Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
This article was downloaded by: [Ams/Girona*barri Lib]On: 06 November 2014, At: 00:49Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Asia-Pacific Journal of TeacherEducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/capj20
Beliefs about teaching and uses oftechnology among pre‐service teachersTimothy Teo a , Ching Sing Chai a , David Hung a & Chwee BengLee aa Nanyang Technological University , SingaporePublished online: 03 Jun 2008.
To cite this article: Timothy Teo , Ching Sing Chai , David Hung & Chwee Beng Lee (2008) Beliefsabout teaching and uses of technology among pre‐service teachers, Asia-Pacific Journal of TeacherEducation, 36:2, 163-174, DOI: 10.1080/13598660801971641
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13598660801971641
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Beliefs about teaching and uses of technology among pre-service teachers
Timothy Teo, Ching Sing Chai*, David Hung and Chwee Beng Lee
Nanyang Technological University, Singapore
In the current learning environments, technology is integrated in different ways.Teachers acting in the capacity of main change agents bring with them beliefsabout teaching which effects their use of technology in the classroom. This studyaims to examine the possible relationship between teachers’ beliefs about teachingand uses of technology. Unlike past research on this issue, the results from thisstudy show that belief in constructivist teaching correlates significantly with bothconstructivist and traditional uses of technology. However, a belief in traditionalteaching is only significantly correlated (negatively) with constructivist use oftechnology. Implications for teaching training and future research are discussed.
Keywords: beliefs; learning; pre-service teachers; teaching; technology
Introduction
Computers are increasingly widespread, influencing many aspects of our social and
work lives, as well as many of our leisure activities. Today, it is commonplace to see
teachers using technology for a variety of purposes including record keeping, writing
lesson plans, creating worksheets and communicating with parents. However,
despite the widespread use of technology in schools, it seems that teachers are more
inclined to use technology to support their existing practices (such as providingpractice drills, demonstration). Teachers’ use of technology that involve higher order
thinking and student-centred learning are yet to be a common sight (Becker &
Ravitz, 2001; Fox & Henri, 2005; Lim & Chai, in press). Ertmer (2005) postulates
that one possible reason for the lack of change towards student-centred pedagogy,
given the widespread provision of computers in classroom, could be due to the
beliefs that teachers hold. The aim of this study is to examine the association between
teacher beliefs about teaching and learning and how they use technology in the
classroom.
Teachers’ use of technology
Given that teachers act as change agents for technology integration in schools (Zhao,
Hueyshan, & Mishra, 2001), it is critical to understand the factors that facilitate and
those that act as barriers to teachers’ use of technology in schools. Research hasfound that teachers’ use of technology is influenced by many factors (Leggett, &
Persichitte, 1998; Pelgrum, 2001; Zhao, Pugh, Sheldon, & Byers, 2002). Broadly
speaking, the factors can be classified as either arising from the external
environments where the teachers work in or the personal characteristics of the
teachers (Chai & Khine, 2006). While both internal and external conditions affect
technology use in classrooms, Ertmer (2005) argues that although environmental
*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education
Vol. 36, No. 2, May 2008, 163–174
ISSN 1359-866X print/ISSN 1469-2945 online
� 2008 Australian Teacher Education Association
DOI: 10.1080/13598660801971641
http://www.informaworld.com
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Am
s/G
iron
a*ba
rri L
ib]
at 0
0:49
06
Nov
embe
r 20
14
conditions in terms of technological infrastructures have improved, factors
pertaining to teachers’ beliefs are yet to be resolved.
Research about teachers’ attributes are variously grouped into personal
characteristics such as:
N Attitudes towards technology (Chang & Cheung, 2001; Choi, Choi, Kim, &
Yu, 2003; Jeong & Lambert, 2002).
N Self-efficacy (Hasan, 2006).
N Perceived attributes of technology such as perceived usefulness (Dasgupta,
Granger, & McGarry, 2002; Landry, Griffeth, & Hartman, 2006).
N Perceived ease of use (Kiraz & Ozdemir, 2006; Klaus, Gyire, & Wen, 2003).
N Complexity (Cheung & Huang, 2005).
N Perceived influence and support from the environment such as facilitating
conditions (Groves & Zemel, 2000; Gueldenzoph, Guidera, Whipple, Mertler,
& Dutton, 2000).
N Subjective norms (Fusilier & Durlabhji, 2005).
N Teachers’ pedagogical beliefs (Lim & Chan, 2007).
These myriad beliefs are likely to be related to each other and they interact
dynamically in influencing teachers’ decisions about the use of technology in the
classrooms. Among these factors, Lim and Chan (2007) argue that investigation on
teachers’ beliefs about teaching and learning is critical for understanding how
teachers use technology in their classrooms.
Teachers integrate technology in different ways. Some teachers use technology
mainly for presentation purposes while others allow students a full reign of
technology resources. It is possible that how teachers use technology for
instructional purposes is influenced by their beliefs about teaching and learning.
For example, a teacher who believes that the best way for students to learn content is
through informative teacher-led instruction will be less inclined to use technology as
a tool for students to explore. This view was supported by previous research that
found teachers’ beliefs to have an influence on not only how they organised their
classrooms and interacted with students, but how they act in the classroom
(Hannafin & Savenye, 1993). How teachers integrate technology in the classroom
was a focus of Tubin’s (2006) study, which found that teachers tend to use
technology in two ways. The first way is to attain the same traditional goals under
the same conditions, without significant changes to the classroom activities. The
second are those who use technology to expand classroom boundaries, connect
students to real-world events, and guide students towards becoming independent
learners. The former is known as Type I, the latter, Type II use of technology.
Becker’s (2000) study indicates that teachers who are more aligned to the Type II
application of computers are also more oriented towards constructivist beliefs.
Teachers’ beliefs about teaching
Beliefs about teaching are referred to as ‘‘preferred ways of teaching’’ by teachers.
Generally, these beliefs are broadly classified under the knowledge transmission
category or the knowledge construction category (Entwistle, Skinner, Entwistle &
Orr, 2000; Samuelowicz & Bian, 2001; Chan & Elliot, 2004). These studies suggest
that teacher beliefs are strong predictors of their classroom decisions and knowledge.
164 T. Teo et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Am
s/G
iron
a*ba
rri L
ib]
at 0
0:49
06
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Because of constructivism’s focus on knowledge construction, this theory is of
interest to all who are concerned with learning and teaching. Wilson (1996) draws
parallels from one’s view of knowledge with one’s view of instruction. He suggested,
for instance, that if knowledge is viewed as content to be transmitted, then
instruction is probably seen as a product to be delivered. Similarly, if knowledge is
conceptualised as a cognitive state, then instruction is thought of as instructional
strategies designed to affect one’s schemas. And if knowledge is perceived as
personally constructed meanings, then instruction can be recognised as a rich
environment on which one might draw. Constructivism is typically contrasted with
the transmissionist model of learning. That is, instead of focusing on learning objects
which are transmitted from one person to another, students and teachers are engaged
in a community in which learning is the result of interactions, reflections and
experiences (Howard, McGee, Schwartz, & Purcell, 2000).
Teachers who embrace constructivist beliefs would organise student-centred
activities that promote independent learning, group discussions and student
meaning-making. Generally, they place more emphasis on the process of learning
(Brooks, 2002). On the other hand, the transmissionist learning model views the
teacher as the source of knowledge and students as passive recipients of knowledge.
This model emphasises learning by receiving information and the main responsibility
of the teacher is to source for knowledge and transmit this to students to learn the
concepts that meet specific learning outcomes (Howard et al., 2000). The teacher
who believes that the traditional model of teaching is the optimal method would use
direct instruction most of the time, direct students to focus on the textbook, act as
the sole provider of knowledge, and discourage students’ participation in the
teaching process. This dichotomous characterisation of broad orientations about
teachers’ beliefs is further supported by Samuelowicz and Bian’s (2001) research,
employing the grounded theory approach. They further delineated nine dimensions
that they employed to differentiate the beliefs. These dimensions include desired
learning outcomes, expected use of knowledge, ownership for knowledge organisa-
tion and transformation, nature of knowledge, students’ existing conceptions,
teacher–student interaction, control of content, professional development and
interest and motivation. Depending on a teacher’s position along these dimensions,
he/she may be more inclined towards the transmissionists or the constructivists. It is
important to note that there is a possibility that some teachers hold mixed beliefs
about teaching and learning (ibid.). A study by Van Driel, Bulte, and Verloop (2005)
reported that it was possible to hold mixed beliefs about teaching and learning. This
was shown by about three quarters of the chemistry teachers they surveyed (N5348)
whose self-report indicated an espousal of mixed beliefs about teaching and learning.
To date, research on the relationship between teachers’ beliefs and use of
technology is limited and inconsistent. Ravitz and Becker (2000) suggested that
technology use by teachers was related to teachers’ belief in more student-centred
classroom practices. A survey by Ravitz, Becker and Wong (2000) found that
teachers who used technology more extensively also reported greater changes in their
teaching practices in a constructivist direction. In a constructivist situation, learners
undergo a process in which they actively construct knowledge and create products
that are personally meaningful (Richardson, 1997). Under such circumstances, the
teacher acts as a facilitator to guide students to make sense of information. However,
direct connection between a student-centred, constructivist approach to teaching and
Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education 165
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Am
s/G
iron
a*ba
rri L
ib]
at 0
0:49
06
Nov
embe
r 20
14
use of technology in the classrooms is often unwarranted without empirical study
(Harris & Grandgenett, 1999). They found no significant correlation between
teachers’ beliefs and use of technology. However, Harris and Grandgenett (1999)
also cautioned that the findings could be due to a design issue where no distinction
was made between teachers’ use of technology for teaching and for personal use. In
this study, teachers who reported a high level of innovativeness in the use of
technology also perceived themselves as more student-centred in their teaching
practices.
Earlier research by Chai, Lourdusamy and Khine (in press) has detected gender
differences among pre-service teachers in terms of their epistemological outlooks. As
beliefs about teaching and learning could be associated with epistemological
outlooks, we have included gender as a variable. As for the inclusion of age as an
variable, this is due to the unique context of teacher recruitment in Singapore. In her
effort to build up the teaching force, Singapore has encouraged mid-career persons
to enter the teaching service. Whether or not these pre-service teachers who are
typically more than 30-years-old with ample working experiences hold similar
teaching beliefs is a question of interest. It could also inform the teacher educator if
differentiated instruction is warranted for these pre-service teachers.
In this paper, we attempt to clarify the relationships between teachers’ beliefs
about constructivist teaching and traditional teaching and their respective beliefs
about the use of technology in classroom. It is hoped that this study would
contribute to the limited research in this area and add clarity to the relationships
among these beliefs. The results would also help to inform teacher educators to
facilitate changes among pre-service teachers. The research questions are shown
below:
N Is there a significant relationship between one’s beliefs about teaching and use
of technology?
N Is the use of technology significantly predicted by beliefs about teaching,
gender and age?
Method
Design of the study
This study uses the survey method. Data was collected using an online survey form
specially created for this study and the web site address was made available to all
participants who volunteered.
Participants
A total of 582 pre-service teachers participated in the study. Of these, 375 were
graduates who were enrolled in a one-year Postgraduate Diploma in Education
(PGDE) programme and 207 were non-graduates who were enrolled in the two-year
Diploma in Education (Dip.Ed.) programme at a teacher training institute in
Singapore. All participants had at least six months of school teaching experience
prior to joining the institute. There were 354 (60.8%) females and 228 (39.2%) males
and the mean age of the participants was 27.31 years (SD55.58). All respondents
were in the first six months of their study when they participated in this study.
166 T. Teo et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Am
s/G
iron
a*ba
rri L
ib]
at 0
0:49
06
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Procedure
An announcement was made on the Institute’s Learning Management System
(Blackboard) to request for pre-service teachers to participate in this study. It was
stated that participation in this study was voluntary and that no course credit wouldbe given. Those who were interested in participating were asked to click on an URL
that led them to an online survey questionnaire. Participants provided some
demographic details (e.g., gender, age), but not their names. Most participants took
between 10 to 15 minutes to complete the questionnaire. From a student population
of 1410, 41.2% (582) participated in this study.
Instruments
Beliefs about teaching was measured by the Traditional Teaching (TT) and
Constructivist Teaching (CT) scales developed by Chan and Elliot (2004) and was
validated with 385 pre-service teachers in Hong Kong. A high overall reliability
coefficient (.84) was reported. About six months prior to this study, the TT and CT
scales were pilot tested on a sample (N5957) of pre-service teachers at the Institutewhere this study was conducted and the Cronbach alphas were .76 and .88
respectively. There are nine items for the TT scale and five items for the CT scale.
Examples of the items in the TT and CT scales are ‘‘Teaching is simply telling,
presenting or explaining the subject matter’’ and ‘‘Students should be given many
opportunities to express their ideas’’ respectively. Each item was assessed using a
five-point scale with 15‘‘strongly disagree’’ and 55‘‘strongly agree’’.
The measure to assess the use of technology was adapted from the section on the
objectives of computer use from Becker and Riel’s (1999) Teaching, Learning and
Computer National Survey. Although not explicitly stated by Becker and Riel
(1999), the objectives of computer use could be grouped into uses that could be
described as more traditional (e.g., as tutorials, drill and practice, web searches for
factual information) and those that were more constructivist (e.g., computer
modelling and simulation programs, computer supported collaborative learning
systems, presentations software for student class presentation on group projects).Consisting of 10 items, there were five examples of how teachers would make use of
technology in a constructivist (‘‘Learning to work independently’’) or in a traditional
way (‘‘Presenting information to an audience’’). Each item was assessed using a five-
point scale with 15‘‘strongly disagree’’ and 55‘‘strongly agree’’.
Results
Table 1 shows the descriptive statistics for the beliefs about teaching and use of
technology scales.
Table 1. Mean, standard deviation and Cronbach alphas of the four scales (N5582).
No. of item Mean SD Alpha
Traditional teaching (TT) 9 4.22 .45 .72
Constructivist teaching (CT) 5 2.25 .65 .79
Traditional use (TU) 5 4.17 .52 .87
Constructivist use (CU) 5 4.00 .54 .90
Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education 167
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Am
s/G
iron
a*ba
rri L
ib]
at 0
0:49
06
Nov
embe
r 20
14
The mean score for all the scales was high except for CT (2.25). The value for the
standard deviation for all scale was small, indicating that there was little dispersion
in the spread of participants’ responses. Internal consistency was measured using
Cronbach alpha and these ranged from .72 to .90, indicating an acceptable level of
reliability of the scales used in this study.
To assess the association between beliefs about teaching and use of technology, a
correlation matrix was computed. This is shown in Table 2.
The result of the correlation analysis revealed that while CT is significantly
correlated with CU and TU, TT was only significantly correlated with CU
(negative). In addition, there was a weak negative association (2.077) between TT
and TU. Within the beliefs about teaching, CT and TT are significantly negatively
correlated and this is expected as they represent different teaching practices. It is
unlikely that the same teacher would teach in a traditional way but use technology in
a constructivist way.
Tables 3 and 4 show separate multiple regressions were conducted with TU and
CU as dependent variables and TT, CT, gender, and age as independent variables.
Using the Enter method, a significant model emerged for TU (F4,577554.162,
p,.001), adjusted R square5.268. The results showed that for TU was significantly
predicted by CT (b5.517, p,.001) and age b52.102, p,.005). A significant model
Table 2. Correlation between beliefs about teaching and use of technology.
CT TT CU
TT 2.255*
CU .590* 2.146*
TU .509* 2.077 .771*
Notes: ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Table 3. Multiple regression analysis for traditional uses of technology.
Unstandardized coefficients Standardized coefficients
T Sig.B Std. error Beta
(Constant) 1.596 .254 6.284 .000
CT .627 .045 .517 13.969 .000
Age 2.010 .004 2.102 22.809 .005
Note: CT5constructivist uses of technology.
Table 4. Multiple regression analysis for constructivist uses of technology.
Unstandardized coefficients Standardized coefficients
t Sig.B Std. error Beta
(Constant) 1.472 .230 6.407 .000
CT .681 .041 .586 16.768 .000
Age 2.006 .003 2.066 21.926 .055
Note: CT5constructivist uses of technology.
168 T. Teo et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Am
s/G
iron
a*ba
rri L
ib]
at 0
0:49
06
Nov
embe
r 20
14
also emerged for CU (F4,577578.588, p,.001), adjusted R square5.348. The results
showed that CU was significantly predicted by CT (b5.586, p,.001) and age
(b52.066, p,.05). In both uses of technology, CT and age were significant
predictors. It should also be noted that a one standard deviation increase in TU and
CU would lead to a decrease in standard deviation of .102 and .066 respectively,
suggesting an inverse relationship between the use of technology and age. Both TU
and CU were not significantly predicted by TT and gender.
Discussion
Based on the mean scores for CT and TT, it seems that this sample of Singaporean
pre-service teachers are more inclined towards the view of teaching as transmissionist
rather than teaching as an act of facilitating students’ construction of knowledge.
This finding is very different from another earlier research reported by Chai,
Lourdusamy and Khine (in press) who, using the same instrument from Chan and
Elliot (2004) to survey another group of pre-service teachers (N5877). They found
pre-service teachers were more inclined towards CT (12 items, mean54.11, a50.88)
rather than TT (18 items, mean52.62, a50.85). The disparity could be due to the
different profiles of students obtained in Chai et al.’s (in press) study and our current
study. Careful comparison revealed that the main difference was in the number of
items employed for each scale and the sample structure. In Chai et al.’s study, only
postgraduate pre-service teachers (who may have no teaching experience) were
surveyed. Chai and colleagues also reported that teaching experience may have
raised the teachers’ conception of TT significantly. In the current study, all the pre-
service teachers have had at least six months of teaching experiences and as such may
possess a more realistic conception of the practice of teaching (i.e., traditional
cognitivist approach). It is possible that the influence of the school community is
crucial to the formation of a teacher’s beliefs about constructivist use of technology
and this should not be overlooked, especially in the first few years upon graduation
from teacher training. More studies among practicing teachers are required in order
to map out the changes in the teachers’ beliefs as they progress from pre-service stage
into fully fledged teachers.
Singapore schools are well known for producing high achievement test scores in
subjects such as mathematics and science (Borja, 2004). Recent studies of Singapore
classroom practice seem to indicate that this achievement may be due to a highly
efficient and generally cognitivist teaching approach practised by teachers. For
example, Liu, Kotov, Rahim and Goh (2004) reported that Singaporean Chinese
language teachers usually direct the conversation in the classroom through highly
structured recitation and that the classroom discourse was also characterised as
highly content-focused. However, Borja (2004) pointed out that, increasingly so,
education authorities in Singapore have advocated and facilitated teachers to move
beyond teacher-centric practices in schools and shift their pedagogical practices
towards more student-centred learning (see Jamaludin & Quek, 2006). More efforts
could be put into fostering a constructivist outlook among teachers, a view
supported by a recent study by Lim and Chan (2007) who reported that the pre-
service teachers in Singapore have expressed uncertainties over the compatibility of
the current school learning environments and constructivist approaches to teaching
and learning.
Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education 169
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Am
s/G
iron
a*ba
rri L
ib]
at 0
0:49
06
Nov
embe
r 20
14
There is a significant association between beliefs about teaching and the use of
technology. Constructivist teaching is positively correlated with constructivist use of
technology and this is expected. However, constructivist teaching is also significantly
correlated with the traditional use of technology. This finding is a significant one as
it is not highlighted in the literature where the focus is more on the positive
association between constructivist teaching and constructivist use of technology (see
Becker & Ravitz, 2001; Tubin, 2006). A possible reason for the significant
relationship between constructivist teaching and traditional use of technology is
that the latter was perceived to be more functional than the former. While facilitating
student-centred learning in a constructivist learning environment, a teacher may see
fit to use technology in a traditional way to support these activities. Teacher often
see technology as a means to an end and it was more important to use technology to
achieve learning outcomes than to have to use it in a constructivist way. This is
supported by Plomp, Anderson, Law and Qualw (2003) who found evidence to
suggest that some teachers differentiate learning about technology, learning with
technology, and learning through technology.
A teacher’s belief about teaching has strong impact on the way teaching and
learning takes place in the classroom (Chan & Elliot, 2004). This situation is not
helped in any way when beliefs about teaching are considered in relation to the use of
technology. For many years, the belief that technology can transform teaching and
learning has remained strongly etched in the minds of educators (Maddux &
Johnson, 2006). This study has shown that a factor that influences how teachers use
technology is what they believed about teaching. If teachers practice constructivist
teaching, they are likely to use technology in a constructivist or traditional way. On
the contrary, if a teacher believes in traditional teaching, there is a strong likelihood
that technology will be used in a traditional way.
Many studies have been conducted to examine the factors that influence
teachers’ acceptance or adoption of technology (see Hu, Clark, & Ma, 2003; Kiraz &
Ozdemir, 2006, Teo, Lee, & Chai, 2008). However, majority of the studies were
focused on whether or not teachers use technology in their teaching practices. This
study contributes to the technology usage discussion by examining the way teachers
use technology, either in a traditional teacher-directed or constructivist learner-
centred way.
The challenge of integrating technology into the classroom has provided a
motivation for teacher educators to engage in continual improvements in the
curriculum to equip teachers who could cope with the multifarious demands in the
school environment. These include examining why teachers often resort to very
simple (traditional) use of technology despite the investment made to ensure that the
infrastructure and training are in place. Specifically, if constructive use of technology
is advocated, then teachers should be guided to become well-versed with the
principles of the constructivist use of technology and be acquainted with the impact
of such practices on the learning outcomes in their classrooms.
This study also found that gender was not a significant predictor in the use of
technology. Contrary to early research on the effect of gender on the use of
technology that showed significant differences (see Armitage, 1993; Whitley, 1997),
recent research found evidence to suggest that there was no significant differences
between male and female users of technology (Teo, 2006). This, according to North
and Noyes (2002), could be due to the increased use of computers for teaching and
170 T. Teo et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Am
s/G
iron
a*ba
rri L
ib]
at 0
0:49
06
Nov
embe
r 20
14
learning in schools and the opportunities created by policy-makers for all students to
acquire computer skills to cope with greater challenges in education (Teo, 2006). In
the Singapore context, equity in the use of technology was provided for by the
government (MOE, 2006) that aims, among other things, to provide opportunities to
all students to use technology actively for learning.
Future research should be done to assess other beliefs held by teachers (e.g.,
beliefs about learning, beliefs about knowledge) and how different types of beliefs
interact to impact on teachers’ use of technology. In additional to beliefs about
teaching, other factors that affect technology integration should also be considered
in parallel. The issues surrounding technology use and acceptance by teachers are
plenty, and all too often these issues are not examined simultaneously. One
possibility is to employ the use of structural equation modeling as a tool to analyse
the direct and indirect effects of various factors on teachers’ use of technology. In
this and other studies, self-reports were used to collect data. A limitation of this
method is that participants may practice differently from what they had reported in a
research situation. Future studies may include more than one method of data
collection (e.g., self-reports, observations, interviews) to achieve greater validity of
the data.
Notes on contributors
Timothy Teo is an assistant professor at the National Institute of Education, Nanyang
Technological University, Singapore. His research interests include teacher’s beliefs,
technology acceptance and computer attitudes. Timothy is also interested in the application
of structural equation modeling and multivariate data analysis on the above research areas.
Ching Sing Chai is currently an assistant professor at the National Institute of Education,
Nanyang Technological University. His research interest is in the field of teachers’ beliefs and
computer-supported collaborative learning.
David Hung is currently an associate dean at the National Institute of Education, in the area
of the learning sciences. His own research interests include communities of practice, situated
cognition, and social constructivism.
Chwee Beng Lee is currently an assistant professor of the learning sciences and technologies at
the National Institute of Education. Her research interests include the development of
computer-mediated learning environments for problem solving and conceptual change.
References
Armitage, D. (1993). Where are the girls? Increasing female participation in computer, math,
and science education. In D. Carey, R. Carey, D.A. Willis, & J. Willis (Eds.), Technology
and teacher education annual. Proceedings of the Annual Conference on Technology and
Technology Education (pp. 14–18). Charlottesville, VA: Association for Advancement of
Computing in Education.
Becker, H.J. (2000). Findings from the teaching, learning, and computing survey: Is Larry
Cuban right? Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8(51), Retrieved April 12, 2007, from
http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v8n51/.
Becker, H.J., & Ravitz, J.L. (2001). Computer use by teachers: Are Cuban’s predictions correct?
Paper presented at the 2001 Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, Seattle, Washington. Retrieved March 3, 2007, from http://www.crito.
uci.edu/tlc/findings/conferences-pdf/aera_2001.pdf.
Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education 171
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Am
s/G
iron
a*ba
rri L
ib]
at 0
0:49
06
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Becker, H.J., & Riel, M.M. (1999). Teacher professionalism and emergence of constructivist-
compatible pedagogies Teacher, Learning and Computer: 1998 National Survey, Report
#7. Centre for Research on Information Technology and Organisations and University
of Minnesota.
Borja, R.R. (2004). Smarts no longer good enough for Singapore students. Education Week,
23(41), 8.
Brooks, J.G. (2002). Schooling for life: Reclaiming the essence of learning. Alexandria, VA:
ASCD.
Chai, C.S., Lourdusamy, A., & Khine, M.S. (in press). Assessing the epistemological and
pedagogical beliefs among pre-service teachers in Singapore. In M.S. Khine (Ed.),
Knowing, knowledge and beliefs: Epistemological studies across diverse cultures.
Netherland: Springer.
Chai, C.S., & Khine, M.S. (2006). Understanding ICT integration in schools. In M.S. Khine
(Ed.), Teaching with technology: Strategies for engaging learners (pp. 49–62). Singapore:
Prentice Hall.
Chan, K.W., & Elliot, R.G. (2004). Relational analysis of personal epistemology and
conceptions about teaching and learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20, 817–831.
Chang, M.K., & Cheung, W. (2001). Determinants of the intention to use Internet/www at
work: A confirmatory study. Information and Management, 39, 1–14.
Cheung, W., & Huang, W. (2005). Proposing a framework to assess Internet usage in
university education: an empirical investigation from a student’s perspective. British
Journal of Educational Technology, 36(2), 237–253.
Choi, H., Choi, M., Kim, J., & Yu, H. (2003). An empirical study on the adoption of
information appliances with a focus on interactive TV. Telematics and Informatics, 20,
161–183.
Dasgupta, S., Granger, M., & McGarry, N. (2002). User acceptance of E-collaboration
technology: An extension of the Technology Acceptance Model. Group Decision and
Negotiation, 11(2), 87–100.
Entwistle, N., Skinner, D., Entwistle, D., & Orr, S. (2000). Conceptions and beliefs about
‘‘good teaching’’: An integration of contrasting research areas. Higher Education
Research and Development, 19(1), 5–26.
Ertmer, P. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for technology
integration? Educational Technology, Research and Development, 53(4), 25–39.
Fox, R., & Henri, J. (2005). Understanding Teacher mindsets: IT and change in Hong Kong
schools. Journal of Educational Technology and Society, 8(2), 161–169.
Fusilier, M., & Durlabhji, S. (2005). An exploration of student internet use in India. Campus-
Wide Information Systems, 22(4), 233–246.
Groves, M.M., & Zemel, P.C. (2000). Instructional technology adoption in higher education:
An action research case study. International Journal of Instructional Media, 27(1), 57.
Gueldenzoph, L.E., Guidera, S., Whipple, D., Mertler, C., & Dutton, L. (2000). Faculty use of
instructional technology in the university classroom. Journal of Educational Technology
Systems, 28(2), 121–135.
Hannafin, R.D., & Savenye, S. (1993). Technology in the classroom: The teacher’s new role
and resistance to it. Educational Technology, 33(6), 26–31.
Harris, J.B., & Grandgenett, N. (1999). Correlates with use of telecomputing tools: K-12
teachers’ beliefs and demographics. Journal of Research on Computing in Education,
31(4), 327–340.
Hasan, B. (2006). Delineating the effects of general and system-specific computer self-efficacy
beliefs on IS acceptance. Information and Management, 43(5), 565–571.
Howard, B.C., McGee, S., Schwartz, N., & Purcell, S. (2000). The experience of
constructivism: Transforming teacher epistemology. Journal of Research on Computing
in Education, 32(4), 455–465.
172 T. Teo et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Am
s/G
iron
a*ba
rri L
ib]
at 0
0:49
06
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Hu, P.J., Clark, T.H.K., & Ma, W.W. (2003). Examining technology acceptance by
schoolteachers: A longitudinal study. Information & Management, 41(2), 227–241.
Jamaludin, A., & Quek, C.L. (2006). Using asynchronous online discussions in primary school
Project Work. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 22(1), 64–87.
Jeong, M., & Lambert, C.U. (2002). Adaptation of an informational quality framework to
measure customers’ behavioral intentions to use lodging web sites. International Journal
of Hospitality Management, 20, 129–146.
Kiraz, E., & Ozdemir, D. (2006). The relationship between educational ideologies and
technology acceptance in pre-service teachers. Educational Technology and Society, 9(2),
152–165.
Klaus, T., Gyires, T., & Wen, H.J. (2003). The use of Web-based information systems for non-
work activities: An empirical study. Human Systems Management, 22(3), 105–114.
Landry, B.J.L., Griffeth, R., & Hartman, S. (2006). Measuring student perceptions of
blackboard using the Technology Acceptance Model. Decision Sciences Journal of
Innovative Education, 4(1), 87–99.
Leggett, W.P., & Persichitte, K.A. (1998). Blood, sweat, and tears: 50 years of technology
implementation obstacle. Techtrends, 33(April/May), 33–36.
Lim, C.P., & Chai, C.S. (in press). Teachers’ pedagogical beliefs and their planning and conduct
of computer-mediated classroom lessons. British Journal of Educational Technology.
Lim, C.P., & Chan, B.C. (2007). microLESSONS in teacher education: Examining pre-service
teachers’ pedagogical beliefs. Computers and Education, 48(4), 474–494.
Liu, Y., Kotov, R., Rahim, R.A., & Goh, H.H. (2004). Chinese language pedagogic practice:
A preliminary snapshot description of Singapore Chinese language classrooms.
Retrieved 29 August, 2005, from http://www.crpp.nie.edu.sg/course/view.php?id5254.
Maddux, C.D., & Johnson, D.L. (2006). Type II applications of information technology in
education: the next revolution. Computers in the Schools, 23(1/2), 1–6.
Ministry of Education, Singapore. (2006). Overview of the Masterplan for IT in education.
Retrieved March 15, 2007, from http://www.moe.gov.sg/edumall/mp2/mp2.htm.
North, A.S., & Noyes, J.M. (2002). Gender influences on children computer attitudes and
cognitions. Computers in Human Behavior, 18, 135–150.
Pelgrum, W.J. (2001). Obstacles to the integration of ICT in education: Results from a
worldwide educational assessment. Computers and Education, 37(3), 163–178.
Plomp, T., Anderson, R.E., Law, N., & Qualw, A. (2003). Cross-national information and
communication technology policy and practices in education. Greenwich, CT: information
Age Publishing.
Ravitz, J.L., & Becker, H.J. (2000). Evidence for computer use being related to more
constructivist practices and to changes in practice in a more constructivist-compatible
direction Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, New Orleans, LA.
Ravitz, J.L., Becker, H.J., & Wong, Y.T. (2000). Constructivist-compatible beliefs and practices
among US teachers (Teaching, Learning and Computing: 1998 National Survey Report).
Irvine, CA: centre for Research on Information Technology and Organization.
Richardson, V. (1997). Constructivist teaching and teacher education: Theory and practice. In
V. Richardson (Ed.), Constructivist teacher education: Building new understandings
(pp. 3–14). Washington, DC: Falmer Press.
Samuelowicz, K., & Bain, J.D. (2001). Revisiting academics’ beliefs about teaching and
learning. Higher Education, 41, 299–325.
Teo, T. (2006). Attitudes towards computers: A study of post-secondary students in
Singapore. Interactive Learning Environments, 14(1), 17–24.
Teo, T., Lee, C.B., & Chai, C.S. (2008). Understanding pre-service teachers’ computer
attitudes: Applying and extending the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM). Journal of
Computer-Assisted Learning, 24, 128–143.
Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education 173
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Am
s/G
iron
a*ba
rri L
ib]
at 0
0:49
06
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Tubin, D. (2006). Typology of ICT implementation and technology application. Computers in
the Schools, 23(1/2), 85–98.
Van Driel, J.H., Bulte, A.M.W., & Verloop, N. (2005). The conceptions of chemistry teachers
about teaching and learning in the context of a curriculum innovation. International
Journal of Science Education, 27(3), 303–322.
Whitely, B. (1997). Gender differences in computer related attitudes and behavior: A meta-
analysis. Computers in Human Behavior, 13, 1–22.
Wilson, B.G. (1996). Constructivist learning environments: Case studies in instructional design.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
Zhao, Y., Hueyshan, T., & Mishra, P. (2001). Teaching and learning: Whose computer is it?
Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 44(4), 348–355.
Zhao, Y., Pugh, K., Sheldon, S., & Byers, J.L. (2002). Conditions for classroom technology
innovations. Teacher College Record, 104(3), 482–515.
174 T. Teo et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Am
s/G
iron
a*ba
rri L
ib]
at 0
0:49
06
Nov
embe
r 20
14
