teacher belief type varied. Looking at teacher beliefs about the
value of technology for student learning (Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010), pedagogical beliefs (Chen,
2008; Ertmer et al., 2012; Judson, 2006), or the nature of knowledge and learning (Kim et al.,
2013) represents how researchers chose to conceptualize and examine one type of belief teachers
might hold. Collectively, these studies demonstrated how teachers may not be operating through
a single belief when integrating technology but rather, through a variety of beliefs. These studies
also have implications for future research that examines the belief-practice relationship using
qualitative methods. If beliefs primarily exist in “tacit” form (Nespor, 1987; Kagan, 1992), then
explicating teachers’ beliefs requires drawing inferences based on what teachers say, intend to
do, and do (Ertmer, 2005). Although a relationship exists between teachers’ value beliefs
(Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010), epistemological beliefs (Kim et al., 2013) and general technology
practices, pedagogical beliefs have been studied more frequently. This frequency might be due to
the importance of examining the teachers’ conceptions about teaching and learning and close
descriptors of student-centered beliefs and student-centered practices. In light of research that
indicates a strong relationship between teachers’ beliefs and technology practices, the current
study will specifically examine how pedagogical beliefs affect teachers’ practices in a
technology-rich context. A pedagogical belief that is more student-centered is also perceived to
act as a facilitative factor in teachers’ technology integration efforts (Ertmer, 2005; Ertmer et al.,
2012).
Teaching Practices and Technology Integration
This section will address how constructivist compatible practices in technology-rich
classrooms and the pedagogical orientation of teachers underlying these practices have been
TEACHER BELIEFS AND PRACTICES 27
conceptualized in literature. Important to the discussion regarding teachers’ beliefs are the
practices teachers enact in technology-rich classrooms. Specific to technology integration in
classrooms, researchers suggest that a student-centered paradigm supporting a constructivist
ideology for teaching and learning is the ideal pedagogical approach for technology to be
integrated successfully. In the previous section, some of the studies examined how and to what
extent pedagogical beliefs associated with student-centeredness align. Student-centered beliefs
and approaches are associated with a constructivist theory of learning. To understand the
pedagogical underpinnings of this theory of learning, the practices reflecting this theory and its
importance in education a background of constructivism will be presented. This will be followed
by an examination of the literature regarding the relationship between constructivist practices
and technology integration and efforts to study both the beliefs and practices of teachers in
technology-rich contexts.
Constructivism
Constructivism in education has been viewed as pedagogy based on the premise and goal
of students’ “constructing their own knowledge.” Although constructivism has been embraced in
K–12 education communities, educators are struggling to develop repertoires of practice
consistent with constructivist goals. The challenge for teachers then is not merely with the
acquisition of new skills for teaching but rather making sense of constructivism as a basis for
instruction and reorienting their classroom cultures to be consonant with constructivism.
The idea that constructivism as a pedagogical approach is rooted in a learning philosophy
that can be traced back to the work of Dewey (1956), Jean Piaget (1973) and Vygotsky (1978).
Based on the idea that learning occurs through activity, Dewey proposed that knowledge could
emerge through social experiences that had meaning to the learner. Supporting this notion, Piaget
TEACHER BELIEFS AND PRACTICES 28
viewed learning and understanding in children as based on discovery and active involvement.
Furthering the ideas of both Dewey and Piaget, Vygotsky (1978) developed a social learning
perspective through which children could be encouraged to make connections of concepts and
derive their own ideas through the interaction with others. Modern day constructivists have
conceptualized the ideas of constructivism for educational contexts into guiding principles for
learning. Constructivism that describes cognitive processes explains how learners as individuals
impose intellectual structure on their worlds (Piaget, 1971). Constructivism that emphasize social
processes view knowledge as having both individual and social components and focus on how
individuals create mental representations and problem-solving abilities (Wilson, 1996). The
current reform vision of learning is described as a moderate version of cognitive constructivism
nestled within a moderate version of social constructivism (Phillips, 1995). This synthesis of
cognitive and social constructivist perspectives stems from a need for a sensible intellectual
anchor to support teachers and researchers’ thinking on how constructivist learning theory can be
applied to classroom practice (Windschitl, 2002).
Collectively, constructivists contend the most important goals of learning in schools to be
problem-solving, reasoning, critical-thinking skills—the active and reflective use of knowledge
and self-regulation skills (DeJong, 1995; Driscoll, 2000). Constructivism additionally has
implications for teaching approaches that can help facilitate these goals. Constructivist pedagogy
is less a model than a descriptor for instructional strategies (Windschitl, 2002). Many teaching
approaches are based on a constructivist philosophy. In addition to student centered, some of
these approaches are also described as “teaching for understanding” (National Research Council,
2000; Wiggins & McTighe, 1998), “authentic pedagogy” (Newmann & Associates, 1996),
“progressive pedagogy” (Semel & Sadovnik, 1999); “transformative teaching” (Jackson, 1986)
TEACHER BELIEFS AND PRACTICES 29
and “child-centered teaching” (Chung & Walsh, 2000). However, it is not the labels that
characterize constructivist teaching but the underlying notions of what constitutes meaningful
learning in or between learners (Windschitl, 2002).
Researchers associate constructivist-compatible approaches with teachers possessing
beliefs that such approaches can maximize student learning. Thus, it is important to understand
that some researchers conceptualize beliefs about teaching and learning by their pedagogical
practices. Therefore, pedagogical beliefs and practices are often referenced in literature
according to the degree of constructivism evident in teaching. Pedagogical beliefs and practices
for the most part exist along a continuum between constructivist and non-constructivist. For the
purposes of understanding, the literature and studies that will follow use other terms used by
researchers to define the spectrum along which beliefs and practices lie include: student centered
vs. teacher centered and student directed vs. teacher directed. Still others contrast constructivist-
compatible practices with traditional teaching, behaviorist transmission models, or didactic and
direct instruction (Windschitl, 2002).
Constructivist-compatible practices and technology integration
The philosophy of constructivism is not new to education; however, technology-
enhanced instruction is an evolving tool that can play a vital role in constructivist teaching
practices (Rakes, Field, & Cox, 2006). Having touched on the philosophy of constructivism, we
will now examine research that discusses how technology plays a critical role in supporting this
philosophy.
Jonassen (1996) provided one of the earliest visions for technology integration and
categorized how students interact with technology: learning about technology (technology as a
subject), learning from technology (technology as a delivery tool), and learning with technology
TEACHER BELIEFS AND PRACTICES 30
(technology as a cognitive partner). Through this vision, technology is best used when students
do so as a cognitive tool to access and analyze information, interpret and transform that
information into their own personal knowledge, and then present that knowledge to others
(Jonassen, 1996). Jonassens’ vision for technology integration aligns with the goals of
constructivism and continues to hold relevance today. As technology constantly evolves, the
skills of education are unlikely to change for 21
st
century students (Prensky, 2010). Prensky
(2010) also noted that more importance should be placed on the “verbs” of learning (e.g.,
understanding, communicating, presenting, persuading) rather the “nouns” (or tools). Ultimately,
constructivist-learning environments that integrate technology create active classrooms that
combine constructivist-learning tools with communication and visualization tools that enable
communication and collaboration among learners in a socio-cultural context (Rakes, Field, &
Cox, 2006).
In the last 15 years, relatively few studies can be found at the intersection between
technology integration and the goals of constructivism. Much of the research on technology
integration has focused on barriers and strategies to overcome these barriers (Hew & Brush,
2007). Therefore, the studies that were selected for this section focus on how computer use and
the Internet can be used to support constructivist or student-centered practices, the role
technology plays on both teachers’ beliefs and actual practices, or the extent that constructivist-
compatible instruction can be enhanced in classrooms as a result of technology itself. In looking
at these studies, we can better understand the role technology plays on teachers’ practices and
make further connections, if at all, among the beliefs that undergird these practices in
technology-rich contexts.
TEACHER BELIEFS AND PRACTICES 31
Conceptualizing constructivism and technology integration
One of the most frequently cited initiatives that have provided insight into teacher
practices is the Apple Classroom of Tomorrow (ACOT) project. ACOT was collaboration among
public schools, universities, research agencies, and Apple Computer, Inc. to explore, develop,
and demonstrate uses of technologies in teaching and learning. Beginning in 1985, this 10-year
longitudinal project investigated the routine use of technology by teachers and students in five
public high schools. To create a technology-rich context in which to gather data, students and
teachers were supplied computers for both home and school use. Additionally, a variety of
technology tools for the classroom and training for teachers and personnel for technology
support were provided. A study conducted from 1986–1989 of 32 teachers elucidates the impact
that high technology use has on teachers’ practices. Researchers observed that constructivist
teaching strategies improved student cooperative learning and collaboration as they used more
complex tasks and materials in their instruction (Dwyer, Ringstaff, & Sandholtz, 1991).
Additionally, as teachers swung between traditional teacher-centered and student-centered
instruction, they gradually replaced their traditionally held beliefs about teaching and learning
with new ones (Dwyer, Ringstaff, & Sandholtz, 1991). The ACOT study not only holds
importance for supporting teachers but also demonstrates how technology enhanced student-
centered environments emerge over time, affecting student learning. Dwyer (1990) contended
that meaningful use of technology goes beyond merely placing technology in classrooms. In the
ACOT study, the best student outcomes occurred in classes where interaction among students
was purposeful: Children were viewed as learners and experts, and children were challenged by
open-ended complex problems (Dwyer, 1990). The ACOT project did not examine whether and
to what extent specific modalities of technology affect teachers, as participants in this study were
TEACHER BELIEFS AND PRACTICES 32
afforded and interacted with a variety of technological tools. With the advent of more accessible
computing devices and the emergence of the Internet since the time of the ACOT study, newer
and more specific modalities have been included under the umbrella of instructional technology
used in teaching and learning in schools. This study holds importance in the discussion regarding
the role of ubiquitous technology and teacher practices and the relationship between teachers’
beliefs and constructivist-compatible practices.
Becker and Ravitz (1999) isolated Internet use as the technology variable to study the
relationship between computer use and changes made toward using constructivist-compatible
teaching. This study, similar to the ACOT study, examined teachers and students who had
sustained computer use, informational and supportive support, and a sufficient technology
infrastructure. This study addressed the following research questions:
(1) To what extent is use of computer-based technologies associated with a greater
likelihood of teachers’ changing their practices in a constructivist direction?
(2) To what extent do teachers acknowledge the role of computer technologies in
facilitating their changed practice?
In this study, the degree of teachers’ constructivist beliefs and practices were conceptualized by
the tasks given to students, the structure of the curriculum, the general teaching style, and related
teacher perceptions. After surveying teachers in 153 schools, the researchers found that
constructivist practices increased among teachers due to sustained use and substantial use of the
Internet. Specifically, the researchers found that frequent computer and Internet use were related
to teachers’: (a) being more willing to discuss a subject about which they had had little expertise
and allowing themselves to be taught by students; (b) orchestrating multiple simultaneous
activities occurring during class time; (c) assigning long and complex projects for students; and
TEACHER BELIEFS AND PRACTICES 33
(d) giving students greater choice in their tasks and the resources they could use to complete
them. These findings align with how other researchers conceptualized constructivist teaching and
student engagement. Becker and Ravitz argued that based on the data, a causal relationship exists
between technology use and pedagogical change. However, the findings in this study failed to
explain whether teachers changed their practice because they were more inclined to
constructivist-compatible teaching or whether substantial computer and Internet use allowed
non-constructivist teachers to reconsider their pedagogical philosophy and practices.
The pattern of change in teachers’ practices toward a constructivist paradigm was an
alignment found in some studies where computer use was high (Dwyer, Ringstaff, & Sandholtz,
1991; Becker & Ravitz, 1999). However, Cuban, Kirkpatrick, & Peck (2001) found conflicting
results from these previously mentioned studies. The researchers studied two California high
schools in San Jose, CA that were determined to have high access to computers. Teachers and
students had availability to software and hardware both in school and at home. Specifically,
compared with both the state and national levels at the time, both high schools had lower
student-per-computer ratios, higher percentages of Internet connectivity, and a higher percentage
of students and teachers with computers at home. The study’s purpose was to determine how
computers were used for instruction given the abundance of technology available for teaching
and home use. The researchers utilized qualitative methods to conduct interviews, classroom
observations, and surveys with 21 teachers and 26 students from both high schools. Additionally,
the researchers performed a document analysis of accreditation reports, reform proposals, grant
applications for technology funding, and newspaper articles to complete the picture of computer
use for instruction. Overall, the researchers found that all but a few teachers had changed their
instructional approaches. Instead, in both schools, the familiar repertoire of instruction included
TEACHER BELIEFS AND PRACTICES 34
lecturing, conducting a discussion, reviewing homework, and working on assignments. Even in
computer-based classes, it was observed that teacher-centered instruction was the norm. The
dominant mode of teacher-centered occurred for most teachers in both schools. The researchers
acknowledged that for the few teachers who had changed their classrooms toward a student-
centered one, the researchers could not know whether the change was due to the technologies
used or to a gradual shift in teachers’ beliefs about teaching. This study was limited in the
amount of detail gathered from teachers regarding their specific teaching practices and any
underlying belief systems that they may hold about teaching and learning. However, this study
did introduce other interrelated factors that may undergird or modulate teachers’ practices.
Overall, other external factors including school culture, organizational structures, and teacher
preparedness might affect teachers’ integration of technology.
Rakes, Fields, and Cox (2006) investigated whether teacher use of technology, both in the
classroom and for personal use, related to classroom teachers’ use of constructivist teaching
practices. This study was composed of 186 elementary through secondary teachers from rural
districts. Quantitative methods were used through the administration of the Level of Technology
Implementation (LoTi) to determine whether their level of classroom technology use and
personal computer use (PCU) predicted their Current Instructional Practices (CIP). The three
relevant research questions included:
(1) Is there a relationship between teachers’ CIP and teachers’ LoTi scores?
(2) Is there a relationship between teachers’ CIP and scores and teachers’ PCU scores?
(3) Is there a relationship between teachers’ CIP scores and teachers’ scores on both the
LoTi and PCU scales?
TEACHER BELIEFS AND PRACTICES 35
Respective of these three questions, results of a standard multiple regression indicated significant
linear relationships between CIP and LoTi (R
2
of .16, F = 23.07, p < .001), CIP and PCU (R
2
of.
25, F = 22.83, p < .001), and CIP and all predictor variables (R
2
of 28, F = 23.84, p < .001).
Overall, the sample multiple correlation coefficient was .53. The moderate, positive relationships
between both LoTi and PCU and CIP indicate that teachers who scored higher on both LoTi and
PCU have higher levels of CIP. Additionally, Levels of Technology Implementation and
Personal Computer Use contributed to a slightly better prediction of Current Instructional
Practices. This study’s limitation is that quantitative results only showed a relationship between
technology use and constructivist practices. However, this study confirmed that teachers who use
computer technologies in their classrooms are more likely to use constructivist teaching
practices.
The results of the previous study showed that the relationship between technology use
and constructivist practices was strong. However, the study did not reveal whether teachers were
already inclined to use constructivist strategies prior to implementing technology in their
classrooms or whether technology influenced this behavior. Windschitl and Sahl (2002)
measured changes in three middle school teachers as they learned to integrate laptop computers
for instruction into their classes. Ultimately, a confluence of other factors including the interplay
of teachers’ situated belief systems and their use of technology had a great impact on how these
teachers learned to use technology. The survey’s findings suggested that the influence of
technology on instructional decisions were mediated by teachers’ interrelated belief systems
about learners, about how teachers defined teaching in the context of school culture, and about
the role of technology in students’ lives. In a case study of three teachers, only one teacher
changed her existing practice. However, this teacher was already dissatisfied with her existing
TEACHER BELIEFS AND PRACTICES 36
practice. Technology in this study only served as a catalyst for change in this single case.
Moreover, the availability of technology in the context of this study did not initiate teachers’
movement toward constructivist instruction; technology was not a necessary condition that
affected pedagogy. The context in which the teachers’ practices were examined highlights the
influence of institutional culture. In settings where technology use is emphasized, teachers are
more likely to change their practices to include integrated technology uses. However, more
computer access for teachers and students alone, without concurrent emphasis on use, might not
be the impetus for a change in teaching practices or the underlying beliefs about teaching and
learning.
Unlike the previous studies that have investigated the link between teachers’ practices
and technology integration on a short-term scale, few studies have captured this relationship in a
longitudinal context. To fill this gap, Levin and Wadmany (2006) conducted a 3-year study to
explore the evolution of teachers’ beliefs on teaching and learning and actual teaching practices
in the context of a technology-based classroom environment. Under the assumption that beliefs
and classroom practices are multivariate and interrelated, this study integrated teachers’ self-
reports from interviews and questionnaires and through observations of classroom practices. The
researchers captured teachers’ conceptions of learning and teaching using a range of
constructivism from behaviorist-passing information conception to a radical constructivist-
facilitation of independence learning conception. Cognitive and social constructivism was
situated within this continuum of constructivist orientations conceiving teaching as transmission
of knowledge and meeting student’s needs, respectively. The results demonstrated that after 3
years of experience in a technology-rich classroom, changes occurred in both beliefs and
educational practices. All six teachers exhibited fewer behaviorist views on learning, even when
TEACHER BELIEFS AND PRACTICES 37
they expressed a transmissionist orientation. Although a varied pattern of beliefs were found,
most teachers expressed more than one category of belief regarding at least one conception of
learning. For example, one teacher viewed learning as knowledge acquisition and also viewed
the student as an active learner, indicating both a behaviorist and cognitive ideology.
Additionally, all teachers abandoned direct instruction and adopted practices that focused on
collaboration, modeling, reflection, and exploration. Overall, this study supports the Becker and
Ravitz (1999) findings that substantive change in teachers’ educational beliefs and practices can
occur in a technology-rich learning environment where teachers are exposed to a constructivist
setting. This supports the view that teachers’ beliefs can be changed (Fullan 1992) even though
they are often regarded as permanent or difficult to alter (Pajares, 1992). The findings also
support Becker and Ravitz (2001) findings that teachers’ views on teaching and classroom
practices in technology-rich environments exist along a spectrum in which “teaching as
transmission” lies at one pole, and “teaching as facilitating knowledge restructuring” lies at the
opposite pole. Additionally, the study shows that teachers can have contrasting views on
teaching and learning and that the development of beliefs occurs on different dimensions and
reflects changes on a spectrum, which ranges from teacher-centered to student-centered teaching
and learning. However, this study demonstrates that the adoption and use of technology-oriented
tasks is not enough to ensure successful integration. It is unclear whether technology itself
mediated change or the constructivist environment to which the teachers were introduced.
Important findings
Overall, these studies represent two contrasting claims about the influence of technology
and teachers’ practices. Some studies supported the notion that computer-based technologies can
have transformative power on teaching and learning, specifically where technology use is great
TEACHER BELIEFS AND PRACTICES 38
(Dwyer, Ringstaff, & Sandholtz, 1991; Becker & Ravitz, 1999). Computer-based technologies
also can modulate teachers’ beliefs and practices toward a student-centered paradigm (Levin &
Wadmany, 2006). In contrast, it can be argued that teachers use technology in ways consistent
with existing practices (Cuban, Kirkpatrick & Peck, 2001) and may only change if they were
previously inclined to do so (Windschitl & Sahl, 2002). Still, in environments where computer
access was high and use was readily available to both students and teachers (Cuban, Kirkpatrick
& Peck,2001; Windschitl & Sahl, 2002), there was little evidence to suggest that resources alone
had direct transformative power on teaching practices. Technology then can be seen as a
mediating tool to help facilitate the learning goals of constructivism. The age of these studies
does not limit our understanding of the overall influence of technology. These studies are
frequently cited in literature, as they have provided insight into our current understanding and
foresight for future research. Since the time these studies were conducted, access and availability
of computer technology has steadily increased and may no longer be viewed as a barrier to
integration. The current landscape of schools has increased the access and availability of
computer technologies for both students and teachers in the classroom. Researchers studying the
impact of specific technology-integrated contexts where technology is ubiquitous can shift the
focus from one that emphasizes the prevalence of technology to the development of teachers’
orientations and the environment that is shaping their behaviors that enable them to work with
current technology resources. The current study will take place in a context where teaching and
learning occur in a school-wide 1:1 PC computer environment. The current study will examine
how and to what extent teachers implement constructivist goals of learning in their teaching and
how their belief orientation is evident in their practices. This differs from previous studies that
examined to what extent changes occurred as a result of the technology-rich environment.
TEACHER BELIEFS AND PRACTICES 39
We can learn from these earlier studies and the patterns exhibited by those instances
where change in practice did occur. First, in the ACOT study and the Becker & Ravitz study, a
change may have occurred because of the contextual situation that mediated the adoption of
constructivist teaching practices. If the ideal learning environment we are proposing for teachers
to create for students meets constructivism’s goals, then it can be expected that this similar
learning environment could produce the type of learning and change that needs to occur for
teachers. Teachers in some of the studies who successfully began to implement technology as a
cognitive partner in students’ learning did so in a system that both influences and is influenced
by teachers as individuals in the system. Ultimately, teachers who adopt the attitudes and beliefs
that support transformative approaches to teaching and learning go beyond understanding what
technology could do to understanding and embracing a pedagogy that facilitates authentic
student learning (Ertmer, 2013).
Teacher Change and Professional Development
This section will discuss suggested features proposed in the literature that can move
teachers toward changes in their pedagogical beliefs and subsequent practices in technology-rich
contexts. Teachers play a central role in integrating technology in the classroom and have the
most effect on the quality of technology integration. Ultimately, the problem of successful
technology integration appears to be multifaceted; consideration of teacher’s pedagogical beliefs
and the degree of constructivism evident in instruction are equally important when helping
teachers move toward the goal of effective technology integration. Overall, this requires
emphasizing a paradigm shift in a teacher’s belief system that drives instructional practices.
Professional development has been successful in introducing how to use technology; however,
showing teachers how to transition to student-centered practices and the impact this can have on
TEACHER BELIEFS AND PRACTICES 40
overall student learning requires more attention be paid to individual teacher change (Ertmer et
al., 2012; Judson, 2006; Levin & Wadmany, 2008; and Prestridge, 2011). A brief discussion will
be presented on how past professional development efforts have not addressed teachers’
technology integration needs. This will be followed by a review of literature regarding teacher
change in technology-rich contexts and implications for schools and future professional
development that can drive teacher belief and instructional change when integrating technology.
Professional development concerns
School districts have invested significant amounts of time and money into infrastructure,
training, and support to facilitate teachers’ technology integration efforts (NEA, 2008). Training
opportunities have also improved overall with 95% of reporting school districts offering
professional development related to technology integration (Gray & Lewis, 2009). Given these
gains, it would appear that there would be a corresponding increase in teachers’ instructional
uses of technology. According to the NEA (2008) data, professional development in a majority
of the training offered was geared toward administrative uses, research, and communication, and
teachers reported feeling much more prepared to complete administrative tasks rather than
instructional tasks. Only one-third of the respondents to the NEA (2008) survey required their
students to use computers more than a few times a week, and when teachers did report using
technology to facilitate student learning, typically it translated into traditional uses of technology
(e.g., PowerPoint presentations, drill-and-practice software). Overall, the types of classroom uses
reported by recent surveys rarely included using technology in meaningful constructivist ways
(NEA, 2008; Project Tomorrow, 2008; 2009; 2011). To facilitate teacher change when
integrating and using technology it is argued that professional development experiences should
TEACHER BELIEFS AND PRACTICES 41
support teachers’ uses of technology, including uses supported by new pedagogical beliefs
(Ertmer, 2005).
Transforming teaching practices and beliefs
Current professional development initiatives could benefit from earlier studies that have
examined factors that were assumed to influence changes in teachers’ practices. Dexter,
Anderson, & Becker (1999) examined whether changes in teachers’ practices was bolstered by
teachers’ perceptions of computer use. Forty-seven K–12 teachers, teaching in technology-rich
schools across three states, identified between traditional and highly innovative teachers
participated in this study. Participants were administered surveys inquiring about their personal
and professional experiences with computers, how participants described critical experiences that
caused them to rethink their teaching, and whether computers changed what they as teachers
wanted to accomplish or helped them make changes they already wanted to make. Several
interviews conducted also provided information regarding the ways teachers changed their
instruction and reasons behind these changes. Thirty-two of the original 47 participants reported
that changes to their practice occurred over their years in the classroom toward student-centered
practices. Consequently, these teachers were categorized as substantially constructivist or as
weak constructivist. Among these teachers, 22 reported that technology helped them make
changes they already wanted make. When identifying the impetus for these changes, the
researchers found the primary reason was of internal origin and agency: Change occurred as a
result of reflecting on their practices. Even among the 15 identified non constructivist teachers,
they cited change as a consequence of reflective practices. Other reasons for change noted by
teachers in conjunction with reflection, although to a lesser degree, were formal learning
experiences and school-wide initiatives or programs emphasizing a particular pedagogy. This
TEACHER BELIEFS AND PRACTICES 42
study is limited in that it relied only on self-reported instruments for data collection, and only
two sources limits the full scope of teachers’ actual practices. Additionally, the only school
context known that was similar across all participants was high computer use in classrooms.
Constructivism was only used as an identifier, and little is known on how long it took teachers to
change and the degree of change that occurred. What is clear from this study and similar to what
Cuban, Kirkpatrick, & Peck (2001) suggested is that computers and technology alone are not the
catalyst for change. Rather, it is the teachers’ ultimate decision to integrate technology in a
constructivist manner. Although the findings are focused primarily on reasons for change, this
study also highlights the importance of mediating both internal and external factors when
addressing how to best support teachers toward student-centered pedagogical change for
technology integration.
Levin and Wadmany (2008) conducted a longitudinal study in an attempt to describe the
interrelationship between the various aspects of the teachers’ experience with technology, the
changes in their educational beliefs during their classroom experiences, and the constituents of
their classroom practices. Prior to the study, the researchers implemented two professional
development phases. The first phase consisted of introducing a variety of hardware and software
resources, demonstrating student and learning activities, and training and providing educational
technology experts and curriculum specialists, including school and university personnel. The
second phase implemented workshops consisting of two types of activities: (1) activities based
on teachers’ experiences with their own students and (2) activities planned by project experts
dealing with information-rich tasks, uses of ICT, and situations simulating learning by teachers
as a learning group. After the phases were presented, six teachers participated in the study for 3
years. Each teacher was examined as a single case and as a collective case. Questionnaires and
TEACHER BELIEFS AND PRACTICES 43
interviews captured teachers’ explicit beliefs, knowledge, and opinions to determine differences
observed in themselves and their professional environment. Classroom observations enabled
researchers to examine their teaching and learning situations and implicit measures of their
beliefs. The study found that the developmental pattern exhibited by the teachers began with
concentrating on technical aspects of technology toward becoming aware of and transforming
their own educational views. Specifically, teachers’ views evolved from an authoritative
transmissionist view to one that sees teaching and learning with technology as an interactive and
constructive process. These views on teaching and learning, although they occurred on different
levels for each teacher, reflected changes from teacher-centered to student-centered perspectives
for teaching and learning. The dimension of change was concerned with the transformation in
conceptual thinking as a result of practicing teaching in a technology-rich classroom and how
these changes affected curriculum and teaching. This study is important in examining the
developmental changes that can occur in teachers when learning experiences are situated in their
own practice. In terms of professional development, whether school based or from an outside
source, this study suggests that teachers should be exposed to the potential interdependent
characteristics associated with their beliefs and practices. Additionally, this study highlights the
important role of colleagues and authority figures when it comes to teacher learning and implies
that the constructivist approach to teacher learning is applicable to both students and teachers.
This aligns with earlier research in which a constructivist setting for teachers was introduced to
measure changes in teachers’ beliefs and practices (Levin & Wadmany, 2006)
Researchers argue that increased technology use is associated with more constructivist-
compatible instruction (Becker, 2001) and that these practices do not depend on the use of
technology but that technology might support and facilitate these practices (Ertmer, 2008).
TEACHER BELIEFS AND PRACTICES 44
Matzen and Edmunds (2007) contended that researchers remain unsure about the interaction
between constructivist instruction and technology use. In response to the uncertainty that exists,
Matzen and Edmunds (2007) posed two questions: Are there ways in which technology can serve
as a catalyst for constructivist practices? Is technology only used in a constructivist manner when
teachers are already engaged in constructivist-compatible instruction? They suggested an
alternative explanation to these questions when they studied the relationship between
constructivist-compatible instruction and technology use. The researchers studied the results
from a mixed method evaluation of The Centers for Quality Teaching and Learning (QTL)
model. This 50-hour, 7-day professional development program models the connection between
instructional practices, the curriculum, and the use of computers. The QTL evaluation was
designed to examine the implementation and impact of the program on teacher change across
four domains: (1) technical skill, (2) awareness and use of educational theories and practices, (3)
instructional practices related to the use of computers and (4) general instructional practices.
Data from the evaluation included surveys, case studies, teacher reflections, interviews, and
feedback on professional development. Quantitative analysis indicated a significant positive
correlation between changes in general instruction and changes in instructional computer use.
The results further indicated that QTL participants increased their technology use in more
student-centered ways. Qualitative data that explored the relationship between general
instructional practice and instructional technology practices indicated inconsistencies between
technology use and instructional practices. For example, in classrooms that were considered
“traditional,” the teachers’ use of technology was often observed to be “student-centered.” These
results are consistent with other research that shows that the way teachers use technology is
related to teachers’ instructional beliefs (Dexter, Anderson & Becker, 1999; Levin & Wadmany,
TEACHER BELIEFS AND PRACTICES 45
2006. However, this study presented a more complex picture: The findings also suggested that
teachers can use technology in ways that might not be consistent with their other practices. Two
possible explanations for these inconsistencies support other findings. First, teachers may
implement constructivist-compatible, student-centered approaches as a result of professional
development that modeled these practices. This could also suggest that professional development
that merely taught technological skills might result in no technology use at all or that teachers
will use technology consistent with existing practices, a finding similar to Cuban (2001) and
Cuban, Kirkpatrick, & Peck (2001) studies. Secondly, other researchers have similarly found that
teachers may use technology that is inconsistent with their beliefs (Ertmer, 2012; Judson, 2006).
This study highlights the limitations of using the dichotomous transmission-constructivist
paradigm; it may be too simple for measuring the complexities and intricacies of how teachers
enact technology in their classroom (Zhao et al., 2002). Although the findings are unclear as to
whether technology promotes constructivist-compatible instruction or supports existing
instruction, this study suggests that professional development that models constructivist
instruction may affect changes in teachers’ technology practices.
The prior study illustrated that teacher change may be mediated by professional
development that models constructivist instruction. However, the model presented to teachers
was of limited duration and might not yield changes in practices that are sustainable. Orrill
(2001) studied the development of a professional development framework that can build
technology-based, student-centered classrooms within a school context. In this study, two
teachers were introduced to workplace simulations that were designed to be change agents for
teachers to create student-centered environments focused on cooperative problem solving. The
author noted that results of an earlier study conducted using these simulations found that teachers
TEACHER BELIEFS AND PRACTICES 46
were more likely to interact with students in instructionally irrelevant ways. Although previous
efforts to incorporate workplace simulations did not yield the intended outcomes, this study
sought to focus on supporting teachers in a student-centered environment. Building on earlier
work of leaders in professional development, the framework for the model that emerged was
intended to allow teachers to own their development (McCombs & Whisler, 1997) and supported
in the context of their classroom over time (Guskey, 1986). The study’s two participants were
middle school teachers in different urban schools who both used the simulations in their prior
instruction. Data were collected through classroom observations, interviews, and video analysis
and recorded reflections concurrently as teachers were using the simulation software in their
classes. From the data, the professional development framework that emerged that yielded
change with both teachers included five parts: (1) reflection, (2) proximal goals, (3) collegial
support groups, (4) one-to-one feedback, and (5) support materials for teachers. Specifically, it
was found that that the interplay between reflective activities and proximal goals was enhanced
by outside resources, feedback, and collegial group meetings. Two aspects of this framework
limit its reliability. First, the researcher additionally served as the professional developer;
therefore, these components might have been biased based on a developed relationship that
might have occurred. In addition, the teachers in this study were analyzed individually based on
their unique contexts. If this framework were to be incorporated into professional development,
then the role of the professional developer would additionally need to utilize these features for
the teachers they are working with. Although teacher change did occur, this study did not
measure the extent of change. However, this study did provide support for some of the factors
that may mediate change toward student-centered approaches. Similar to earlier studies
discussed, this study addressed how reflection (Dexter, Anderson, & Becker, 1999) and learning
TEACHER BELIEFS AND PRACTICES 47
in ones’ place of practice (Levin & Wadmany, 2008) may yield the teacher change necessary for
integrating technology.
Important findings
Altogether, these studies address some insight into ways to support teacher change
toward integrating technology. The interplay between teachers’ beliefs and teachers’ practices
makes change a complex endeavor. Although it was noted earlier that ubiquitous technology
contexts alone may not yield changes toward constructivist practices (Cuban, Kirkpatrick, &
Peck, 2001; Windschitl & Sahl, 2002), supporting factors such as reflection (Dexter, Anderson,
& Becker, 1999; Orrill, 2001), modeling of constructivist technology instruction (Matzen &
Edmunds, 2007), and collegial support (Levin & Wadmany, 2008; Orrill, 2001) can influence
constructivist-compatible instruction when integrating technology. Whereas these features hold
promise for changing teachers’ practices, Ertmer (2005) contended that pedagogical belief
change can be promoted by implementing strategies in professional development that examine
teachers’ personal experiences, vicarious experiences, and social-cultural influences. Together,
belief and instructional change may be mediated by the context teachers work in. The current
study will not examine the extent of teacher change in a technology-rich setting. However, the
third research question that will guide this study will examine the perceptions that teachers have
regarding the environment (1:1 PC Tablet context) and its influence on their pedagogical beliefs
and instructional practices. Knowing how teachers perceive the teaching environment holds
implications for finding ways to specifically support teachers in their place of practice if belief
and instructional change is needed to integrate technology successfully.
TEACHER BELIEFS AND PRACTICES 48
Summary
In this section, a review of the literature regarding teachers’ beliefs, constructivist-
compatible practices, and teacher change when integrating technology in technology-rich
classrooms were presented. More research is still necessary to delineate the various teacher belief
constructs in order to fully understand the disposition of beliefs among classroom teachers.
Additionally, the challenge is to understand that beliefs, teaching practices, and technology are
interrelated domains that have inherently within them complexities that need to be made explicit
among teachers being studied and researchers attempting to conceptualize these domains in
future studies.
Conceptual framework
Several critical points emerged from the research that holds relevance in understanding
the purpose and importance for the current study. These key points ultimately will serve as the
conceptual framework for the current study. The links across all three sections are as follows:
Teachers’ beliefs, specifically pedagogical beliefs, inform teachers’ practices in
technology- rich settings.
Technology can have a mediating effect on constructivist practices and on pedagogical
beliefs.
Ubiquitous technology in classrooms, alone, is not enough to change teachers’
pedagogical beliefs and practices.
Given the importance and relationship between teachers and technology integration, there
is a need to consider how to build teacher capacity to use technology in ways that support
constructivist classrooms.
TEACHER BELIEFS AND PRACTICES 49
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
This section will explain the research methodology that will guide this study. Qualitative
methods will be used to address the purpose and research questions for this study. I will provide
descriptions and justifications for specifically employing a case study approach. Included in the
discussion is the setting for the study, selection criteria of participants, data needed to answer the
research questions, intended approach for data analysis, and strengths and limitations that are
anticipated for this study.
Research Design
This study’s purpose was to understand how a technology-rich environment affects
teachers’ pedagogical beliefs and constructivist practices. The context of a 1:1 PC Tablet
classroom provided a uniform technology environment to examine teachers’ practices. This
study used qualitative research methods to capture and understand teachers’ beliefs and
instructional practices. Ultimately, the current study was guided by the following research
questions:
1. How, if at all, are teacher pedagogical beliefs evident in teachers’ teaching strategies in
a 1:1 PC Tablet classroom?
2. How, if at all, are the goals of constructivism evident in teachers’ practices in a 1:1 PC
Tablet classroom?
3. What perceptions do teachers have about the influence of a 1:1 PC tablet environment
on their beliefs and practices?
Qualitative Methods
Case study. Qualitative research using a case study was decided upon as the appropriate
methodology for this study. Using qualitative methods to solve problems within a variety of
TEACHER BELIEFS AND PRACTICES 50
disciplines has its advantages, including understanding why a phenomenon exists, how a process
occurs, or understanding the “lived” experience of individuals (Maxwell, 2013; Merriam, 2009).
More specifically, qualitative case studies share with other forms of qualitative research the
search for meaning and understanding, the researchers as primary instrument of data collection
and analysis, an inductive investigation, and the end product’s being richly descriptive (Merriam,
2009). This methodology also helps answer research questions that are in the context of
answering why or how something occurs among specific individuals in a particular setting.
Maxwell (2013) also explained that research questions help focus the study and provide guidance
on how to conduct it. My sample will involve a purposeful sampling of teachers in the
classroom. I do not intend to generalize my results to all teachers but rather to obtain a
descriptive interpretation and explanation among teachers in the context of the study. Ultimately,
the research questions generated for this study warrant a qualitative design to better understand
how the phenomenon of teacher beliefs and constructivist practices are at play in a 1:1
computing context. Given the type of research questions generated, the context of the study, and
activity being studied, it was determined that the type of case study employed would be a
multiple case study. According to Yin (2003), a multiple case study enables the researcher to
explore differences within and between cases.
Research setting. The site selected for this study was Central Valley Academy (CVA), a
private high school in the San Fernando Valley area of Los Angeles, CA. This high school serves
approximately 1,200 students in grades 9–12. This school was selected for this study due to its
school-wide integration of computers in classrooms for teaching and learning. The school
implemented a 1:1 PC tablet program 7 years ago whereby all students are provided PC tablets
for both school and home use. Teachers are also provided the same PC tablets but with software
TEACHER BELIEFS AND PRACTICES 51
for class management and classroom instruction. All teachers are given minimum technology
requirements for class management, monitoring of student use, and for instruction. All teachers
are required to have all lectures, lessons, and assignments made available to students using
Blackboard classroom management portal and to deliver instruction and monitor student tablets
daily using the DyKnow software. The instant access to the Internet and use of a variety of Web
resources for assessment and instruction enables teachers to choose whichever resource they find
appropriate to augment a lesson when needed beyond the minimum requirement mentioned
above. This includes and is not limited to Web searches for research, virtual labs, discussion
boards, or interactive websites. Overall, the technology- rich context of this school regarding the
types of technology made available to all teachers and students and the fully integrated 1:1 PC
Tablet program make this school an appropriate site for this study.
Participants. A purposeful selection of participants (a hallmark of qualitative research
samples) for this study was employed. Although convenience sampling typically might not yield
information-rich data (Merriam, 2009), I attempted to diminish the effects of this type of sample
selection through a more intentional selection of individuals. After the first year on the campus,
teachers are able to decide how to incorporate the technologies made available to them into their
lessons. Consequently, first-year teachers on this campus were not selected to eliminate a gap in
knowledge on how to integrate these technologies as a potentially confounding variable.
Additionally, teachers who have more than 5 years of instructional experience in their subject
area were selected. It was assumed that more years of teaching would yield more experience for
teachers to draw upon when being asked about their practice along with potentially greater
comfort knowing and communicating their pedagogical beliefs.
TEACHER BELIEFS AND PRACTICES 52
When I selected participants, I also enlisted the help of evaluating administration staff at
the school. Two administrators familiar with observing and evaluating teachers were presented
with the overall purpose of the study and were asked to recommend teachers they felt
demonstrated experience with and evidence of student-centered practices in their classrooms.
Ultimately, four teachers were invited and agreed to participate in this study. Pseudonyms were
used to protect participants’ identities: The four teachers in this study are referred to as Chad.
Henry, Annette, and Mark.
Data collection. When deciding on the data I needed to move forward with this study, I
returned to the research that guided my research questions. I justified my research questions
using what research has reported regarding my topic and current knowledge gaps. Regarding the
first question, it was stated earlier that research demonstrated that a teacher’s beliefs inform
practices in technology-rich classrooms. Consequently, exploring teachers’ pedagogical
orientation from what they self-report and what is observed will help understand the scope of
teachers’ beliefs. Regarding the second question, research is limited in understanding whether a
technology-rich environment has a mediating effect on constructivist practices. Exploring
whether there is evidence of constructivist practices in the classroom and whether these are in
alignment with the teachers’ beliefs may help us understand whether the environment has
affected this. Finally, knowing how teachers perceive the influence of a 1:1 computing context
on both their beliefs and practices will help inform the first two questions. To answer all three
questions, I used semi-structured interviews, classroom observations, and document analysis of
teachers’ blackboard sites, curriculum maps, lesson plans, and assignments.
Interviews have several advantages in qualitative research, including being able to
capture information on how people do things or how people interpret the world around them
TEACHER BELIEFS AND PRACTICES 53
(Merriam, 2009). For this study, a 45-minute semi-structured interview was conducted, which
included 16 open-ended questions and probing questions to gather information on each teacher’s
pedagogical beliefs, self-reported examples of their practices, how teachers integrate technology,
and perceptions of the tablet environment (see Appendix A). Each teacher was observed twice in
their classrooms by using an observation protocol to record each teacher’s classroom instruction
(see Appendix B). Observation captures what a teacher is actually doing and differs from asking
them in an interview to recall from past practices (Merriam, 2009). Observing the teachers more
than once not only augmented the information they self-reported in their interviews but also
helped capture more depth and an accurate scope of teachers’ practices. Finally, document
analysis was employed to assist in developing the scope and to further support what was self-
reported and observed regarding teachers’ beliefs and practices. Documents also added to the
understanding of how instruction was employed in this specific teaching context.
Data analysis. Because this study used a multiple case study approach, analysis consisted
of analyzing individual cases followed by a cross-case analysis. First, each teacher was treated as
a single case with each teacher serving as the unit of analysis and three embedded sub-units of
analysis. These sub-units of analysis included teachers’ beliefs and practices, PC tablet uses, and
teachers’ perceptions of the 1:1 tablet environment. These sub-units selected represented each
construct of information needed to answer the research questions. It was important to elucidate
each teacher’s pedagogical belief disposition and the relative practices that support these beliefs.
In addition, to understand how the goals of constructivism were evident in a 1:1 PC tablet
classroom, analyzing teachers’ overall practices, specifically those involving the PC tablet, were
necessary. Finally, it was important to understand how teachers perceived the 1:1 environment
influenced their practices or pedagogical beliefs. Overall, isolating these constructs by examining
TEACHER BELIEFS AND PRACTICES 54
each case (teacher) provided a narrower scope of all the data collected. However, to determine
similarities or differences across these constructs, a cross-case analysis was subsequently
conducted.
Cross-case analysis and coding. A cross-case analysis of teachers was conducted to
address the research questions and to find themes across all teachers. Part of the first and third
research question relied on self-reported perceptions of pedagogical beliefs and the 1:1 PC tablet
environment stemming from the interviews. However, to fully address the first two research
questions and examine the full extent of teachers’ practices across all data sources I employed a
coding strategy. Coding is the process of making notations next to bits of data that are found to
be potentially relevant to answering the research questions (Merriam, 2009). The coding of the
data began inductively across all three data sources. Data from interviews, classroom
observations, and the documents teachers provided were compiled and disaggregated manually.
The advantage of this was to consider all data sources and their contents equally (Merriam,
2009). The initial categories reflected extremely general descriptions. For example, some of
these categories included “teaching tasks,” “teacher directives,” “student behaviors,” and
“curriculum approaches.” According to Merriam (2009), constructing categories is an inductive
process: One begins with detailed bits of data, clusters the ones that go together, and then names
the category or theme. Through looking more closely at the meaning behind the clusters of data
the coding process moves forward in the analysis (Merriam, 2009). During the interview,
teachers were asked to give evidence of their practices related to their pedagogical beliefs. In all
cases, teachers reported and provided some level of what they believed was a student-centered or
teacher-centered belief and their relative practices. However, because teachers may possess
varying definitions of these practices and the range of teaching practices can vary, what teachers
TEACHER BELIEFS AND PRACTICES 55
reported was not used as a basis for determining whether their examples were student centered or
teacher centered. Therefore, these initial descriptions provided an initial assignment of practices
within some of the aforementioned categories. Corbin and Strauss (2008) described how
descriptive coding moves toward an analytical one when grouping open codes into categories
based on interpretation and meaning is done. Subsequently, it was important to juxtapose the
data against how practices are categorized and defined in educational research. Therefore, the
coding process moved toward a deductive one by assigning and defining the codes relative to
current research. To delineate the range and scope of teaching and learning, defining the
practices as either student centered or teacher centered applied the research from Peggy Ertmer.
Table 1 was adapted from Ertmer et al. (2012), which categorized the types of teaching and
learning behaviors in technology contexts.
Table 1. Categories of Classroom Practices
Categories Student centered Teacher centered
Teacher roles Guide discovery
Model active learning
Collaborator
Present information
Manage classroom
Student roles Create knowledge
Collaborator (serving
as expert)
Store, remember
information
Complete tasks
individually
Curriculum Depth of content has
student interest focus
Focus on
understanding of
complex ideas
Application of
knowledge to authentic
Breadth focused on
externally mandated
curriculum
Focus on standards
Fact retention
Fragmented
TEACHER BELIEFS AND PRACTICES 56
problems
Integrated
multidisciplinary
themes
knowledge and
disciplinary separation
Social Organization Collaborative learning
Social distribution of
thinking
Independent learning
Individually
responsibility for entire
task
Assessment Applied knowledge
Process oriented
Alternative measures
Criterion referenced
Self-assessment and
reflection
Fact retention
Product oriented
Traditional tests
Norm referenced
Teacher-led
assessment
Technology role Exploration and
knowledge
construction
Communication
(collaboration,
information access,
expression)
Tool for writing, data
analysis, problem
solving
Drill and practice
Direct instruction
Programming
Technology content Emphasis on thinking
skills
Skills taught and
learned in context and
application
Basic computer
literacy
Skills taught in
isolation
Adapted from Ertmer et al. (2012)
Additionally, this research was used to define the practices that emerged across all
teachers. Because evidence related to assessment was not clearly evident in the data, this
TEACHER BELIEFS AND PRACTICES 57
category was not included. In addition, technology in the current study consisted of the use of
tablets for all teachers and students. Therefore, technology’s role and content in this context was
embedded across most practices and not analyzed as separate categories of classroom practices.
To define and organize the data for this study, I used the following overarching categories of
classroom practices: teacher roles, student roles, curriculum, and social organization. The
subcategories for each of these categories included student centered, student-centered tablet use,
teacher centered, and teacher centered tablet use. Finally, the codified patterns from all three data
sources were placed within each category. It was also important to associate each pattern with
each teacher in the study. Finally, all the categories, subcategories, and patterns found in the data
were placed into a coding matrix and are illustrated on Table 2. This coding matrix was used to
help find themes within and across teachers.
Table 2. Coding Matrix of Teachers Practices
Classroom
Practices
Student centered Student-centered
use of tablets
Teacher centered Teacher-centered
use of tablets
Teacher roles Initiate thinking
processes needed
to address
problems (An,
M)
Model thinking
and learning
process involved
in solving
equations or
applying content
(A)
Allow students to
challenge content
(An)
Direct instruction
through lectures
(C, H, M)
Manage and
organize content
and activities (A)
Guide students
through the
thinking process
(C, H, M)
Provide answers
to questions and
assignments (C,
H, M)
Projects teacher
tablets for
students to
follow (C, H, M)
Teacher-made
PowerPoint’s and
lessons made
available to
students on
Blackboard (C,
H, M)
Teacher requires
students to
follow along on
their tablets (C,
TEACHER BELIEFS AND PRACTICES 58
H, M)
Student roles Students
contribute to
lessons (An)
Students work
collaboratively in
groups to
complete
assignments (An,
M)
Research
assignments and
projects (A)
Students
collaborate with
others on their
tablets
(discussion
boards on
Blackboard) (H)
Use tablets to
conduct online
research in class
(A)
Students copy
teachers notes
(C, H, M)
Students given
class time to
work alone (A)
Assignments
require single
accurate answer
(C, H, M)
Students recall
information (A)
Students follow
teacher steps to
solve questions
and problems
using MS Word,
MS Journal or
DyKnow panels
(A)
Students retrieve
and complete
assignments in
and out of class
on Blackboard
(A)
Curriculum Lessons driven
by student
interests (An)
Students offer
personal
meaning through
reflection
prompts (H, An)
Real-life
questions and
problems applied
to lessons (An,
H, M)
Open-ended
lessons (An, M)
Written
assignments to
generate personal
meaning using
tablets (H, An)
Data analysis
programs on
tablets used for
labs (C, H, M)
Self-guided
virtual labs and
simulations
accessed online
(C, M)
Teacher decides
curriculum focus
(A)
Curriculum
amended by
teacher (A)
Subjects taught
based on skills of
the discipline (A)
Predetermined
lessons, activities
and labs (A)
Scope and
sequence of
curriculum made
available to
students on
Blackboard (A)
Assignment
instructions and
retrieval on
Blackboard (A)
Social
organization
Grouping for
projects, research
and labs (A)
Collaborative
thinking (A)
Student
interaction on
online discussion
boards (H, An)
Students
complete
assignments on
own (A)
Demonstrate
Students
complete or
upload
individuals
assignments on
TEACHER BELIEFS AND PRACTICES 59
their knowledge
individually (A)
Blackboard (A)
A = All, C = Chris, H = Henry, An = Annette, M = Mark
Limitations
The nature of this study carries limitations that can affect its results and applicability.
First, case studies are unique in that they are context specific and seek to understand phenomena
anchored in a real-life situation. Due to the focus on a single unit, the instances at the chosen site,
generalizing the findings to other contexts cannot be done (Merriam, 2009). Case studies are also
limited by the sensitivity and integrity of the investigator (Merriam, 2009). As the primary
instrument of data collection and analysis, my role as the investigator will rely on my own
instincts and abilities. Interpreting the data and drawing conclusions are limited based on my
subjectivity. Finally, my role as an employee within the context being studied might be
advantageous as far as access to the participants and information being sought. However, this
active role within the organization might also affect the credibility of the study and its findings.
Ultimately, the reader and I need to be aware of biases that could affect the final product
(Merriam, 2009).
Design controls
The limitations of this study can inherently affect the validity and reliability of the
findings. Qualitative research cannot capture an objective truth or reality (Merriam, 2009).
Rather, the goal of this type of research and specifically the researcher is to understand how
individuals construct reality—how they understand the world around them (Merriam, 2009).
Validity is also relative (Maxwell, 2013). Therefore, validity must be assessed in relationship to
the circumstances of the research as opposed to a context-independent property of methods or
conclusions (Maxwell, 2013). In contrast, reliability in qualitative research design is
TEACHER BELIEFS AND PRACTICES 60
conceptualized based on dependability and consistency—whether the results are consistent with
the data collected (Merriam, 2009). To offset the limitations, specific strategies will be carried
out to address issues of validity and reliability to increase credibility and transferability of the
findings.
Triangulation. Multiple sources of collecting data were employed. Interviews, classroom
observations, and documents were used to triangulate the data. Information reported from
interviews was also corroborated with what was observed. Additionally, what was found from
analyzing documents served to further validate what was reported and observed. Altogether,
these data sources provided adequate depth and scope to support the findings.
Respondent validation. Throughout the process of interviewing and observing,
consistent regulation of my interpretations was conducted. This was achieved by having
participants verify the accuracy of what I observed and reported. This strategy’s purpose was to
reduce misinterpretation of data during analysis and misrepresentation of quotes, events, or
artifacts used to support the plausibility of conclusions.
Discrepant analysis. One of the ways of testing the internal validity in this study was to
actively become of aware of data that support alternative explanations. Doing a discrepant case
analysis challenges the expectations and emerging findings. However, seeking out contrary
explanations can increase the confidence and credibility of the results.
Reflexivity. To assist the reader and consumer of this study to understand how
conclusions were made, I communicated my dispositions related to what was being studied. As
an educator, I may have biases and perspectives regarding beliefs and practices that might
interfere with how data were presented and interpreted. In this study, I made explicit any implicit
assumptions and orientations when communicating my findings.
TEACHER BELIEFS AND PRACTICES 61
Rich data. Transferability of this study’s findings will depend heavily on whether a
reader finds features and findings applicable to other contexts. For this to occur, the use of rich,
thick descriptions will need to be in place (Merriam, 2009). This strategy was applied by offering
highly descriptive details of the study. This included a detailed presentation of the setting and
participants. Additionally, this includes findings supported by evidence in the form of quotes
from interviews, concrete events from observations, and detailed descriptions and notes from
documents.
TEACHER BELIEFS AND PRACTICES 62
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS
This section will include the results of the data that were collected during the course of
the study. Data were collected for all four study participants across three areas: interviews,
classroom observations, and documents. Semi-structured interviews were administered to obtain
information on participants’ teaching backgrounds, pedagogical beliefs, teaching practices, and
specific technology uses in the classroom. Two 45-minute classroom observations were also
conducted to observe participants in their instructional settings. Finally, each participant offered
various instructional resources and tools he or she used in the classroom, including lesson plans,
assessments, assignments, and curriculum maps. Altogether, these three sources of data were
used for analysis. The analysis employed a multiple case study approach. A multiple case study
enables the researcher to explore differences within and between cases (Yin, 2003). The results
will consist of two major sections. First, each teacher will be presented as a single case. Next,
themes that emerged from a cross-case analysis across all teachers will be presented.
Individual Cases
The three research questions guiding this study are: (1) How, if at all, are teachers’
pedagogical beliefs reflected in their teaching practices in a 1:1 PC tablet classroom? (2) How, if
at all, are the goals of constructivism evident in a 1:1 PC tablet classroom? (3) What perceptions
do teachers have about the influence of a 1:1 PC tablet environment on their beliefs and
practices? To begin to answer the research questions for the study, it was important to examine
the scope of each teacher’s pedagogical beliefs, all classroom practices, including those with and
without the tablet, and teachers’ perceptions about the 1:1 PC tablet teaching environment. The
interviews along with some of the self-reported practices and perceptions are included in the
individual teacher analysis. In some cases, documents were used to further provide support to the
findings regarding teachers’ self-reported practices. To narrow the scope of the information
TEACHER BELIEFS AND PRACTICES 63
collected across all three data sources and to group the evidence to the respective research
questions, three themes were chosen as subunits of analysis. The individual unit of analysis is
each teacher, and the subunits of analysis are pedagogical beliefs and practices, PC tablet uses,
and perceptions of a 1:1 PC tablet environment. What follows is an integrated intra-analysis of
each teacher that resulted from what was self-reported and observed.
Case 1: Chad
Chad has been a teacher for 12 years and teaching at CVA for the last 8 years. He teaches
mostly upper-level math and science courses, including pre-calculus, advanced placement
calculus, and advanced placement physics. This current school year, and during the time of the
study, he was teaching pre-calculus and advanced placement calculus. He was selected as a study
participant because of his years teaching, including his teaching before and after the tablet
program’s program. Additionally, he was referred by an evaluating administrator as having some
teaching practices reflecting student centeredness.
Pedagogical beliefs and practices. During the interview and when asked about his
pedagogical beliefs, Chad shared his perspectives and practices from the perspective as a math
teacher. When describing his pedagogical beliefs, he stated, “I believe there is a strict pedagogy
for the classes I teach, but I believe I can take the liberty to change when it’s appropriate.” It was
unclear at first whether he felt teaching the subject matter defined and decided his beliefs. As a
result of this response, the following probing question was presented: “If your pedagogical
beliefs existed along a continuum between teacher-centered and student-centered, where do you
think you would fall? To this Chad responded, “I would definitely fall upright in the middle. I
feel like I exhibit both beliefs; student and teacher centered are equally appropriate.” He went on
to explain how he does at times pre-plan student-centered lessons with labs, stating, “I do have
TEACHER BELIEFS AND PRACTICES 64
some labs and unit projects when I provide the resources, and they fill in the steps to figure out
the outcome.” On his class Blackboard page, some of these unit projects were present in two of
the 10 units for his pre-calculus class. However, he also felt that the more rigorous elements of
mathematics do not allow for student-centered lessons regularly. He offered the example of his
advanced calculus classes, discussing that the nature of the curriculum necessitates teacher
directed instruction. He explained, “Some of the more complex concepts like the ‘fundamental
theorem of calculus’ requires a rigorous foundation that only a teacher guiding them (students)
can provide.”
Examples of the type of teacher guidance used with his students were observed during
both classroom observations. During the first and second observations, the topics, “calculating
compound interest” and “graphing parabolas” were being taught respectively in the same
manner. In both instances, Chad presented the lessons using Power Point slides; these consisted
of alternating slides, which presented a concept or step followed by a problem that illustrated a
sample calculation. Additionally, as he was explaining the steps, he would also show how to
calculate the problem on the board while students copied down the calculations or practiced on
their own. He would follow up each problem by providing the correct answer. Ultimately,
although Chad purports to be within the middle of a pedagogical belief continuum, his reported
and observed practices together appear to reflect practices that are primarily teacher centered.
PC tablet uses. When discussing his tablet uses in the classroom, he acknowledged that
the accessibility of them made it easier to do a variety of assignments and in class tasks. Some of
these assignments and tasks he would have his students doing regularly. He mentioned using
Blackboard to post assignments and to make his Power Point lectures available to his students
for every topic. DyKnow sessions were also reported to be used for monitoring students and for
TEACHER BELIEFS AND PRACTICES 65
students to use to take their own notes. Blackboard and DyKnow were observed being accessed
during both lessons during his classroom observations. When discussing using the tablet directly
with students for a lesson, he noted that virtual labs and data analysis programs were often
helpful for student learning. Regarding the virtual labs, he stated, “I use virtual labs many times
because it allows students to experience situations that aren’t physically possible.” However, he
desired to incorporate more software applications with students but felt limited because of cost.
He explained that he uses programs that are available free online and noted, “Trying to integrate
more than what’s readily available is a challenge; applications for learning are out there but are
more expensive than the book.”
Perceptions of the 1:1 PC tablet environment. Chad held mixed feelings about the
pervasive use of technology overall at the school and about the 1:1 tablet environment
influencing his pedagogical belief and practices. He believes there is a perception that some
teachers think using computers more in the classroom or in a variety of ways is the key to
improving instruction. Additionally, he felt that the pressure put on teachers to incorporate the
tablets in novel ways is misplaced and ineffective. Chad reflected on his time at the school and
observed that there had been a great deal of turnover in recent years. In his opinion, he believes
the over-emphasis on teaching with the tablet caused this turnover. He offered an example of this
when he shared a brief account of a former colleague he worked closely with who ultimately left
around the time the school instituted a minimal use requirement for the tablets. He shared, “Over
the years, I have seen how the computers changed our faculty; some really good teachers have
left.” Although he was unsure whether these departures were because of ability, willingness to
change, or lack of support, he adamantly stated, “I’d take a good teacher that can’t use
technology over a bad teacher who can use it well.” This strong sentiment about the importance
TEACHER BELIEFS AND PRACTICES 66
of teachers’ familiarity with technology as part of the overall tablet environment was followed up
with a more mixed impression about the impact on his beliefs and practices. When asked
whether the tablet environment had changed him, he felt his beliefs about the importance of
computers for learning shifted more than his personal belief had about teaching and learning in
general. He ultimately observed a shift in how he used it with students. He commented, “When it
comes to teaching math, I see how using the computer as a tool has been easier; more access to
resources has allowed me to make more assignments student centered.” Ultimately, Chad felt
that the tablet environment affected his practices more than his pedagogical beliefs.
Case 2: Henry
Henry has been teaching for a total of 14 years and the last 7 years at CVA. Within that
time, he has taught a variety of life science, physical science, and social science subjects.
Currently, he reported teaching three preps this year, including human geography, marine
biology, and physics. An assistant principal referred Henry as a potential candidate to participate
in the study. His former position as department chair included teaching and leading his
department regarding best practices in the classroom and best practices with the tablet.
Pedagogical beliefs and practices. When asked to discuss his pedagogical beliefs, he
reported being between teacher centered and student centered. This “middle” perspective was
influenced by the overall curriculum or topic being taught. He stated, “The topics lend
themselves to different approaches to instruction. I think that from years of experience, I know
what will and won’t work. I feel the curriculum for each class drives how I teach.” He offered an
example of how a student-centered approach was used in his human geography class. During the
interview, he explained, “I approached our current unit about the Rwandan genocide with an
overarching theme by giving them major open-ended questions and then use case studies to
TEACHER BELIEFS AND PRACTICES 67
guide them [students] toward answering it. Activities and assessments are also open ended, so
the end result or outcome is that students are hopefully experts on the topic.” Both classroom
observations provided a contrast to what was reported during the interview and also reflect
another perspective of Henry’s stated belief. During both observations, he engaged the class in
guided instruction and practice and in closed-ended questioning and checked for understanding
of stated objectives through practice problems students had to complete. However, the observed
classes were physics classes, and specific examples of instruction that reflected student-centered
practices during the interview related to his human geography classes. Regardless of subject
being taught overall, he felt that his main role in helping students learn is to help students be self-
reflective. For example, he reported that he typically engages students to reflect on and write
about how they were learning in hopes of students’ recognizing their own learning style and
abilities and then revising their own learning processes when necessary. Examples of this
practice were evident in all his classes when I examined samples of his lessons and plans.
Throughout the year, he regularly employed submissions of portfolios whereby students were
prompted to offer reflections on lessons and assignments students would be submitting and
giving students the chance to revise their work before turning in these portfolios.
PC tablet uses. Unlike the tablet uses reported from Chad, the type and range of
technology uses in the classroom varied for Henry across each subject he teaches. When asked to
describe some of his technology uses, he stated, “Each subject would be different. In physics, the
students would frequently use their tablets to do practice problems or Excel spreadsheets to
generate graphs after gathering data.” When he reflected on an environmental science class he
had taught in the past, he mentioned an ongoing practice of allowing students to access websites
that students felt were useful to research information for class debates or research projects.
TEACHER BELIEFS AND PRACTICES 68
However, daily use of the tablet in all of Henry’s classes was mostly used for note taking and as
an organizational tool for content delivery. His specific Blackboard site for all classes contained
weekly assignments and tasks for the students, posted bell-ringers and notes from previous
classes, and website links serving as additional resources. This mode of content delivery was also
observed during both classroom observations. In both instances, students were prompted after the
class discussions and direct instruction to transition to the site to retrieve the assignment that they
were instructed to work on for the remainder of the class period. Additionally, Blackboard was
observed being used as a means for students to engage with each other asynchronously via
discussion board prompts.
Perceptions of the 1:1 PC tablet environment. Henry started teaching at CVA prior to
the implementation of the 1:1 PC tablet program at the school. He noted that even before the
school integrated Blackboard for teachers and students, he was already using and maintaining a
class website for his students. When Blackboard became a requirement, he abandoned the use of
the website; however, some of the same organizational features such as a calendar and posting
announcements and assignments he was already accustomed to doing. Overall, as a result of the
1:1 PC tablet environment, he feels he has adapted to teaching with it and makes a point of using
the tablet in the same manner as the students do. When asked about how his practices have
evolved, he responded, “I definitely was more progressive earlier on than what I am now.” He
reflected on why this was, and he felt it was a combination of factors, including years of
teaching, the students, and the change in school culture. He felt strongly that the integration of
the tablet at the school was both positive and negative. He stated, “I think students’ online access
all the time to their grades and the curriculum has made my job as instructor a challenge; we are
constantly under scrutiny for everything we do.” Regarding the statement about his lack of
TEACHER BELIEFS AND PRACTICES 69
progressive practices currently, he felt indifferent about trying novel things with the tablets due
to the constant changing of expectations and no clear direction on how to use them best. He
commented, “I guess if I had data or evidence from a survey or something from the students’
perspectives, then we could move forward as a school to meet their learning needs. Right now
we just don’t know.” To gain meaning from this comment, Henry was asked, “If you had more
data about students’ perspectives, how would that influence your instructional approaches?” He
responded, “I don’t know; it would need to be very specific to me and my students. I used to give
my students surveys about my teaching but don’t anymore.” He then turned his attention back to
the campus as a whole and stated, “It seems we pulled from multiple data sources globally, but
are we getting the results we want here?” It was clear that Henry’s perceptions of the tablet
program might not have greatly influenced his beliefs or practices. Overall, it could be postulated
from these comments that until there is more evidence that students are learning any differently
than before the tablets were implemented, then Henry could move forward with changing his
practices.
Case 3: Annette
Annette is a veteran teacher and has been teaching full time for 28 years. During her
tenure as a teacher, she has taught mostly English classes at all levels. She has been teaching at
CVA for 12 years and currently teaches 11th grade British Literature and 12th grade writing
(critical composition) courses. Annette was also referred from her department chair and
evaluating administer as an ideal candidate for the study because of the leadership role she has
played on the campus regarding student-centered practices. This role included serving on a
student-centered learning team consisting of selected teachers from each department. She has
represented the English department while on this team for the last 8 years.
TEACHER BELIEFS AND PRACTICES 70
Pedagogical beliefs and practices. During the interview, Annette identified as being a
teacher who was more student centered in her pedagogical beliefs and most of her practices. She
believed that student-centered approaches in the classroom were the ideal learning environment
for her students. She remarked, “It is work up front but yields great dividends. When opening up
classes this way, I get some really good work.” When asked about the role she feels she plays in
students’ learning, she felt that it was her duty to “start the ball rolling.” Adding to this, she
stated, “You give the destination not necessarily the path.” Her planning for lessons and the
selection of activities also augmented her position. Specifically, she drew on a recent example
from her British Literature class in which she planned with other English teachers to reevaluate
their course structure and scope. She shared that she felt the text students were required to read is
a product of its time: “It’s like a time capsule.” As a result, the group decided to change from a
chronological to a thematic focus. She went on to further explain how this decision to change the
focus involved input from the students as well. For example, she posed the question, “Are these
voices relevant to you anymore?” to the students. In the end, she was proud that students guided
this shift in the curriculum, too. The emphasis on students in her practice was additionally
evident in the classroom. Asking students to find relevance in their learning through open-ended
discussion and reflection was a cognitive behavior she reported as practicing regularly, and it
was additionally evident in her instruction. During the first observation, students were presenting
their research on the topic of “Logos, Ethos and Pathos: Ways of persuading people.” In small
groups, students were tasked with designing a presentation that includes a product,
advertisement, or movie clip they best identified with as appealing to one’s logos, ethos, or
pathos. After each presentation, students began to guide the class in discussions by posing open-
TEACHER BELIEFS AND PRACTICES 71
ended questions. Annette also consistently guided these discussions by probing further and
promoting students to dig deeper into the meaning and implications for their own lives.
PC tablet uses. Annette reported having mixed feelings about tablet use in her
instruction. As to her perspective regarding Blackboard and DyKnow, she likes the organization
and interaction with students these tools offer. Personal planning for the class and collaborating
with colleagues using the tablet was what she mentioned as the biggest asset to her instruction.
She commented, “The English Department has always been collaborative, but having the ability
to go in and out of each other’s Blackboard sites has helped strengthen our collaboration and
help me be more organized.” For students, she remarked, “We use it so much; it’s a part of the
environment, and we plan for it naturally.” When asked about her preferred use of the tablet, she
mentioned how she would use DyKnow to monitor students, the grouping feature on DyKnow
for students to interact with each other, and turning in written assignments on Blackboard.
Although these features were not in place during her classroom observations, students in her
class began to naturally take out their tablets to check their class Blackboard site for
announcements even though the specific class learning objective did not require the use of them.
The automaticity of students’ taking out their tablets was not always a positive thing to her. To
this point, she remarked, “I can almost see relief when I say put the computers away.” However,
she adamantly opposes using it during every class. She stated, “I don’t feel there has to be
technology in everyday instruction.” She described that, “In an English class, specifically
literature, the text is golden.” While she was not opposed to providing students with the text
online or purchasing their books on an e-reader, she feels students may be more connected to the
text with a physical book. Ultimately, Annette’s primary uses of the tablet in the classroom were
incorporating the school’s monitoring system (DyKnow) and the classroom management system
TEACHER BELIEFS AND PRACTICES 72
(Blackboard) that reflected the school’s minimal use requirement. Using the tablet in other ways
merely supported her overall instructional activities.
Perceptions of the 1:1 PC tablet environment. Annette perceived that the 1:1 PC tablet
environment has made her more organized overall. Although she feels that the use of Blackboard
has kept her accountable to her students and with her colleagues, she views the pervasive use of
computers for learning in the classroom widens the already existing generation gap between her
and her students. As is relates to students’ knowledge and use of technology in every aspect of
their lives, she added, “I look at students now who don’t know anything else.” She is one of the
more seasoned teachers at CVA, and she shared that as the school has evolved over time, so has
her practice. She feels that the implementation of the 1:1 PC tablet program has also shifted the
academic culture. The example she provided of this was the introduction of a varied pay
program. The varied pay program that was instituted 7 years ago provides incentive pay for
teachers who can plan and enact lessons that merge student-centered lessons and technology into
their curriculum. Teachers can opt to reconfigure an entire unit or design and implement three
separate lessons that are student centered. Annette has been participating in this program and
additionally serves on the team to help teachers develop these lessons. She felt that as a result of
this program, her attention to incorporating a student-centered approach in her classes has
become heightened. Overall, her perspective on the change in school culture has paralleled her
own evolution: The shift toward encouraging the use of student-centered lessons and the tablets
into instruction has made her more aware of the importance of both. Although, Annette
acknowledges that the implementation of the 1:1 PC tablet allowed for an overall cultural shift at
the school, it was the introduction of the varied pay program which directly affected her student-
centered practices. Additionally, her participation on the varied pay leadership team may be an
TEACHER BELIEFS AND PRACTICES 73
additional influence on her pedagogical belief; this may also inform and support a strong student-
centered belief she stated earlier in the interview.
Case 4: Mark
Mark has been a science teacher for 17 years, all of which have been at CVA. He has
taught every level of the physical sciences but at the time of the study, was currently teaching
five honors-level chemistry classes and a statistics course. Mark was also referred by his
department chair and by an administrator familiar with his teaching practices. This administrator
mentioned Mark’s frequent use of student-centered practices, specifically labs, which she had
observed in years past.
Pedagogical beliefs and practices. During the interview, Mark articulated having a more
student-centered belief disposition. However, regarding his teaching, he relayed both teacher-
centered and student-centered activities used in his classes. After probing further as to whether
his practices were more student centered or teacher centered, he described how his practices
reflected both. He went on to explain how his practices could be divided for the most part into
two categories: discussion or lectures and labs. The time spent on each of these activities was
additionally quantified. He stated, “In my chemistry classes, we spend about 60% on labs or
activities and about 40% on lectures. My stats class is basically 100% labs because of the nature
of the subject.” In both classes, however, he reported that all his labs are student centered.
Regarding labs he remarked, “I try to hold back as much as possible” when describing the
challenge of his labs being student centered. Adding to this, he felt his role in students’ learning
was to orient them to the tasks and to push them in the right direction. The goal, he claimed, “Is
not for mastery but to introduce the process.” During one of the observations, students were
participating in a lab whereby they were attempting to illustrate Dalton’s Law on partial
TEACHER BELIEFS AND PRACTICES 74
pressure. Prior to this, he introduced the activity by reminding students about the formula and
showing them the materials that would be used to manipulate the environment. During the actual
lab, Mark rotated through each lab group to observe students and to ensure lab safety measures
were in place. Some of the comments made to students included, “I am not going to tell you the
outcome” and “Why don’t you try it again and see if you get a different result.” Although the
type of response and line of questioning he used during the lab cannot directly tie to an overall
belief disposition, this practice does align with his approach to instruction for labs. Also, of note
was the use of the word and reference to student-centered approaches echoed throughout the
interview; this pattern might elucidate a more student-centered disposition as his pedagogical
belief as stated.
PC tablet uses. During the line of questioning about the use of the technology in the
classroom, Mark referred to how the tablets were used differently in both courses. In his statistics
class, the primary use reported was for presenting the material via online simulations in an effort
to allow students to deduce for themselves the problems they were assigned. Also for this class,
he incorporated online practice quizzes that he generated on Blackboard as a way to prepare for
tests. Simulations were similarly used for his chemistry classes when presenting new material. In
an attempt to minimize the monotony and time for lectures, Mark reported regularly using
instructional videos during instruction. He mentioned that DyKnow was not an effective tool for
his type of instruction and noted that the inconsistent connectivity of the program made it
frustrating to use. During both observations, his use of the tablet consisted of using Microsoft
Word to model how to solve problems and providing examples of concepts for students by
projecting his computer screen for the class. Overall, it appeared that use of the tablet in his
classes for the most part served as an ancillary tool used for students to engage in and complete
TEACHER BELIEFS AND PRACTICES 75
the tasks assigned. Students were observed in his classes using various modes of note taking
during a lecture, including a blank panel in an opened DyKnow session, Microsoft Journal,
Microsoft Word, and paper. In addition, during the lab, some students chose to use a hand-held
calculator or the calculator on their tablets or do calculations by hand on paper. His students
seemed to be accustomed to “a culture of choice” that Mark had established; students ultimately
decided whether they would use tablets and the extent of their use in the classroom.
Perceptions of the 1:1 PC tablet environment. When asked about the 1:1 tablet
environment, Mark reflected on his time at CVA and commented on how his teaching practices
had changed as a result. Before the implementation of the tablets, he mentioned that the
curriculum was extremely different. He stated, “When I got here, the department didn’t do any
labs.” When implementation of the laptops for teachers began, he said, “I was one of the first
teachers on the campus to pilot the tablets. They gave me a laptop and asked me to use it in my
classes.” When asked what he did differently, he described how he was able to incorporate more
data analysis with the students. Additionally, he stated, “I was able to give more immediate
feedback to the students unlike before. I can do more open-ended labs.” Regarding specific
activities, he mentioned, “I changed the curriculum to include more labs and in-class
assignments because of the students’ tablets.” When asked whether this environment affected
student learning, he responded, “I don’t know if it is the 1:1 environment or easy access.”
However, he does see how the tablets can be used as a tool for learning. He explained further
how students now can do calculations and analyze data much faster than he could when he was
in high school and college and made a point to share that he can achieve his learning objectives
more easily now. In addition, similar to Annette, Mark also mentioned the school’s varied pay
program. He felt that as a result of participating in the program, the student-centered projects he
TEACHER BELIEFS AND PRACTICES 76
has created have ultimately redesigned his entire curriculum. He reflected on the curriculum he
created and stated, “I have cycled through the varied pay program, and at this point, I guess I
now begin to question myself and wonder how much more I can do to make my classes more
student centered.” This opinion about his classes and the subsequent reference regarding his shift
toward enacting more student-centered lessons in his teaching was also expressed as both a
strength and weakness. To this, he added, “Because of what I have made and the environment, I
can disengage.” When asked to explain what this meant, he described how his role during
instruction has changed: Instead of a direct instructional role, students do not need him as much
to complete their assignments. Clearly from this explanation, his use of the word “disengage” did
not reflect paying less attention to students but rather how his instructional role has changed.
Summary of individual cases
The within-case analysis examined each teacher across three subunits of analysis. Each
individual case captured the scope of each teacher’s beliefs and practices, tablet uses for
instruction, and teachers’ perceptions of the 1:1 PC tablet environment. The extent of each
teacher’s pedagogical belief indicates some variance toward a student-centered belief
disposition. Both Annette and Mark reported being more student centered overall. However, as
Mark stated his practices reflect both, and additionally quantified the extent of his practices
across the subjects he teaches, it is probable that his pedagogical belief is slightly less student-
centered than is that of Annette. Chad and Henry believed they held both teacher-centered and
student-centered beliefs equally. Figure 1 illustrates where each teacher’s pedagogical belief falls
along the continuum between teacher centered and student centered. Additionally, some of the
reported and observed PC tablet uses provided information into how and if each teachers’
practices align with the goals of constructivism. Finally, each teacher offered an account of his or
TEACHER BELIEFS AND PRACTICES 77
her perception of the tablet teaching environment and provided insight into the influence on each
of their beliefs or practices. Ultimately, the reported beliefs along with the respective practices
for each teacher provided me the ability to begin analyzing how and if at all these beliefs are
reflected in teachers’ practices. Additional analysis was therefore needed by closely examining
teachers’ practices across all data sources, the extent of each practice’s being either student
centered or teacher centered, and any patterns that might emerge across all teachers in the study.
Figure 1. Teachers’ pedagogical beliefs along a continuum.
Cross-Case Analysis
The findings resulted from the evidence presented in each individual case and the
patterns of classroom practices as a result of the coding process from the cross-case analysis. The
detailed codes represented on Table 2 (see Analysis section in previous chapter) describe the
practices evident for each teacher and were used to locate patterns across categories of classroom
practices and patterns that emerged across all teachers. These patterns informed the overall
themes that emerged from both analyses. Where appropriate, specific examples found in the data
reflective of a descriptive code, interview transcripts, and observation memos were used to
support the theme I discovered. For continuity, I categorized the themes for each subunit of
analysis: Each theme relates to teachers’ beliefs and practices, PC tablet uses, and perceptions of
TEACHER BELIEFS AND PRACTICES 78
the 1:1 PC tablet environment. Finally, this section will consist of two parts. The first section
consists of the themes found related to each subunit of analysis. The second part consists of the
themes found that were not directly related to the subunits of analysis or research questions but
are significant to the study’s overall purpose and can inform some of the findings in Part 1.
Findings (Part 1)
Teachers’ beliefs and practices
(a)Teachers with more espoused student-centered beliefs enacted a variety of student-
centered classroom practices. Two teachers in this study espoused a pedagogical belief that
was more student-centered than teacher-centered. During the interview, Annette and Mark
shared a disposition about their conceptions of teaching and learning as being more student
centered than teacher centered. Although in the interview, they also provided examples of
student-centered practices—observed classroom practices and documents further supported this.
The cross-analysis found that student-centered practices were evident in all four categories of
classroom practices, including teacher roles, student roles, curriculum, and social organization.
Annette and Mark showed similar student-centered instructional behaviors. Their teaching roles
showed patterns in how they initiated and modeled the thinking processes in collaborative
settings in order for students to address problems or apply content effectively. During one of
Mark’s observations, he began the lesson by introducing the students to a hypothetical situation
of demonstrating Dalton’s Law of Partial Pressure through experimentation. He stood in the front
of the class and vocalized what he knew and wanted to know regarding the law. As students
watched, he ran through a series of questions one could pose to get started. He also had materials
before him that he manipulated through trial and error that could possibly be used to reflect the
variables in Dalton’s equation. After which he asked students to comment on what they had seen
TEACHER BELIEFS AND PRACTICES 79
him doing and probed students with questions that they might arise if the students were to enact a
similar scenario. When students were released to work in their lab groups, they were observed
modeling the same questioning and experimenting behaviors. As Mark roamed the room during
the lab, he encouraged and reminded students to employ similar strategies they had observed him
doing earlier. Some of the statements heard included, “If you’re not getting the result you want,
try it another way,” “What question do you need to ask yourself before going to the next step,”
and “What I showed you is how I did it; brainstorm with your partners about another way if you
think it’s necessary.”
In comparison, Annette’s guiding of thinking processes differed slightly in approach but
facilitated a similar outcome for students to model. During her two classroom observations,
classroom discussions occurred. In one lesson, groups of students presented final projects in
which they used media sources to demonstrate the understanding and application of the concepts
of “Logos, Ethos and Pathos” in their lives. At the conclusion of the presentations, groups of
students posed questions to the class that they had generated to initiate discussions. Questions
such as, “Is there such a thing as too much pathos? Let’ talk about that,” and “Is there a fine line
between logos and pathos?” As students offered commentary, Annette reinforced and
encouraged the types of questions being asked and at one point remarked, “That is a good
question; I hadn’t thought about that,” and “The questions you are asking are really allowing us
to think about this from a different perspective.” During another class, a Socratic seminar was
conducted in which students debated and challenged each other’s perspectives around the
personal interpretation and current-day relevance of the book Jane Eyre. Again, Annette took the
position as moderator and facilitator as students generated questions and personal meaning with
their peers about the text. In both of these instances, it was clear that Annette employed the type
TEACHER BELIEFS AND PRACTICES 80
of higher-level questioning strategies to guide her students to make learning meaningful and
content relevant to their lives. Overall, both Mark and Annette appeared to practice modeling,
initiating and facilitating complex thinking processes in a collaborative environment. Although
these two teachers taught different disciplines, guiding the active learning process to focus on
complex ideas and thinking is characteristic of student-centered instructional approaches
(Ertmer, 2012).
(b)Teachers who believed they held beliefs that were equally student centered and
teacher centered enacted more teacher-centered practices. Both Chad and Henry expressed
being equally both student centered and teacher centered in their pedagogical beliefs. Although
they provided examples of their practices that illustrated both types of teaching that reflected
their belief positions, both of their enacted practices observed in the classroom and from
documents indicated more teacher-centered practices. During their classroom observations, both
Chad and Henry approached their roles and student roles in a similar manner. Both teachers
enacted instructional approaches that involved teacher-led lectures and guided students through
the learning process and how students completed classroom activities and assignments. For
example, during Chad’s observations, the two lessons being taught incorporated direct
instruction in lecture-style format. In both instances, power points were used to project the lesson
while guiding students through calculations and problem solving. Additionally, students were
observed copying the teacher’s notes, including any sample calculations provided during the
lesson. When questions were being asked throughout the lessons, students were praised for
generating the right answer. For both teachers, their lesson organization also included class time
for students to complete practice problems or homework assignments individually at their desks.
After giving students instructions to complete in-class assignments, Chad and Henry,
TEACHER BELIEFS AND PRACTICES 81
respectively, told students, “After you have uploaded your homework, I will post the answer key
so you can check your answers later,” and “I will give you 20 minutes or so to work through the
problems; then I will post the answers to each question on the board.” Collectively, these
practices reinforce the behavior of students working toward a single right answer. Although the
instances observed in these classes do not solely indicate that this is an ongoing practice, Chad
and Henry’s perspectives on and how their overall curriculum is approached might provide
insight and support for teacher and student roles that are mostly teacher centered. During the
interview, Chad stated in reference to his calculus class, “I believe there is a strict pedagogy for
the classes I teach, but I believe I can take the liberty to change when it’s appropriate.” Henry did
not provide a curricular perspective specific to his physics classes. However, the curriculum
maps and teacher lessons analyzed indicated curricular focuses aligned with mandated state and
College Board learning objectives. Both curriculum maps observed for the classes outlined skills,
lesson topics, and learning outcomes for each discipline. What was observed in Chad’s calculus
classes and Henry’s physics classes ultimately aligned with these external objectives and each of
their curriculum maps. Instructional approaches are not defined on these documents; however,
both teachers acknowledge that there is some choice and variance in their instructional
approaches. Both teachers acknowledge engaging students in some student- centered lessons.
Chad mentioned that he does pre-plan labs that are student centered but also felt that the more
rigorous elements of mathematics do not allow for student-centered lessons on a regular basis.
Henry held similar sentiments about his curriculum. He stated, “I like to do more student-
centered projects, but the driving force to cover a certain amount of curriculum is a challenge.
You sacrifice scope for depth.” Student-centered lessons were not observed for both teachers;
however, regular practices such as reflective assignments and self-guided virtual simulations
TEACHER BELIEFS AND PRACTICES 82
were reported and observed on the blackboard sites. Ultimately, although both Chad and Henry’s
overall classroom practices (teacher and student roles, curriculum, and social organization) were
mostly teacher centered, they provided evidence of some isolated student-centered practices
relative to their curriculum.
PC tablet uses
(c) Overall student-centered tablet use was integrated by most teachers to support
their student-centered practices. Student-centered tablet use for instruction in the classroom
was observed in a few instances in the study. These instances were subsequently categorized
with respect to student roles, curriculum, and social organization. Student-centered tablet use
varied across each teacher and was episodic: When the tablets were used, they served a
supportive role to accomplish student-centered tasks and assignments. For example, Annette and
Mark reported that students worked collaboratively to engage in research, written assignments,
and labs. Students doing research activities were not observed; however, during both classroom
observations, students used their tablets to complete writing prompts and record and analyze lab
data. However, these activities did not dominate the entire class time and only enabled students
to complete tasks for the overall lesson. Written assignments in the form of journal reflections
and discussion board prompts were also a frequently employed activity in Henry’s classes. His
class Blackboard sites showed weekly entries of students’ responding to each other’s writings via
the discussion board page and regular journal entries in which students submitted essays that
documented students’ reflections on what they learned after a unit. These activities were not
observed in his classes but were cited as his most frequent use of the tablets in a student-centered
manner. Henry stated, “Ideally, I feel my role is to help students be more self-reflective. If they
reflect on how they learned, then they can recognize deficiencies.” In contrast, Chad shared that
TEACHER BELIEFS AND PRACTICES 83
his best use of the tablets in a student-centered way was using data analysis programs and virtual
simulations and labs. Again, these activities were not observed in the classroom, but his
Blackboard site showed four units that included links and instructions to complete self-guided
labs or simulations to help students gain a further understanding of the topic. All in all,
integrating the tablets in a student-centered manner was not a recurring practice in the classroom.
Episodic student-centered tablet integration supported some of each teacher’s student-centered
practices.
(d) Tablet integration by all teachers predominately involved similar teacher-
centered practices. In terms of observing how teachers integrated the tablets overall, the data
demonstrated that most teachers employed similar practices. Additionally, these practices were
all teacher centered. For example, all the teachers except Annette exhibited teacher roles in the
same manner. These practices included projecting the teacher tablet during lessons for students
to follow, making lecture notes via Power Point available on Blackboard, and allowing students
to follow the teacher during lectures. These teacher-centered practices were supported and
evident when I noted student behaviors during classroom observations. The following are
excerpts from my field notes taken during class observations:
Excerpt 1: Teacher is writing on the board and writing equations. Students are observed
writing these equations down using various programs. Ten students are using Microsoft
Word, four students are using Microsoft One Note, and two students appear to be writing
on electronic sticky notes on their tablets. Most other students are writing on paper.
Approximately five students are sitting forward listening to the teacher with nothing on
their desks. (Mark’s 2
nd
observation).
TEACHER BELIEFS AND PRACTICES 84
Excerpt 2: Teacher reminds students of the conceptual question assigned last class.
Teacher writes this on the board and explains that if they need to make corrections, do
these in another color. One student raises hand to ask to be unblocked. Some students are
bringing this up on their tablets, while other students are choosing to make corrections on
paper. (Henry’s 1
st
observation)
Excerpt 3: Teacher projects a slide about compound interest. Informs students that this is
the formula your book uses, and I will help you calculate. Teacher tells students they will
use the same formula to complete their homework assignment during the last 20 minutes
of class. Students are following the teacher. Some students are writing on a DyKnow
panel; others are writing their notes on paper. Teacher is explaining how to solve the
compound interest formula. Teacher says, “If there are any questions about anything on
the board please ask.” Teacher advances another slide. One student raises hand and asks
teacher to go back. Student asks, “I do not understand your calculation; can you show us
again how to do the steps?” (Chad’s 1
st
observation)
Collectively, Mark, Henry, and Chad’s lecture style use with the tablets along with
students’ behaviors of note taking and copying the teachers’ calculations and answers is a
consistent teacher-centered practice. Annette’s classes were not observed in direct lecture-type
lessons. However, some of the similar student behaviors with their tablets were observed. During
one class, she began the class by providing students with an overview of the week and explaining
some of learning objectives of the day, including future assignments that would be given.
Students were observed writing down what the teacher was saying on their online sticky notes
and in blank Word documents. Although no direction was given, some students logged into their
class Blackboard site to view announcements and retrieve future assignments.
TEACHER BELIEFS AND PRACTICES 85
Altogether, the behavior of automaticity on behalf of all the students observed in the
study, including note taking, following the teacher, and retrieving assignments, might elucidate
an ongoing culture in all the classes to use their tablets in these manners. Although it can be
argued that the element of student choice as how to use the tablets may be a student-centered
behavior, following and copying teachers’ notes and completing teacher-directed assignments is
not. Ultimately, the pervasive use of the tablets in teacher-centered ways might be expected
given the minimum tablet integration expectation the school requires. All teachers are expected
to have a DyKnow session active for monitoring, have all assignments retrieved and uploaded on
Blackboard, and have lecture notes made available for each unit.
Teachers’ perceptions of the 1:1 PC tablet environment
(e)The 1:1 PC tablet environment helped half of the teachers to enact more student-
centered practices. Only two of the four teachers in this study felt that the 1:1 PC tablet
environment influenced their practices: Chad and Mark believed that the integration of the tablet
program inspired more student-centered practices. Some of the following quotes from the
interview Chad and Mark’s perceptions about the tablets’ effects on their own teaching:
Chad:
“When it comes to teaching math, I see how using the computer as a tool has been
easier; more access to resources has allowed me to make more assignments student
centered.”
“It was hard to do student-centered projects before the students had the laptops because
they couldn’t do the research or find the resources necessary to fill in the steps.”
Mark:
TEACHER BELIEFS AND PRACTICES 86
“I was one of the first teachers on the campus to pilot the tablets. They gave me a
laptop and asked me to use it in my classes.”
“When I first got here, there was no set curriculum. No one in the department did any
labs.”
“When I assigned labs, it took me forever to give feedback to students, and they had a
hard time analyzing their results. Students’ having computers made it possible to
have data analysis programs downloaded on them.”
“I changed the curriculum to include more labs and in-class assignments because of
the students’ tablets.”
“I was able to give more immediate feedback to the students unlike before. I can do
more open-ended labs.”
Chad and Mark believed that the tablets changed their practice to include student-
centered assignments and labs. Additionally, Mark also felt his instructional role allowed easier
engagement with students by allowing him to readily provide feedback. This evidence does not
show the extent of Chad’s student-centered practices overall, as teacher-centered practices were
observed more than were student-centered practices. However, this may highlight why he self-
reported having an equal student-centered and teacher-centered belief disposition. In addition,
Mark’s perceptions do align with predominately student-centered practices mentioned earlier and
may additionally support his self-reported stronger student-centered belief. Overall, although
there is evidence that the 1:1 PC tablet influenced Chad’s and Mark’s practices, one can only
speculate how their pedagogical beliefs changed. No evidence was found that the 1:1 PC tablet
environment influenced or mediated Henry’s and Annette’s pedagogical beliefs and practices.
TEACHER BELIEFS AND PRACTICES 87
Findings (Part 2)
(f) Student-centered practices might be influenced by the school’s incentive
program. During the interview and noted in the individual analyses, Annette and Mark alluded
to a “varied pay program.” Annette made the following comment:
“The implementation of the 1:1 PC tablet program has shifted the academic culture.
Around the same time, we decided to start varied pay. I have been on the committee to
approve these lessons, and I think teachers are more aware of student-centered lessons
or at least what they need to do for a unit- or a student-centered lesson.”
Mark also mentioned this program during the interview and provided the following statement:
“I have cycled through the varied pay program, and at this point, I guess I now begin to
question myself and wonder how much more I can do to make my classes more student
centered. Because of what I have made and the environment, I can disengage. The
students don’t need me as much to complete assignments.”
During the respondent verification phase that occurred during analysis, further
clarification about this program was provided. The varied pay program, instituted 7 years ago,
provides incentive pay for teachers who can plan and enact lessons that merge student-centered
lessons and technology into their curricula. Teachers can opt to reconfigure an entire unit or
design and implement three separate lessons that are student centered. In the past year, the
program included a technology portion, which includes design of student-centered lessons using
the tablets. This program is open to all teachers on the campus. After following up with each
teacher, I found that in addition to Annette and Mark’s ongoing participation in this program
since its inception, Chad had also participated in this program during the last 3 years. Henry was
aware of the program but opted not to participate. Ultimately, Annette and Mark’s participation
TEACHER BELIEFS AND PRACTICES 88
in this program could provide reason for more student-centered practices overall across all four
categories of classroom practices.
Summary
This chapter provided the results of this study using two analyses. First, I analyzed the
experiences of individual teachers around three subunits of analysis: teacher’s beliefs and
practices, PC tablet uses, and teachers’ perceptions of the 1:1 PC tablet environment. These same
subunits were used for the cross-case analysis. During the cross-case analysis, the coding process
was implemented to better understand which practices teachers held in common and which were
dissimilar. The codes represented the evidence of teachers’ practices from self-reports, classroom
observations, and document analysis to appropriately categorize them using categories of
classroom practices. Determining these practices with and without the use of tablets as either
student centered or teacher centered elucidated each teacher’s practices and provided the basis
for finding overall patterns across all teachers regarding their stated beliefs and practices.
Finally, the cross-case analysis was also used to find patterns regarding teachers’ perceptions of
the 1:1 PC tablet environment. As a result, the following key themes emerged from the analysis:
(a) Teachers with more espoused student-centered beliefs enacted a variety of student-
centered classroom practices.
(b) Teachers who believed they held beliefs that were equally student centered and
teacher centered enacted more teacher-centered practices
(c) Overall student-centered tablet use was integrated by most teachers to support their
student-centered practices .
(d) Tablet integration by all teachers predominately involved similar teacher-centered
practices.
TEACHER BELIEFS AND PRACTICES 89
(e) The 1:1 PC tablet environment helped half the teachers enact more student-centered
practices.
(f) Student-centered practices might be influenced by the school’s incentive program.
In the next chapter, further discussion of these themes as they relate to the study’s research
questions, past research, and implications will be offered.
TEACHER BELIEFS AND PRACTICES 90
CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION
The previous chapter presented the current study’s results. This chapter will offer
discussion of these results based on the three research questions that guided this study. The
discussion will also address the extent that the study answered these questions with supporting
evidence from prior research and current literature. In addition, this chapter will include
implications of this study for further research and considerations for practice and the education
community at large. Finally, this chapter will provide a section in which I offer a brief discussion
on how the current study could be improved, followed by concluding remarks.
Discussion
RQ 1: How, if at all, are pedagogical beliefs evident in teachers’ practices in a 1:1 PC tablet
environment?
According to Ertmer (2005), a pedagogical belief that is more student-centered is
perceived to act as a facilitative factor in teachers’ technology integration efforts. Past studies
examining the belief-practice relationship in technology-rich contexts have found conflicting
results. A strong relationship between teachers’ beliefs and integrated technology practices were
found when examining beliefs about the value of technology (Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2012),
epistemological beliefs (Kim et al., 2013), and pedagogical beliefs (Ertmer & Ottenbreit, 2010;
Ertmer et al., 2012; Prestridge, 2011). Teachers can hold a variety of beliefs; however,
pedagogical beliefs are perceived to act as a facilitative factor in teachers’ technology integration
efforts (Ertmer, 2005). Specific to pedagogical beliefs, Chen (2008) and Judson (2006) found
inconsistencies between teachers’ reported pedagogical beliefs and enacted practices in the
classroom. Additionally, Palak & Walls (2009) found that neither student-centered nor teacher-
centered beliefs were powerful predictors of teachers’ practices. The emphasis on studying
TEACHER BELIEFS AND PRACTICES 91
teachers’ pedagogical beliefs and technology-integrated practices highlights the importance of
understanding teachers’ dispositions in technology-rich contexts. However, the belief-practice
paradigm related to technology integration is still not fully understood given the conflicting
claims and the limited amount of existing research. Therefore, the first research question guiding
this study helped to understand how teachers’ pedagogical beliefs are evident in their teaching
practices in a technology-rich setting.
Overall, teachers in the study enacted practices that reflected their espoused beliefs.
These practices ranged from student centered to teacher centered. Some student-centered
practices were to be expected given the purposeful selection of participants whose teaching
practices fell within or closer to a student-centered paradigm. However, the relationship between
teachers’ self-reported beliefs and the type and range of practices revealed in the themes found
both support for and challenges to preexisting propositions from earlier research. First, the study
found that teachers with more espoused student-centered beliefs enacted a variety of student-
centered practices. The varieties of such practices were evident in teacher’s roles, student roles,
curriculum, and social organization classroom categories across all teachers. This supports the
proposition that contends that pedagogical beliefs are reflected in teachers’ practices.
Additionally, the technology-rich setting that these teachers worked in supports research that
indicated that a strong student-centered belief might reflect student-centered practices (Ertmer,
2005).
Second, the study also demonstrated that two teachers (Chad and Henry), whose stated
pedagogical beliefs reflected both student-centered and teacher-centered practices, in fact
enacted mostly teacher-centered practices. Although only two classroom observations might not
fully capture the scope of teachers’ practices, the fact that their espoused belief disposition did
TEACHER BELIEFS AND PRACTICES 92
not reflect an equal balance between student-centered and teacher-centered practices shows a
misalignment between stated beliefs and actual practices. Chen (2008) and Judson (2006)
similarly found inconsistencies in teachers’ stated beliefs and practices; both studies showed no
significant relationship between constructivist pedagogical philosophy and constructivist-
compatible instruction. However, the relationship between Chad’s and Henry’s beliefs and
practices could be due to personal beliefs that do not completely lie in the realm of pedagogical
beliefs. During the interview, Chad made the following comments: “I believe there is a strict
pedagogy for the classes I teach,” and “Some of the more complex concepts like the
‘fundamental theorem of calculus’ requires a rigorous foundation that only a teacher guiding
them can provide.” In contrast to Chad’s but similar in sentiment, Henry stated, “I would like to
do more student-centered lessons, but it’s a challenge because the driving force is to cover a
certain amount of curriculum. I would have to sacrifice scope for depth. If student-centered is
done right, it would be time consuming.” Together, the statements made when asked about
pedagogical beliefs might indicate that Chad and Henry’s personal beliefs on the curriculum and
subjects they teach are factors influencing their beliefs about teaching and learning. This
supports Chen’s (2008) finding that deeply held values related to curricular content as opposed to
an instructional approach can skew teachers’ overall pedagogical beliefs. Consequently, this may
be the reason for the overwhelming teacher-centered practices enacted by both teachers.
RQ 2: How, if at all, are the goals of constructivism evident in a 1:1 PC tablet classroom?
Constructivist-compatible practices are recommended to be the ideal pedagogical
approach when integrating technology in classrooms (deKock, 2004; Lim, 2007; Sultan et al.,
2011; Voogt, 2009; Wong et al., 2008) and are believed to be one factor toward achieving
authentic student learning (Ertmer, 2013). The literature, however, has presented contrasting
TEACHER BELIEFS AND PRACTICES 93
claims about the relationship between technology-rich environments and teachers’ practices.
Some studies contend that high use of computer-based technologies in the classroom can
transform teaching and learning (Dwyer, Ringstaff, & Sandholtz, 1991; Becker & Ravitz, 1999),
can modulate teachers’ practices towards a student-centered paradigm (Levin & Wadmany,
2006) and that the relationship between computer technologies and constructivist practices is
strong (Rakes, Fields, & Cox, 2006). In contrast, in cases where technology use and availability
was high it was found that teacher-centered instruction was the norm during instruction (Cuban,
Kirkpatrick & Peck, 2001) and that movement towards constructivist practices did not occur
(Windschitl & Sahl, 2002). It is still unclear however whether constructivist-compatible practices
in technology contexts occur due to teachers’ previous inclinations to do so or whether
technology access alone mediates constructivist practices. In addition, more current research on
the impact of 1:1 computing contexts has not focused much attention on teachers’ practices.
Altogether, the contrasting claims from earlier studies and the limited understanding of practices
in 1:1 computing contexts was the impetus for the second research question. This question
attempted to clarify the extent of constructivist practices in a 1:1 PC tablet classroom.
In the current study, many of the goals of constructivism were evident among teachers’
classroom practices. Constructivists contend that the learning goals in schools include higher-
level learning activities such as problem solving, reasoning, critical-thinking and the active and
reflective use of knowledge and self-regulation skills (DeJong 1995; Driscoll, 2000; Windschitl,
2002). Constructivist-compatible instructional approaches help facilitate these goals. The
constructivist-compatible practices in support of the goals of constructivism according to Ertmer
(2012) and Windschitl (2002) included the following: teacher acting as facilitator to initiate and
model thinking processes; students engaging in problem-based activities such as labs, amending
TEACHER BELIEFS AND PRACTICES 94
the curriculum based on student interests, and providing tools to mediate learning; students
working collaboratively; and encouraging students to make their thinking explicit through
reflection and written work. To delineate the scope and to organize the practices in this study, I
used the descriptors student centered and teacher centered. Specific to classroom practices,
Ertmer (2012) categorized constructivist-compatible practices with and without the use of
technology in the classroom. Altogether, I designated these practices as student -centered,
student-centered tablet use, teacher-centered and teacher-centered tablet use. As a result, the
evidence gathered in this study organized the data within the four main classroom categories: (1)
Teacher roles, (2) Student roles, (3) Curriculum, and (4) Social organization. Overall,
constructivist-compatible practices were evident across all four classroom categories; however,
each teacher differed in how these practices were accomplished.
Although constructivist-compatible practices were found overall, many of these practices
did not always incorporate tablet use. The evidence highlighted that student-centered tablet use
was integrated as a supportive role for each teacher’s preferred student-centered practices. For
example, Henry frequently incorporated ongoing self-reflection prompts on Blackboard for his
students, Annette typically engaged her students in online research and open-ended writing
prompts using the tablets, and Chad and Mark regularly reported using online data analysis
programs for higher-level analytical labs and self-guided virtual simulations. These activities
were acknowledged by the participants as their dominant use of the tablets in a student-centered
manner. Most student-centered instruction integrating the tablets was episodic: Teachers’ only
integrated the tablets in student-centered ways when their preferred learning activity supported a
task or assignment as opposed to using them with varied and continual student-centered
instruction. All teachers exhibited varying levels of awareness and knowledge of constructivist-
TEACHER BELIEFS AND PRACTICES 95
compatible instructional approaches within their subject area. Also, the variation in instruction
both with and without the tablets supports and challenges the propositions offered from earlier
research. The propositions that the availability of technology does not necessarily mediate
movement toward constructivist instruction (Cuban, Kirkpatrick & Peck, 2001; Windschitl &
Sahl, 2002) and that computer technologies in the classroom can modulate movement toward a
student-centered paradigm (Levin & Wadmany, 2006) are in part both correct. First, it was
unknown whether all student-centered practices evident in Chad, Henry, Annette, and Mark were
a consequence of the 1:1 PC tablet environment. However, the evidence of student-centered
tablet use among all teachers could not be achieved unless the tablet was present.
In contrast to the fewer student-centered tablet uses evident overall, the evidence
demonstrated that tablet integration by all teachers predominately involved similar teacher-
centered practices. In addition, similar teacher-centered practices by all teachers were evident.
These practices did not support constructivism’s goals. Even though the prevalence of teacher-
centered practices with and without the tablet could appear to contradict the previous finding,
these results were not surprising given that no teacher reported being solely student-centered in
every aspect of his or her practice. Similar to beliefs, Becker and Ravitz (2001) suggested that
teaching and classroom practices in technology-rich environments exist along a spectrum in
which transmission of knowledge lies at one pole and teaching as facilitating knowledge
restructuring lies at the opposite pole. Thus, the coexistence of teacher-centered practices and
student-centered practices may not be a surprising trend overall or in the case of Chad and
Henry, who enacted more teacher-centered practices due to their equal belief disposition.
Specifically, teacher roles were similar for both teacher-centered practices and teacher-centered
tablet uses for Chad, Henry, and Mark. Some of these behaviors included direct instruction
TEACHER BELIEFS AND PRACTICES 96
through lectures, guiding students through the thinking process, providing answers to
assignments, and requiring a single right answer. This was not the case for Annette, who already
expressed an aversion to requiring the use of the tablet in everyday instruction in her classroom.
The study also found similar teacher-centered tablet uses for all teachers. Specifically,
these practices were evident in the categories for student roles, curriculum, and social
organization. However, the trend of all teachers using the tablets in similar ways may elucidate
another influence for some of the teacher-centered behaviors. The consistent activities of using
DyKnow during class sessions for note-taking, retrieving, completing and uploading assignments
on Blackboard along with teachers making lessons, grades, curriculum maps and power points
on Blackboard all reflect the minimal use requirement that all teachers on campus must
implement. It can be argued that using a learning management system such as Blackboard or a
monitoring system such as DyKnow does not qualify as an instructional practice but rather an
organizational and management tool respectively. The ongoing use of these tools may make
some teacher-centered practices easier to employ. Overall, hardware and software are important
parts of the learning environment. The evidence indicates there are challenges to making good
use of these tools. This does not necessarily mean that meaningful learning cannot take place.
Moreover, a 1:1 PC tablet environment does not have to be an obstacle to achieve the goals of
constructivism. Prensky (2010) expressed that more importance should be placed on the ‘verbs’
of learning rather than the ‘nouns’ (or tools) of learning.
RQ 3: What perceptions do teachers have about the influence of a 1:1 PC tablet
environment on their pedagogical beliefs or practices?
The literature regarding technology integration and teacher change have indicated that
collegial support (Levin & Wadmany, 2008; Orrill, 2001), modeling of constructivist technology
TEACHER BELIEFS AND PRACTICES 97
instruction (Matzen & Edmunds, 2007) and learning in one’s place of practice (Levin
&Wadmany, 2008) can influence constructivist-compatible instruction when integrating
technology. Additionally, changes in pedagogical beliefs can be promoted by implementing
professional development strategies that examine teachers’ experiences, vicarious experiences
and socio-cultural influences (Ertmer, 2005). Although, both external and internal factors have
been noted to contribute to teacher change, the length of time and the degree of change that may
occur for teachers can vary. This study did not measure changes in teachers’ beliefs and
practices. Instead, the third research question addressed teachers’ perceptions about a 1:1 PC
tablet environment and whether they believed the environment influenced their pedagogical
beliefs or practices.
The study found that only two of the four teachers felt that the 1:1 PC tablet environment
influenced their student-centered practices. Chad and Mark expressed change had occurred since
the inception of tablet program. Their perceptions re-introduce the proposition that technology-
rich environments can mediate changes in teacher practices. A pattern of change towards a
constructivist paradigm was an alignment found in studies where computer use was high in
classrooms (Dwyer, Ringstaff & Sandholtz, 1991; Becker & Ravitz, 1999). This pattern of
change found warrants questions about why or to what extent Chad and Mark changed their
practices. The reason they offered included access to resources. For both teachers students
having access to a tablet allowed for more student-centered labs, analytical software and virtual
simulations to into their instruction. Ertmer (2005) contends that access to technology is one
factor that can affect successful technology integration. However, access alone does not mean a
change in teacher’s practices or beliefs will occur. Although the environment may have
influenced more student-centered approaches for Chad and Mark it is unclear whether a
TEACHER BELIEFS AND PRACTICES 98
pedagogical belief change occurred concurrently also. There is evidence to suggest that belief
change regarding the value of technology rather than a pedagogical one happened. Chad felt his
beliefs about the importance of computers for learning shifted more than his personal belief
about teaching and learning in general. Although not expressed explicitly, Mark did
acknowledge how the tablets can be used as a tool for learning; he emphasized that students can
do calculations and analyze data a lot faster now than he could when he was in high school and
college. Together Chad and Mark’s sentiments align with Ottenbreit-Leftwich et al. (2010) who
found that when using technology to enhance teaching and learning teacher’s value technology
that addresses students’ needs and help to improve higher-level thinking. One can only speculate
where Chads and Marks value beliefs are situated within or connected with their pedagogical
beliefs. Windschitl and Sahl (2002) found that a confluence of factors mediate technology use.
The interplay of teacher’s belief systems about learners, conceptions of teaching and the role of
technology in and out of the classroom can influence change and instructional use with
technology (Windschitl & Sahl, 2002).
Additional findings
Another finding not directly related the research questions guiding this study might be a
confounding variable influencing teacher’s practices. The implementation of an incentive
program may have had a strong influence on teacher’s student-centered practices and some of the
student-centered practices discovered in the findings within the scope of this study. This program
designated as a “varied pay program” was instituted on the campus around the same time of the
inception of the 1:1 PC tablet integration. Although not mandatory, every teacher was fully
aware of the knowledge and details of this program and three of the four teachers in the study
have participated in varying degrees. The supportive features inherent with participation include
TEACHER BELIEFS AND PRACTICES 99
assistance from administration and lead teachers to design and execute student-centered lessons
or units incorporating the tablets. Overall, this program has been embedded into the culture of
the school and serves an example of how this school has made attempts to build teachers’
capacity to infuse student-centered approaches into instruction. Annette and Mark discussed their
active participatory roles with the program and shared their perceptions about the positive impact
on the school culture and student-centered practices, respectively. Due to the focus and design of
this study, the exact effect of the varied pay program was not explored.
The varied pay program draws attention to the importance of addressing external factors
when integrating technology and encouraging constructivist-compatible practices. Ertmer (1999)
described how barriers external to a teacher that can affect technology integration efforts include
time, resources, support, and training. The implementation of the varied-pay program alongside
the tablet program appears to have concurrently addressed some of these external factors: These
two programs ultimately address the resources, training, and support factors ideal for change.
Dexter, Anderson, and Becker (1999) found, to a lesser degree compared with internal factors,
that school-wide initiatives or programs emphasizing a particular pedagogy was noted to
influence constructivist-compatible practices. Even when external constraints are overcome,
internal factors can modulate both individual technology practices and teacher beliefs (Ertmer,
1999). Because only Chad and Mark felt the overall shift in the school environment influenced
their practices and neither Henry nor Annette held the same perception about their practices or
pedagogical beliefs, the evidence indicates that both external and internal factors need to be
overcome to address beliefs, practices, and technology integration efforts. To some degree, this
school-wide initiative may increase teachers’ personal agency to adopt student-centered
TEACHER BELIEFS AND PRACTICES 100
practices, but it may not be comprehensive enough to mediate change in pedagogical beliefs for
all teachers.
Limitations
This study used qualitative methods to accomplish its goal and to answer its research
questions. Inherent in qualitative design and the methods used are features that can limit the
fidelity of the data and subsequently the results. First, the study was conducted at a specific site
that has a unique context and population. Conducting a multiple case study at one site limits the
findings to this school. Case studies are limited because reality is grounded in a single bounded
context (Merriam, 2009). Therefore, generalizing the results to all teachers in all similar contexts
is not recommended.
The credibility of data may also be limited. In qualitative research, the important question
is whether the results are consistent with the data collected (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Only two
45-minute observations were employed. More classroom observations could increase the validity
of teachers’ practices and subsequently the credibility of the findings as a whole. In addition, the
small population sample of four teachers might not be representative of all teachers in this
school. A larger sample size could assist with comparing teachers and increase the strength of the
patterns and relationships found. Additionally, not enough variance was achieved among the
teachers sampled. Some variance was achieved within the sample; half the teachers held strong
and moderate student-centered beliefs, respectively. However, little variance was accounted for
across other demographic features: Three of the four teachers taught similar subjects, and all
teachers had between 12–28 years of teaching experience. Although subject matter and teaching
experience were not dimensions related to the research questions, these relatively homogenous
characteristics of the sample do not necessarily capture the heterogeneity in the population of the
TEACHER BELIEFS AND PRACTICES 101
entire school. Ultimately, maximum variation allows for the possibility of a greater range of
application by readers and consumers of the research (Merriam, 2009).
Implications
Past studies, propositions presented from current research, and the limited research
studying the intersection of pedagogical beliefs, constructivist practices, and technology
integration were the impetus for this study. This study discovered many patterns between
teachers’ pedagogical beliefs and practices, constructivism and technology use, and teacher
perceptions and technology integration. The study’s major findings highlight areas of
consideration for both researchers and practitioners at varying levels in the educational
community. Ultimately, three salient points emerged from the major findings and could inform
future research and educational practitioners.
1. Beliefs mediate teachers’ practices.
First, this study’s finding indicated that teachers’ beliefs mediate how teachers operate.
The differences in pedagogical beliefs and presence of value beliefs among teachers highlight the
variance and type of beliefs teachers might be operating through. This study adds to existing
literature that shows relationships existing between beliefs and practices in technology-rich
environments (Ertmer et. al, 2012; Ertmer & Ottenbreit, 2010; Kim et. al, 2013). Additionally,
this study highlights the challenge of isolating the variety of beliefs that can affect practice and
the extent that those beliefs (in whole or in part) influence teachers’ decisions regarding
technology. Therefore, understanding which beliefs mediate teacher’s practices in technology-
rich contexts will continue to be an area for further study. This study followed the trend of
similar studies that chose to measure teachers’ beliefs using self-reports (Chen, 2008; Judson,
2006; Levin & Wadmany, 2006). The overall tacit nature of beliefs along with the confluence of
TEACHER BELIEFS AND PRACTICES 102
other beliefs makes studying teacher belief dispositions somewhat tricky. Future studies could
pair self-report measures with other instruments to clearly explicate the type, extent, or influence
of specific beliefs when examining teachers’ practices.
2. 1:1 Computing practices vary.
How 1:1 computing is implemented looks different depending on the teacher and
possibly the subject matter. Former studies that informed this study were in contexts with high
levels of technology use in the classroom and found varying degrees of constructivist-compatible
practices. The current study similarly found a variety of constructivist-compatible teaching
practices across teachers. In addition, similar to prior studies, these practices were identified as
either student-centered or teacher-centered. Even with a dichotomous distinction used to identify
these practices, how teachers enacted instruction varied. In addition to the variation in practices,
the study also may hint at a variation in practices across subjects. The classes observed for Chad,
Henry, and Mark were, pre-calculus, physics, and chemistry and respectively represent the
sciences. In contrast, Annette’s’ classroom observations were social science courses. The
differences in how teachers enacted instruction relative to these subjects could indicate a
pedagogical divide when it comes to how subject-specific teachers approach the content and
integrate technology. Consequently, this study could help consumers of research understand that
ubiquitous technology integration in classrooms could yield a variety of teaching practices within
teaching communities and possibly across teachers of different subjects. Furthermore, teaching
practices and how technology is used for instruction do not have to be the same for meaningful
learning to occur. More recent research on 1:1 computing contexts has not fully focused on
specific teaching practices and how, if at all, these practices differ across subjects. This study
adds to the limited research focus and helps us better understand teachers’ practices in 1:1
TEACHER BELIEFS AND PRACTICES 103
contexts and the range of constructivist-compatible instruction that can be implemented. Overall,
the underlying narrative of uncovering “meaningful learning” continues to remain the same.
Researchers and practitioners still need to determine how much and to what extent technology
should be used in a constructivist manner to achieve meaningful learning.
3. School context and culture mediate technology integration.
Finally, the study showed context and school culture operating as mediating variables for
technology integration. The whole-school 1:1 PC tablet environment laid the foundation and
provided access for similar hardware and software resources and a minimum use requirement for
teachers to operate through. Additionally, within this established infrastructure, the institution of
a varied pay program created a culture for learning and support. This study’s evidence supports
previous research that found that contextual factors influence teachers’ decisions to integrate
technology (Hernandez-Ramos, 2005; Windschitl & Sahl, 2002). This study also corroborates
the idea that technology integration is not a process involving the individual teacher; rather,
school cultures and context play crucial roles in teachers’ technology decisions (Ertmer, 1999;
Mouza, 2003; Matzen & Edmunds, 2007; Zhao et al., 2002). The school-wide implementation
efforts that this study’s school undertook hold implications for educational institutions at varying
stages of technology integration. Regardless of the type of educational technology being
implemented, the emphasis to encourage and support student-centered practices is one initiative
that other schools could consider. While only two teachers perceived that the 1:1 computing
context influenced a change in their practices, the student-centered incentive program was also
an influential factor for some teachers’ student-centered and technology practices. In addition to
implementing school-wide instructional technologies, schools can additionally build teachers’
capacity to choose how and when to use technology in their classrooms by supporting effective
TEACHER BELIEFS AND PRACTICES 104
pedagogical approaches. Future research could study school cultures as a whole and measure the
ongoing development of teachers’ technology use and practices as a consequence of supportive
professional development or teacher learning structures instituted in their places of practice.
Improvements
If more time and resources were available, I would improve the design and instruments
used in this study. First, I would collect both quantitative and qualitative data using a mixed-
methods approach. A survey would provide the quantitative data needed to strengthen the
evidence from qualitative instruments (interviews, observations, and documents). I would
administer a survey to a larger population of teachers to isolate teachers’ beliefs and specifically
those with student-centered beliefs. This survey would allow for teachers with student-centered
beliefs to indicate specific practices in support of their beliefs. Pairing self-reports, documents,
and classroom observations with a survey would expand the data set to clearly elucidate
teachers’ beliefs, practices, and influences. Second, I would follow teachers over a longer period.
A longitudinal study has several advantages. It would enable me to measure and document
changes in teachers’ practices. In addition, it would let me determine how the context and culture
of the school influence teachers’ behaviors. Finally, more time and opportunities to observe
classroom practices could give the depth and breadth to how teachers enact instruction.
Conclusion
This study’s purpose was to understand teachers’ pedagogical beliefs and constructivist
practices in a technology-rich environment. A 1:1 PC tablet classroom provided a uniform
teaching and learning context to employ a multiple case study to examine teachers’ beliefs and
practices. Consequently, in the context of a 1:1 PC tablet classroom, the study set out to address
how teachers’ pedagogical beliefs are evident in teachers’ practices, how the goals of
TEACHER BELIEFS AND PRACTICES 105
constructivism are evident in teachers’ practices, and how teachers perceive the context to have
influenced their beliefs and practices. Addressing these questions contributes to existing
literature and research that attempted to elucidate the role and relationships between teachers’
conceptions of teaching and learning and constructivist-compatible practices as a result of
ubiquitous technology integration. Technology integration, pedagogical beliefs, and
constructivism are three constructs that hold individual importance in education and research and
additionally were the focus in this study. Overall, this study highlights the continued importance
of understanding the teacher who is ultimately charged with enacting instruction in the
classroom.
TEACHER BELIEFS AND PRACTICES 106
References
Becker, H. J., & Ravitz, J. (1999). The influence of computer and internet use on teachers'
pedagogical practices and perceptions. Journal of Research on Computing in
Education, 31(4), 356.
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.) (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind,
experience, and school. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
Chen, C. (2008). Why do teachers not practice what they believe regarding technology
integration? The Journal of Educational Research, 102(1), 65–75.
Chung, S., & Walsh, D. (2000). Unpacking child-centeredness: A history of meanings. Journal
of Curriculum Studies, 32(2), 215–234.
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and procedures for
developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Cuban, L., Kirkpatrick, H., & Peck, C. (2001). High access and low use of technologies in high
school classrooms: Explaining an apparent paradox. American Educational Research
Journal, 38(4), 813.
Culp, K. M., Honey, M., & Mandinach, E. (2005). A retrospective on twenty years of education
technology policy. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 32(3), 279–307.
Dawson, K., Cavanaugh, C., & Ritzhaupt, A. D. (2009). Florida's EETT leveraging laptops
initiative and its impact on teaching practices. Journal of Research on Technology in
Education, 41(2), 143–159.
TEACHER BELIEFS AND PRACTICES 107
De Jong, F. P. C. M. (1995). Process-oriented instruction: Some considerations. European
Journal of Psychology of Education, 10(4), 317–323.
de Kock, A., Sleegers, P., & Voeten, M. J. M. (2004). New learning and the classification of
learning environments in secondary education. Review of Educational Research, 74(2), 14–
170.
Dewey, J. (1956). The child and the curriculum. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Dexter, S. L., Anderson, R. E., & Becker, H. J. (1999). Teacher's views of computers as catalysts
for changes in their teaching practice. Journal of Research on Computing in
Education, 31(3), 221.
Driscoll, M. P. (2000). Psychology of learning for instruction (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn &
Bacon.
Dwyer, D. C. (1990). The evolution of teachers' instructional beliefs and practices in high-
access-to-technology classrooms. Annual Meeting of the American Education Research
Asociation, (pp. 1-48). Boston.
Dwyer, D. C., Ringstaff, C., & Sandholtz, J. H. (1991). Changes in teachers’ beliefs and
practices in technology-rich classrooms. Educational Leadership, 48(8), 45.
Ertmer, P. A. (1999). Addressing first- and second-order barriers to change: Strategies for
technology integration. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 47(4), 47.
Ertmer, P. A. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for technology
integration? Educational Technology, Research and Development, 53(4), 25–39.
Ertmer, P. A., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A., & York, C. S. (2007). Exemplary technology-using
teachers: Perceptions of factors influencing success. Journal of Computing in Teacher
Education, 23(2), 55–61.
TEACHER BELIEFS AND PRACTICES 108
Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. (2010). Teacher technology change: How knowledge,
confidence, beliefs, and culture intersect. Journal of Research on Technology in
Education, 42(3), 255–284.
Ertmer, P. A., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A., Sadik, O., Sendurur, E., & Sendurur, P. (2012). Teacher
beliefs and technology integration practices: A critical relationship. Computers &
Education, 59(2), 423–435.
Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. (2013). Removing obstacles to the pedagogical changes
required by Jonassen’s vision of authentic technology-enabled learning. Computers &
Education, 64, 175–182.
Fullan, M. G. (1992). School snapshot: Focus on collaborative work culture. Educational
Leadership, 49(5), 21.
Gray, L., & Lewis, L. (2009). Educational technology in public school districts: Fall 2008
(NCES 2010-003). Washington DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of
Education Sciences, U. S. Department of Education.
Grimes, D., & Warschauer, M. (2008). Learning with laptops: A multi-method case
study. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 38(3), 305–332.
Guskey, T. R. (2002). Professional development and teacher change. Teachers and Teaching:
Theory and Practice, 8(3), 381–391.
Hernandez-Ramos, P. (2005). If not here, where? Understanding teachers’ use of technology in
Silicon Valley schools. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38(1), 39–64.
Hew, K. F., & Brush, T. (2007). Integrating technology into K–12 teaching and learning: Current
knowledge gaps and recommendations for future research. Educational Technology,
Research and Development, 55(3), 223–252.
TEACHER BELIEFS AND PRACTICES 109
Hogarty, K. Y., Lang, T. R., & Kromrey, J. D. (2003). Another look at technology use in
classrooms: The development and validation of an instrument to measure teachers'
perceptions. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 63(1), 139–162.
Jonassen, D. H. (1996). Computers in the classroom: Mindtools for critical thinking. Columbus,
OH: Merrill/Prentice Hall.
Jonassen, D. (2003). Using cognitive tools to represent problems. Journal of Research on
Technology in Education, 35(3), 362.
Judson, E. (2006). How teachers integrate technology and their beliefs about learning: Is there a
connection? Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 14(3), 581–597.
Kagan, D. M. (1992). Implications of research on teacher beliefs. Educational
Psychologist, 27(1), 65.
Keengwe, J., Schnellert, G., & Mills, C. (2012). Laptop initiative: Impact on instructional
technology integration and student learning. Education and Information
Technologies, 17(2), 137–146.
Kim, C., Kim, M. K., Lee, C., Spector, M. J., & DeMeester, K. (2013). Teacher beliefs and
technology integration. Teaching and Teacher Education: An International Journal of
Research and Studies, 29, 76–85.
Kozma, R. B. (1991). Learning with media. Review of Educational Research,61, 179–212.
Kulik, C.-L. C., & Kulik, J. A. (1991). Effectiveness of computer-based instruction:
An updated analysis. Computers in Human Behavior, 7, 75–94.
Kulik, J. A. (1994). Meta-analytic studies of findings on computer-based instruction. In E. L.
Baker & H. F. O’Neill, Jr. (Eds.), Technology assessment in education and training (pp. 9–
33). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
TEACHER BELIEFS AND PRACTICES 110
Levin, T., & Wadmany, R. (2006). Teachers' beliefs and practices in technology-based
classrooms: A developmental view. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 39(2),
157–181.
Levin, T., & Wadmany, R. (2008). Teachers' views on factors affecting effective integration of
information technology in the classroom: Developmental scenery. Journal of Technology
and Teacher Education, 16(2), 233–263.
Lim, C. P. (2007). Effective integration of ICT in Singapore schools: Pedagogical and policy
implications. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 55(1), 83–116.
Matzen, N. J., & Edmunds, J. A. (2007). Technology as a catalyst for change: The role of
professional development. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 39(4), 417–
430.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Los
Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.
McCombs, B. L., & Whisler, J. S. (1997). The learner-centered classroom and school:
Strategies for increasing student motivation and achievement. Jossey-Bass: San Francisco.
McGrail, E. (2007). Laptop technology and pedagogy in the English language arts
classroom. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 15(1), 59–85.
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Mouza, C. (2003). Learning to teach with new technology: Implications for professional
development. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 35(2), 272–289.
Munby, H. (1982). The place of teachers' beliefs in research on teacher thinking and decision
making, and an alternative methodology. Instructional Science, 11(3), 201–225.
TEACHER BELIEFS AND PRACTICES 111
National Center for Education Statistics. (2006). Internet access in U.S. Public schools and
classrooms: 1994–2005. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education: Author.
National Education Association – American Federation of Teachers (NEA – AFT). (2008).
Access, adequacy, and equity in education technology: Results of a survey of America’s
teachers and support professionals on technology in public schools and classrooms.
Washington, D.C.: Author.
National Research Council. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school.
Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
Nespor, J. (1987). The role of beliefs in the practice of teaching. Journal of Curriculum
Studies, 19(4), 317–328.
Newmann, F., & Associates. (1996). Authentic achievement. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Niederhauser, D. S., & Stoddart, T. (2001). Teachers' instructional perspectives and use of
educational software. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 15-31.
Orrill, C. (2001). Building technology-based, learner-centered classrooms: The evolution of a
professional development framework. Educational Technology, Research and
Development, 49(1), 15.
Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A., 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.
Pajares, F. M. (1992). Teachers' beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy
construct. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307–332.
Palak, D., & Walls, R. T. (2009). Teachers' beliefs and technology practices: A mixed-methods
approach. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 41(4), 417–441.
TEACHER BELIEFS AND PRACTICES 112
Partnership for 21st Century Learning. (2007). Framework for 21st century learning.
Phillips, D. C. (1995). The good, the bad, the ugly: The many faces of constructivism.
Educational Researcher, 24(7), 5–12.
Piaget, J. (1971). Biology and knowledge. Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh Press.
Prensky, M. (2010). Teaching digital natives: Partnering for real learning. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Corwin.
Prestridge, S. (2012). The beliefs behind the teacher that influences their ICT
practices. Computers & Education, 58(1), 449–458.
Project Tomorrow. (2008). 21st century learners deserve a 21st century education, Selected
National Findings of the Speak Up 2007 Survey.
Project Tomorrow. (2009). Learning in the 21st century: 2009 trends update. Speak up 2009
National Findings.
Project Tomorrow. (2011). The new 3 E’s of Education: Enabled, engaged, empowered—How
today’s educators are advancing a new vision for teaching and learning. Speak up 2010
National Findings.
Putnam, R. T., & Borko, H. (2000). What do new views of knowledge and thinking have to say
about research on teacher learning? Educational Researcher, 29(1), 4–15.
Rakes, G. C., Fields, V. S., & Cox, K. E. (2006). The influence of teachers' technology use on
instructional practices. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38(4), 409–424.
Ravitz, J. L., Becker, H. J., & Wong, Y. (2000). Constructivist-compatible beliefs and practices
among U.S. teachers. Teaching, learning, and computing: 1998 national survey report
#4 Teaching Learning & Computing, Department of Education, University of California,
Irvine.
TEACHER BELIEFS AND PRACTICES 113
Richey, R. C., & Seels, B. (1994). Defining a field: A case study of the development of the 1994
definition of instructional technology. Educational Media and Technology Yearbook, 20 (2),
17.
Rokeach, M. (1968). A theory of organization and change within value-attitude systems. The
Journal of Social Issues, 24(1), 13–33.
Sadker, M. P., & Sadker, D. M. (2003). Teachers, schools, and society (6th edition.). New York,
NY: McGraw-Hill.
Semel, S. F., & Sadovnik, A. R. (1999). Progressive education: Lessons from the past and
present. In S. F. Semel & A. R. Sadovnik (Eds.), Schools of tomorrow, schools of today:
What happened to progressive education (pp. 353-376). New York, NY: Lang.
Shepard, L. A. (2000). The role of assessment in a learning culture. Educational
Researcher, 29(7), 4–14.
Sultan, W. H., Woods, P. C., & Ah-Choo Koo. (2011). A constructivist approach for digital
learning: Malaysian schools case study. Journal of Educational Technology &
Society, 14(4), 149-n/a.
U. S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology. (2010). Transforming
American Education: Learning powered by technology. In National Educational
Technology Plan 2010.
Voogt, J. (2009). How different are ICT-supported pedagogical practices from extensive and
non-extensive ICT-using science teachers? Education and Information Technologies, 14(4),
325–343.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
TEACHER BELIEFS AND PRACTICES 114
Wachira, P., Vonderwell, S., & Keengwe, J. (2008). Palm handheld technology in pre-service
teacher education. The International Journal for Technology in Mathematics
Education, 15(4), 151–155.
Wang, Q. (2008). A generic model for guiding the integration of ICT into teaching and
learning. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 45(4), 411–419.
Washington State, Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (2002). Washington State
Educational Technology Plan: a blueprint for Washington K-12 common schools and
learning communities.
Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (1998). Understanding by design. Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Wilson, B. (1996). What is a constructivist learning environment? In B. Wilson (Ed.),
Constructivist learning environments: Case studies in instructional design (pp. 3–8).
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
Windschitl, M. (2002). Framing constructivism in practice as the negotiation of dilemmas: An
analysis of the conceptual, pedagogical, cultural, and political challenges facing
teachers. Review of Educational Research, 72(2), 131–175.
Windschitl, M., & Sahl, K. (2002). Tracing teachers' use of technology in a laptop computer
school: The interplay of teacher beliefs, social dynamics, and institutional culture. American
Educational Research Journal, 39(1), 165.
Wong, E. M. L., Li, S. S. C., Choi, T., & Lee, T. (2008). Insights into innovative classroom
practices with ICT: Identifying the impetus for change. Journal of Educational Technology
& Society, 11(1).
TEACHER BELIEFS AND PRACTICES 115
Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3
rd
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Zhao, Y., Pugh, K., Sheldon, S., & Byers, J. L. (2002). Conditions for classroom technology
innovations. Teachers College Record, 104(3), 482–515.
TEACHER BELIEFS AND PRACTICES 116
Appendix A
Interview Protocol
Inform participants:
*All responses will only be used for the research study purposes
*Pseudonym will be used
*Communicate the number of questions and probing questions may be asked if necessary
*Give brief purpose of the study and why the information they provide is helpful
*Clarification and/or validation of responses will be offered
****************************************************************************
Setting: ____________________ Time Start: _______________
Teacher____________________ Time End: _______________
Date_______________________ Consent to record: Yes No
Subject_____________________
Years Taught_________________
Years Taught on this campus_____________
Interview Questions:
1. As a result of _______years (insert number reported above) of being a classroom teacher,
what do think is the best teaching environment for student learning?
2. What do you feel your role is in students learning?
TEACHER BELIEFS AND PRACTICES 117
Appendix A – continued
3. (Possible transition: You have given me some insight about your beliefs regarding
teaching and learning) Can you give me some more background on your pedagogical
beliefs? (beliefs about teaching and learning)
4.
a. Probe- If your beliefs about teaching and learning existed along a continuum
between teacher-centered and student centered where do you feel you would fall?
Why?
b. Probe- Have they changed over time or as a result of teaching here?
5. Discuss examples of how you think your beliefs are reflected in your planning?
6. Discuss examples of how you think your beliefs are reflected in your instruction in the
classroom?
7. What do you think your strongest influences are when teaching? (Ask about curriculum
or student learning if influences are external)
8. Describe the overall role technology plays in your teaching?
a. Probe- Can you discuss how the PC Tablet is used by students in your classroom?
TEACHER BELIEFS AND PRACTICES 118
Appendix A – continued
b. Probe: Are there other software tools used in your classroom other than what is
required? If so, can you list them?
9. When considering implementing computer technology for instruction, tell me about your
goals for a lesson, type of assignments or assessments?
a. Probe: Can you discuss examples of these?
10. What do you think is your most effective teaching method you use with the PC Tablets?
a. Probe- What would an observer see students doing most of the time with the PC
Tablets in your classroom?
11. What are your perceptions about the learning environment in your classroom?
12. How would you perceive a 1:1 Computing context affects student learning?
13. How would you perceive a 1:1 Computing context affects your practice?
14. Tell me about some of your strengths when it comes to integrating the PC tablet for
instruction?
15. What do feel are some of your weaknesses when it comes to integrating the PC tablet for
instruction?
16. Is there any other information you feel is important for me to know?
TEACHER BELIEFS AND PRACTICES 119
Appendix B
Observation Protocol- Draft
OBSERVATION DATE
Location:
School:
Teacher/Subject:
Time: Begin___________ Time: End______________
Setting Details:
Room Type: Classroom Lab Other
Number of Students Present: _______________
Types of Technology Visible in Classroom:
Room Layout: Fill in Below, Observer (X), Teacher (T), Students (S)
TEACHER BELIEFS AND PRACTICES 120
Observations
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
As access to technology grows, researchers are increasingly seeking to better understand the role instructional technologies have in positively influencing student learning in the classroom. Pedagogical approaches teachers use and the beliefs that undergird them are a dualistic phenomenon impeding effective technology integration. Specifically, a pedagogical belief that is more student centered and that translates into constructivist‐compatible practices is argued to be the critical link toward successful integration of technology. This study’s purpose is to understand teachers’ pedagogical beliefs and constructivist practices in a 1:1 PC tablet context. This study included a sample of four classroom teachers and used a multiple case study approach to address how teachers’ pedagogical beliefs are evident in their practices, how the goals of constructivism are evident in teachers’ practices, and how teachers’ perceive that the context influences their beliefs and practices. Data from semi‐structured interviews, two classroom observations, and documents were used for an individual and cross‐case analysis. The findings suggest that: (1) teachers’ beliefs mediate practices, (2) the type of practices in a 1:1 classroom varies depending on the teacher, and (3) school context and culture are mediating variables for technology integration. Overall, this study holds implications for researchers and practitioners attempting to study and understand: (1) the role that teachers’ pedagogical beliefs play when integrating technology, (2) the influence of technology when examining student‐centered approaches in technology‐rich environments, and (3) suggested methods to support teacher learning that transforms practices in these environments.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Integrated technology: a case study surrounding assertions and realities
PDF
21st century teaching and learning with technology integration at an innovative high school: a case study
PDF
Which grain will grow? Case studies of the impact of teacher beliefs on classroom climate through caring and rigor
PDF
Teachers' pedagogy and perceptions of technology integration: a mixed‐methods case study of kindergarten teachers
PDF
Transformational technology practices in K-12 schools: a case study
PDF
Student perceptions of teacher pedagogical practices in the elementary classroom
PDF
Indonesian teachers' adoption of technology in the K-12 classroom: a TAM-based quantitative study
PDF
The importance of technological training among public school teachers integrating one-to-one computing: an evaluation study
PDF
A multi-case study on teaching practices and how teachers use technology to support scientific inquiry in 1:1 classrooms
PDF
Impact of technology on teaching and learning practices at high‐technology use K-12 schools: a case study
PDF
Technological pedagogical skills among K-12 teachers
PDF
A case study of technology-embedded instruction: a student-centered approach to enhance teaching and learning in a K-12 school
PDF
Integration of technology and teaching and learning practices at a technology magnet elementary school: a case study
PDF
The perception of teachers’ pedagogy of technology integration: a case study of second‐grade teachers
PDF
Transformational technology in K-12 schools: an elementary case study
PDF
Technology, policy, and school change: the role of intermediary organizations
PDF
Models of teaching: indicators influencing teachers' pedagogical choice
PDF
One Hawai’i K-12 complex public school teachers’ level of computer self-efficacy and their acceptance of and integration of technology in the classroom
PDF
Transforming teaching and learning with technology: a case study of a California public school
PDF
The intersections of culturally responsive pedagogy and authentic teacher care in creating meaningful academic learning opportunities for students of color
Asset Metadata
Creator
Lang, Luciana T.
(author)
Core Title
The intersection of technology, pedagogical beliefs, and constructivism: a case study of teachers in 1:1 computing classrooms
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Education (Leadership)
Publication Date
07/10/2015
Defense Date
06/09/2015
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
1:1 computing,constructivism,OAI-PMH Harvest,pedagogical beliefs,student‐centered practices,technology integration
Format
application/pdf
(imt)
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Burch, Patricia E. (
committee chair
), Hentschke, Guilbert (
committee member
), Hyde, Corinne (
committee member
)
Creator Email
lucianal@usc.edu,lulang75@gmail.com
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-591391
Unique identifier
UC11298674
Identifier
etd-LangLucian-3584.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-591391 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-LangLucian-3584.pdf
Dmrecord
591391
Document Type
Dissertation
Format
application/pdf (imt)
Rights
Lang, Luciana T.
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Access Conditions
The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA
Tags
1:1 computing
constructivism
pedagogical beliefs
student‐centered practices
technology integration