Thesis Proposal - WordPress.com...Christine Jack Thesis Proposal 2 I have a personal interest and experience to draw on. There has also been relatively little research into the use

Christine Jack Thesis Proposal

1

Thesis Proposal:

Aim and Focus of study

The purpose of this research is to investigate early years teachers’ understanding of

how educational technologies can support teaching and learning. The aim is to

explore the relationship between teachers’ pedagogical beliefs and how they use

these technologies.

Literature Review

There has been substantial investment in educational technologies in schools, with

many people believing that they can have a significant impact on improving teaching

and learning. However there is little research evidence to show that it is making a

difference (Aubrey & Dahl, 2008; Cuban, 2001, p. 178).

A number of barriers to implementing educational technology in schools have been

identified, including: the need for more equipment, more training and technical

support (Bingimlas, 2009; Prestridge, 2012, p. 219). Most of these have been tackled

over the last few years, however, technology use is still not as widespread as some

would like it to be. If the technology itself is no longer the barrier, it is worth

examining the teachers’ role in implementing it. Their attitudes and beliefs may result

in it not being used as effectively as it could be. Ertmer describes beliefs as the “final

frontier” (2005).

Ertmer is one a number of researchers to look at the role of teachers’ pedagogical

beliefs in encouraging the use of technology. She identified a number of areas that

require further research including:

“the similarities and differences between teachers' pedagogical beliefs

and their beliefs about technology” (Ertmer, 2005, p. 36)

Marcon found that children perform better in classrooms where there is a single

pedagogical approach (1999). If there is a mismatch between teachers’ pedagogical

beliefs and how they believe technology can be used, this could result in teachers

either not using technology at all, or using it in ineffective ways.

To limit the scope of the research, and to make it more manageable, it will focus on

early years teachers. Experience of teaching in this age group (3-5 years old) means


2

I have a personal interest and experience to draw on. There has also been relatively

little research into the use of ICT in the early years (Plowman & Stephen, 2003).

The intention is not to focus on a single device or method of using technology,

technology and advice change quickly and it is difficult to keep up with the

development of technology (Ertmer, Gopalakrishnan, & Ross, 2000). The aim is to

help teachers to find appropriate uses of technology to support their approach to

teaching and learning. Teachers will use technology if they can see that its use fits

with their existing views of effective teaching practices (Higgins & Moseley, 2001)

and a key factor in determining whether to use technology is seeing whether it will

make a positive impact to pupils’ experiences (Hadley & Sheingold, 1993). This

focus on teaching and learning matches Hawkridge’s pedagogical rationale for using

technology (1990). Two of Hawkridge’s other reasons for using technology are social

(preparing children for life) and vocational (preparing children for future jobs).

Children also need to use computers to access certain areas of the curriculum.

When using technology for these reasons it is likely that teachers would also choose

activities that match their pedagogical beliefs.

While a lot of research into technology in the classroom focusses on case studies

about single devices or single settings, some theories may be useful when

examining technology implementation more broadly. Examples include:

The Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge framework (TPCK ) which

suggests that teachers who use technology effectively need to combine

knowledge about each of these areas (Mishra & Koehler, 2006)

The Concerns Based Adoption Model (CBAM) which looks at the stages teachers

go through when changes are being made (Anderson, 1997)

This study will examine how closely teachers’ experiences match the theories and

whether they are helpful tools when implementing technology in early years settings.

It is widely accepted that early years children require different teaching approaches

to older children (Higgins & Moseley, 2001) and that social constructivism is the most

appropriate approach (Association of Teachers and Lecturers, 2003). This does not

necessarily mean that all early years teachers share the same pedagogical beliefs.

Some research has shown that it can be difficult to find common theories among

early years teachers, because they are often cut off from other teachers, or because


3

teaching is a very personal experience, or there may not be a common approach to

training (Spodek, 1988).

Spodek’s research describes teachers’ “implicit theories” but the article does not

make it clear what this means or give examples. He identifies a very high number of

these theories for every teacher, in one case over 250. He suggests that while two of

the teachers seem to have little in common they “would probably be seen as close to

one another in their “philosophies of education”. This suggests that these theories

refer to something different from the view that is usually taken: that beliefs fall along

a single continuum, from child-centred to teacher centred (Hammond, 2011).

This raises an issue that is mentioned regularly in the literature. There is a

confusingly wide range of terms used to describe beliefs: attitudes, values, opinions,

perceptions, theories, perspectives are just a few. These are sometimes, but not

always, seen to be describing the same thing (Pajares, 1992).

In the context of this research Ertmer’s approach to beliefs will be used:

Pedagogical beliefs: what teaching style do teachers believe will result in

children making the most progress?

Technological beliefs: do teachers regard technology as helpful for teaching

and learning, how do they feel about using it in the classroom?

(Ertmer, 2005)

As beliefs are seen to determine behaviour, they are regarded as an important area

of study (Ertmer, 2005; Pajares, 1992). However they cannot be directly observed,

which causes problems when researching them. Beliefs can only be inferred from

what people say and do (Pajares, 1992). Also, despite their role in determining

behaviour, they are not always closely aligned with teachers’ practice, though they

do tend to be more closely aligned in the early years than in older age groups

(Vartuli, 1999). It is important to recognise that practice may be influenced by

external pressures e.g. resources, school culture, and pressure for children to attain

certain standards.

Many researchers specifically link exemplary use of technology to a constructivist,

student-centred approach (Ertmer et al., 2000). It is possible though, to find

examples of technology being used effectively to support teaching at both ends of


4

the pedagogical beliefs continuum (Nespor, 1987; Palak & Walls, 2009). Much of the

best practice literature either gives little space to non-constructivist technology use

(Dexter, Anderson, & Becker, 1999) or defines exemplary practice as constructivist

without reference to how teachers with other approaches can use technology. When

teachers are asked to identify exemplary use of technology themselves, their criteria

are often different, with Ertmer et al suggesting that this is because these criteria are

more practical and linked to what life is actually like in the classroom (2000).

While a link is made between social constructivism and best practice in technology,

this does not always stand up to closer scrutiny. This higher level technology use

has been described as the use of email, presentations, spreadsheets and digital

images but it is often not clear what these tools are being used for (Ertmer, 2005).

While they could all be used for high level, collaborative, discovery learning they

could also be used as simply a way to record or present facts the pupils had been

given. Much of the literature refers to studies that were carried out a few years ago,

so while the tasks may then have been considered high level, new developments in

technology may mean they would be seen differently now.

Technological progress is an important consideration when looking at teachers’

perceptions of how technology can be implemented. Until recently, technology in

schools has been used in “traditional” ways for “drill and practice” activities, or as a

way to broadcast information e.g. audio or video (Wang, Kinzie, McGuire, & Pan,

2010). If early years teachers do prefer a more flexible, active, social constructivist

approach to learning, this traditional approach may not be appropriate (O’Hara,

2008). Even now, with new devices and activities available, it is likely that many

teachers are unaware of the breadth of possibilities. This may be especially true in

the early years, where it is suggested that teachers lack training and confidence with

ICT (Aubrey & Dahl, 2008).

This lack of knowledge is especially important when advice to teachers includes

statements like: “in any given situation, a professional judgment by the teacher is

required to determine if a specific use of technology is age appropriate, individually

appropriate, and culturally appropriate” (NAEYC, 1996) or “practitioners must

exercise their judgement about what to use and when and how to use it [technology]”

(O’Hara, 2008)


5

If teachers knowledge and experience is of more basic uses of technology, they may

not believe this is appropriate for young children and it may not be surprising that

research showed that teachers with “a degree of scepticism about the value of ICT

and purposeful use of computers” were associated with greater progress for their

pupils (Higgins & Moseley, 2001).

There are some studies that suggest that simply using technology will lead to

teachers adopting more constructivist approaches (Windschitl & Sahl, 2002) but

others suggest this is because they were already wanting to change their approach.

It is not intended that this study should recommend one approach over another, the

aim is to support the teachers’ beliefs whatever they are.

This research aims to find out whether there is a mismatch between early years

teachers’ pedagogical and technological beliefs and if this means technology is not

being used effectively. Given my professional role of supporting schools to use

technology, I am interested in more than this. The second stage of the research will

look at how teachers can be supported to use technology more effectively.

As will be clear from this proposal, any support for teachers will start with their beliefs

about appropriate pedagogy, before discussing how they could use technology to

support them. While the importance of teachers’ beliefs and practice has been

identified in the literature (Higgins & Moseley, 2001) personal experience of ICT

training has shown that the focus is more often on the technology itself, rather than

the reason for using it.

This can result in teachers perceiving that they need to change their practice to

incorporate technology, rather than fitting the technology to their needs. This can

lead to teachers resisting the idea of new technologies, or to them using it in

superficial ways (Ertmer, 2005). One method of providing more meaningful support

would be to develop networks, so teachers can share their experiences and ideas

with each other (Becker, 1994; Ertmer, 2005). As well as providing ideas for how to

use technology, it would reinforce the fact that it is not necessarily appropriate for all

teachers to use technology in the same way.


6

Research Questions

The aim of the research is to develop an understanding of the relationship between

the pedagogical beliefs of early years teachers and how they use educational

technology.

The research questions are:

To what extent does early years teachers’ use of educational technologies match

their pedagogical beliefs?

How are early years teachers using educational technologies?

What are the pedagogical beliefs of early years teachers?

How does their use and their understanding of technology relate to current

theories of educational technology use?

How can early years teachers be supported to use educational technologies?

How would early years teachers like to use educational technologies?

Are networks an appropriate route to enable early years teachers to reflect on

pedagogy and improve their use of technology?

How does this approach to supporting teachers relate to the theories of

educational technology use?

Methodology / Research Design

While much of the literature reviewed only looked at two of the three elements this

research will consider (pedagogical beliefs, technological beliefs and early years), it

still proved helpful for identifying the research design. Many of the most relevant

studies made use of mixed methods: combining the use of qualitative and

quantitative approaches (Prestridge, 2012; Wood & Bennett, 2000).

There are a number of different approaches to using mixed methods and a number

of different rationales for deciding to do so (Greene, Caracelli, & Graham, 1989).

Rationales that are appropriate for this research are:

Triangulation – using both methods allows comparisons of the data produced.

Complementarity – it leads to an enriched understanding of the subject being

studied.


7

Development – by using a sequential approach, quantitative followed by

qualitative, the first stage of the research can inform the second.

This research will take a pragmatic approach and use the methods that are most

appropriate for the different research questions (Biesta, 2012; Greene et al., 1989)

To what extent does early years teachers’ use of educational technologies

match their pedagogical beliefs?

This first research question requires identifying how technology is being used in early

years classrooms. The obvious way of finding this out is to ask teachers what they

are doing. As it is easier to adapt an existing instrument rather than to design one

from scratch, a number of questionnaires have been reviewed. None of these

include all the elements required (pedagogical beliefs, technological beliefs and an

early years focus) so it may be necessary to combine more than one questionnaire.

The questionnaires that ask teachers about technology (Chen & Chang, 2006;

Haight, 2011; Hall, 2007; Jung, 2004; Landerholm, 1995; Salentiny, 2012) range

from a simple questionnaire with only 14 questions (Marcon, 1999) to a very long,

complex questionnaire of 26 pages and 58 stem questions (Hall, 2007). One issue

that will need to be considered is that technology changes quickly and the

instruments that ask about specific devices and software may now be out of date.

Another concern is that many of the questions in these surveys ask about what

technology is used and the teachers’ confidence in using it, but provide no data

about how it is being used for teaching and learning. This will be an essential

element of the final instrument, which will need to provide data on how technology

use relates to teaching approaches.

A number of the instruments reviewed were designed to find out about teachers’

pedagogical beliefs (Babb, 2002; Buldu, 2003; Kim, 2005; Marcon, 1999). Again

these vary in their content and complexity and will need to be reviewed further to

determine their appropriateness. Using questionnaires would allow a standard set of

questions to be asked to a larger sample than if interviews were used, but the

literature raises concerns about using questionnaires to ask about teachers’ attitudes

and beliefs. Beliefs are abstract concepts and questions might be difficult to

understand. Alexander and Becker suggest including vignettes to ask respondents

what they would do in specific circumstances (Alexander & Becker, 1978). Although


8

responses to vignettes may not be generalisable to other contexts (Fang, 1996) they

could help teachers to articulate their beliefs.

It is important to ensure high response rates, so the format and length of the

questionnaire is important. The questions would need to be straightforward and easy

to understand. Closed questions would be more appropriate than open ones

(Bryman, 2012, p. 233). Overlong questionnaires should be avoided as respondents

can lose interest, this could mean they do not complete the questionnaire or they

may not think about their answers (Tymms, 2012).

An online survey will be used, as this will produce data in an electronic format which

will help with analysis. Paper versions will also be available as personal experience

has shown that some teachers are not comfortable using online surveys. It may be

interesting to see if there is any difference in the responses to the different delivery

methods.

While the responses to quantitative questionnaires will provide a broad picture,

literature suggests that qualitative research methods are more appropriate when

studying beliefs (Munby, 1982). Information about beliefs gained through

questionnaires has been seen to reflect idealistic beliefs rather than actual practice.

Interviews and observations will be used with some of the participants to determine

how closely questionnaire responses match what happens in practice (Angrosino,

2012).

Although the intention is to observe what happens naturally in classrooms, it will

need to be done in a rigorous, formal way. An observation protocol will need to be

developed. A good starting point would be to examine the Digital Age Learning

Matrix, which is focussed on evaluating the types of learning activities that teachers

are using technology for (Starkey, 2008). In-depth semi structured interviews will

provide the opportunities for discussing the observations and will be used to prompt

deeper reflections (Phipps & Borg, 2009).

How can early years teachers be supported to use educational technologies?

As well as understanding what is already happening in classrooms, this research will

examine how teachers can be supported to improve their practice. Wood and

Bennett’s research in early years classrooms provides a possible model (2000).

Their research, investigating whether there was a “discontinuity between the rhetoric


9

and reality of play,” had three stages. The first two relate closely to what has been

discussed for the first stage of this study: questionnaires and interviews examining

teachers’ beliefs and attitudes to theories of play. In the third stage they established

a supportive group of teachers that could learn from each other and from the

researchers. Between each stage the teachers involved met to discuss how the data

was being interpreted and to discuss theories and practice.

In stage three participants were challenged about the relationship between their

theories and practice and to find out about alternative theories of play. The research

found that this method was more helpful than simply telling the participants what

these theories were. Other research suggests that the use of small groups

discussing beliefs and working together can also be effective when supporting

teachers’ practice with technology. However, Ertmer does question whether this

would be a viable approach to Continuous Professional Development.(Ertmer, 2005;

Windschitl & Sahl, 2002).

This is the issue the second research question aims to address. Fang suggests that

studying the relationships between teacher beliefs and practices can result in

practical outcomes that have implications for teaching and learning, this approach

can be seen as linking to action research (Stringer, 1999). Action research allows

people who would normally be subjects of research to be active participants. The

first part of this research is focussed on answering “what’s going on”, an action

research stage will also ask “what happens if” (Baumfield, Hall, & Wall, 2013).

The role of the researcher needs to be considered carefully. They should not be

seen as an outsider wanting to pry, control, judge or interfere (Stringer, 1999).

Participants will be seen as “co-inquirers”, having some ownership of the research

process and a significant role in deciding the focus of the research. They will be

recognised as experts, there to share their knowledge (Baumfield et al., 2013). The

researcher’s role is facilitator or catalyst for improving practice (Munn-Giddings,

2012).

Working together as a group means participants can talk about what they are doing

with technology and why. They can learn from each other’s successes and failures.

The group will provide support which may encourage participants to take risks, be

innovative and try things they would not otherwise feel able to do .” (Li, 2008). This

does not mean that participants will necessarily be encouraged to be “cutting edge”


10

in their use of technology. They will be supported to use it in a way that is

appropriate for their circumstances. Examples of “exemplary technology use” in the

literature can be daunting for teachers who may not have access to the latest

equipment. By sharing real life examples of how basic resources can be used in

simple ways, teachers may be encouraged to use technology more (Ertmer et al.,

2000).

Action research will encourage participants to reflect on what they do with

technology. While participating in the group may mean teachers learn how to use

new technologies, this is not the main purpose. Participants will need to reflect on

how they are using technology to support teaching and learning and evaluate

whether it is making a positive impact. Through this reflection new questions will be

generated (Baumfield et al., 2013, p. 1).

Action research is a cyclical process, there is no necessary endpoint. Participants

reflect on their practice and identify changes they can make that could help them to

improve. Findings from one cycle of research inform what happens in the next.

Baumfield cautions that not all teachers will be affected in the same way. Sharing

experiences will not result in the same sort of changes for all teachers (Baumfield,

2006) this means that each participant will take from the research the ideas that are

most relevant to them.

The intention is to complete two cycles of action research. Data will be collected by

interviewing and observing participants individually but the key question is whether

working together will help teachers develop. Focus groups are useful when research

is aimed at identifying issues, attitudes and opinions (Hydén & Bülow, 2003), they

will be used to allow participants to share ideas and experiences and identify

activities they would like to try back at school. Their experiences will then be shared

and evaluated at the next group meeting.

One criticism of action research is that it is difficult for findings to be generalised

beyond the specific context in which the research takes place (Baumfield et al.,

2013). For this research, the aim is not to find knowledge that can be used

elsewhere. It is looking at whether the process can be effective. There is no intention

that others would replicate the process exactly, just that lessons learned may be

applicable to other circumstances. It has already been mentioned that telling

teachers about technology may not be enough to encourage greater use. Can a


11

group working together and sharing their particular experiences be the key to

improving the use of technology?

Participants

The research design can be seen as an explanatory design. The quantitative stage

is conducted first, followed by the qualitative stage which aims to provide more

information about the quantitative results. Creswell and Plano Clark suggest that

participants in the second stage should also have been involved in the first (2011, p.

185).

A convenience sampling method will be used to identify participants for all stages of

the research. Having worked closely with Local Authorities in the North East I will

use contacts in five of these LAs to distribute invitations to early years teachers in

approximately 200 primary and nursery schools. It is hoped that using the LAs as an

initial conduit, followed by contacting schools directly, will help to encourage a higher

response rate (Bryman, 2012).

The questionnaire stage of the research is interested in what is happening in all early

years classrooms, so there is no need to establish criteria to determine which early

years teachers should participate. It would be valuable to get responses from

teachers with a range of different beliefs about pedagogy and technology.

Participating in the other stages will require more of a commitment, so the

questionnaires will provide an opportunity for participants to identify whether they

would be willing to participate in the observation, interview and action research

stage. A group of six teachers will be identified. This smaller group will be self-

selecting. As they will be expected to actively contribute to the research process and

be involved in analysing the results they will need a special interest in the study

(Munn-Giddings, 2012). Again there would be no formal selection criteria other than

an interest in developing their use of technology. The group could be made up of

teachers with varying skills and experience.


12

Analysis

As in Wood and Bennett’s research, analysis will be carried out at a number of

different points and used inform the next stage of research (2000) this is in keeping

with the explanatory design (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011, p. 185).

Once data from the questionnaires has been checked for errors, it will be analysed

using SPSS to provide descriptive statistics of means, standard deviations and

variance. These will provide a summary of what teachers believe about teaching and

learning, what they believe about technology and what they are using it for.

Appropriate statistical tests will be used to analyse the relationship between

pedagogical and technological beliefs. It is likely that a regression analysis will be

used to evaluate any correlation between the different beliefs (Chen & Chang,

2006). The Pearson Correlation Coefficient is the most common method of

measuring this (Gorard, 2012). Effects sizes and confidence intervals will be

included in the report (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011).

Transcripts from interviews and focus groups along with field notes from focus

groups will be imported into QSR NVivo and analysed using a thematic coding

approach (Robson, 2011). An initial review of the transcripts will be used to identify

key categories or codes for analysing the data. As a key element of the research is

whether networks are an appropriate way of supporting the use of technology,

interactions between participants will be important. The role of the researcher as

facilitator will also be examined. Do participants tend to interact and learn from each

other, or do they see the researcher as the expert they want to listen to?

In any qualitative research the researcher’s beliefs can influence how the data is

interpreted (Munby, 1982). In research where beliefs are a central focus this may be

more of an issue especially as the rationale for the study is partly a personal interest

in the subject. This does not necessarily have to be a problem, personal experience

and knowledge can help to provide more depth (Studnicki, 2012) but it will be

essential to clarify the researcher’s beliefs and consider how they may affect the

study (Baumfield, Hall, & Wall, 2008; Mears, 2012). Processes will need to be in

place to ensure that interpretations are not biased. These will include validating

findings with the research participants and triangulation of results by comparing

findings from different sections of the study (Studnicki, 2012).


13

While qualitative and quantitative analysis will be done separately, they will need to

be compared to determine whether they support each other. Does the qualitative

data help to clarify the quantitative findings (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011, p. 219)?

Any research needs to consider whether the findings answer the research questions.

Action research will lead to new questions being asked by participants and it would

be easy to get distracted from the initial focus. The research questions will need to

be revisited regularly to ensure analysis is conducted in a way that allows them to be

answered (Baumfield et al., 2013).

The research process and conclusions need to be evaluated. How this is addressed

is described differently for quantitative (validity, reliability, generalisability) and

qualitative (credibility, authenticity, trustworthiness, transferability) approaches to

research. Coe attempts to bring these approaches together by talking about two

types of validity: interpretation claims and transfer claims (Coe, 2012a).

Interpretation claims refer to whether the research conclusions are warranted by the

evidence. This research will address this issue in a number of ways including:

ensuring the research process is transparent (Coe, 2012b)

designing questionnaires so that all respondents interpret questions the same

way (Baumfield et al., 2013)

discussing interpretations of data regularly with participants (Studnicki, 2012)

providing enough information about the research design and analysis so

readers can evaluate the judgements made

minimising bias by clarifying the researchers own beliefs and examining how

these could influence how the data is interpreted (Munby, 1982)

triangulating different data sources (Stringer, 1999)

Transfer claims refer to whether the findings can be generalised to other settings or

individuals. The ways this will be addressed include:

being clear about how data is interpreted so readers can evaluate whether

another researcher would have done it differently

being clear about how participants were selected and whether they are

representative of all early years teachers


14

examining whether the Local Authorities involved in this research are

representative of all LAs.

Ethics

Key ethical issues, as described in the guidelines from the British Education

Research Association, will be considered at all stages of the study (2011).

Participation in the research will be voluntary and the purpose of the research will be

made clear to teachers from the start. Participants will be informed of how the data

will be used and assured of confidentiality. They will be able to withdraw from the

process at any stage. Although children are not the focus of the study, the research

will involve observations in classrooms. Careful consideration will need to be given to

any possible impact this will have on the children and whether consent is needed

from their parents. The schools’ guidelines on visitors in school will be followed.

Action research is mentioned specifically in the BERA guidelines and needs to be

considered separately from the other parts of this research. This will be especially

important when considering privacy and confidentiality (2011, p. 5). As the

participants will be seen as co-inquirers, it could be argued that they should be

credited in the report. However, this research will reflect on whether actual practice

in the classroom matches what some would see as ideal practice. It will also provide

opportunities to reflect on challenges or failures with technology. Participants may

not wish this information to be attributed to them. Participants will be asked if they

want to be credited or not and if they do, they will need to be more involved in the

analysis of data and have access to the final report before it is shared more widely

(Baumfield et al., 2013, p. 36).

Originality

A successful doctorate should be original and make a “substantive contribution to the

development of a discipline”” (Dunleavy, 2003). This means that research will either

find out something new or apply existing knowledge to new situations. This proposal

has reviewed some of the key literature to establish a clear rationale for asking the

research questions. The literature review suggested that there was little research


15

into ICT in Early years and that there was a need to compare teachers’ pedagogical

beliefs and their beliefs about technology. This research aims to address these gaps.

The answers to the research questions are important as they will clarify

understanding of what is happening in classrooms now and evaluate a possible

process for improving the use of technology in early years classrooms. The research

will build on existing studies and review the appropriateness of current theories of

technology implementation to see if they apply to these early years settings and

identify any limitations. The research has been planned to ensure the key

characteristics of educational research are addressed, that it is: critical, systematic,

transparent, evidential, theoretical and original (Coe, 2012b).

.

Supervision

Steve Higgins and Kate Wall have agreed to supervise this research, they have

significant expertise in the area of research and the proposed research methods.

Draft Research Schedule

Date Activity

September 2014 – April 2015 Literature review started

Recruit participants for quantitative research

April 2015 – July 2015 Quantitative questionnaires competed

August 2015 – September 2015 Analysis of questionnaires

September 2015 – December 2015 Interviews and observations conducted

Recruit participants for action research

January 2016 – December 2016 First cycle Action Research

January 2017 – December 2017 Second cycle Action Research

January 2018 – August 2018 Write report

Word count: 5225


16

Bibliography

Alexander, C. S., & Becker, H. J. (1978). The Use of Vignettes in Survey Research.

Public Opinion Quarterly.

Anderson, S. E. (1997). Understanding Teacher Change: Revisting the Concerns

Based Adoption Model. Curriculum Inquiry, 27(3), 331-367. doi:

10.2307/1180105

Angrosino, M. V. (2012). Observation-based Research J. Arthur, M. Waring, R. Coe

& L. V. Hedges (Eds.), Research Methods and Methodologies in Education.

London: Sage Publications.

Association of Teachers and Lecturers. (2003). Right from the Start: Early Years

Education: Policy and Practice.

Aubrey, C., & Dahl, S. (2008). A Review of the Evidence on the use of ICT in the

Early Years Foundation Stage: Becta.

Babb, D. L. (2002). PreKindergarten Classroom Practices in Oklahoma Public

Schools: Influence of Teacher and Principal Beliefs and Characteristics.

Baumfield, V. (2006). Tools for Pedagogical Inquiry: the Impact of Teaching Thinking

Skills on Teachers. Oxford Review of Education, 32(2), 185-196.

Baumfield, V., Hall, E., & Wall, K. (2008). Action Research in the Classroom.

London: Sage.

Baumfield, V., Hall, E., & Wall, K. (2013). Action Research in Education: Learning

Through Practitioner Enquiry. London: Sage.

Becker, H. J. (1994). How exemplary computer-using teachers differ from other

teachers: Implications for realizing the potential of computers in schools.

Journal of research on computing in education, 26(3), 291-321.

Biesta, G. (2012). Mixed Methods J. Arthur, M. Waring, R. Coe & L. V. Hedges

(Eds.), Research Methods and Methodologies in Education. London: Sage

Publications.

Bingimlas, K. A. (2009). Barriers to the successful integration of ICT in teaching and

learning environments: A review of the literature. Eurasia Journal of

Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 5(3), 235-245.


17

British Educational Research Association. (2011). Ethical Guidelines for Educational

Research.

Bryman, A. (2012). Social Research Methods: Oxford university press.

Buldu, M. (2003). Constructivist Compatible Beliefs and Practices. Indiana

University.

Chen , J.-Q., & Chang, C. (2006). Using computers in early childhood classrooms:

Teachers' attitudes, skills and practices. Journal of Early Childhood Research,

4(2), 169-188. doi: 10.1177/1476718x06063535

Coe, R. J. (2012a). Conducting Your Research J. Arthur, M. Waring, R. Coe & L. V.

Hedges (Eds.), Research Methods and Methodologies in Education. London:

Sage Publications.

Coe, R. J. (2012b). The Nature of Educational Research - exploring the different

understandings of educational research J. Arthur, M. Waring, R. Coe & L. V.


Sage Publications.

Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and Conducting Mixed

Methods Research: Thousand Oaks, CA.: Sage.

Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom: Harvard

University Press.

Dexter, S. L., Anderson, R. E., & Becker, H. J. (1999). Teachers’ views of computers

as catalysts for changes in their teaching practice. Journal of research on

computing in education, 31(3), 221-239.

Dunleavy, P. (2003). Authoring a PhD: How to plan, draft, write and finish a doctoral

thesis or dissertation: Palgrave Macmillan.

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., Gopalakrishnan, S., & Ross, E. (2000). Technology-using teachers:

Comparing perceptions of exemplary technology use to best practice. Journal

of Research on Technology in Education, 33(5).


18

Fang, Z. (1996). A review of research on teacher beliefs and practices. Educational

Research, 38(1), 47-65. doi: 10.1080/0013188960380104

Gorard, S. (2012). Multiple Linear Regresssion J. Arthur, M. Waring, R. Coe & L. V.

Hedges (Eds.), Research Methods and Methodologies in Education (pp. 348-

355). London: Sage Publications.

Greene, J. C., Caracelli, V. J., & Graham, W. F. (1989). Toward a conceptual

framework for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational evaluation and

policy analysis, 11(3), 255-274.

Hadley, M., & Sheingold, K. (1993). Commonalities and Distinctive Patterns in

Teachers' Integration of Computers. American Journal of Education, 101(3),

261-315. doi: 10.2307/1085516

Haight, K. (2011). Teacher Self Efficacy in the Adoption and Integration of

Technology Within the Classroom. (Doctor of Education), Walden University.

Hall, V. (2007). The Effects Of Technology Resources School Admin and Teacher

Expertise.

Hammond, M. (2011). Beliefs and ICT: what can we learn from experienced

educators? Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 20(3), 289-300. doi:

10.1080/1475939X.2011.610930

Hawkridge, D. (1990). Who needs computers in schools, and why? Computers &

Education, 15(1–3), 1-6. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0360-1315(90)90121-M

Higgins, S., & Moseley, D. (2001). Teachers' Thinking about Information and

Communications Technology and Learning: Beliefs and Outcomes. Teacher

Development, 5(2), 191-210. doi: 10.1080/13664530100200138

Hydén, L.-C., & Bülow, P. H. (2003). Who's talking: drawing conclusions from focus

groups—some methodological considerations. Int. J. Social Research

Methodology, 6(4), 305-321.

Jung, E. J. (2004). Technology Disposition Of Teacher Education Students.

Kim, K.-R. (2005). Teacher Beliefs and Practices Survey: Operationalsing the 1997

NAEYC Guidelines. (PhD), Louisiana State University and Agricultural and

Mechanical College.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0360-1315(90)90121-M


19

Landerholm, E. (1995). Early childhood teachers’ computer attitudes, knowledge,

and practices. Early Child Development and Care, 109(1), 43-60.

Li, Y. L. (2008). Teachers in action research: assumptions and potentials.

Educational Action Research, 16(2), 251-260.

Marcon, R. A. (1999). Differential impact of preschool models on development and

early learning of inner-city children: A three-cohort study. Developmental

Psychology, 35(2), 358.

Mears, C. L. (2012). In-Depth InverviewsJ. Arthur, M. Waring, R. Coe & L. V. Hedges


Publications.

Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A

framework for teacher knowledge. The Teachers College Record, 108(6),

1017-1054.

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.

Munn-Giddings, C. (2012). Action Research J. Arthur, M. Waring, R. Coe & L. V.


Sage Publications.

NAEYC. (1996). Technology and Young Children—Ages 3 through 8 A position

statement of the National Association for the Education of Young Children.

Nespor, J. (1987). The Role of Beliefs in the Practice of Teaching. Journal of

curriculum studies, 19(4), 317-328.

O’Hara, M. (2008). Young children, learning and ICT: a case study in the UK

maintained sector. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 17(1), 29-40. doi:

10.1080/14759390701847443

Pajares, M. F. (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.


20

Phipps, S., & Borg, S. (2009). Exploring tensions between teachers’ grammar

teaching beliefs and practices. System, 37(3), 380-390. doi:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2009.03.002

Plowman, L., & Stephen, C. (2003). A 'Benign Addition’? Research on ICT and pre-

school children. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19, 149-164.

Prestridge, S. (2012). The beliefs behind the teacher that influences their ICT

practices. Computers & Education, 58(1), 449-458. doi:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.08.028

Robson, C. (2011). Real World Research: A Resource for Users of Social Research

Methods in Applied Settings (3rd ed.): John Wiley &Sons Ltd.

Salentiny, A. M. (2012). Analysis of PreService Teacher and Instructor Technology

Uses and Beliefs. (Doctor of Philosophy), University of North Dakota.

Spodek, B. (1988). The implicit theories of early childhood teachers. Early Child

Development and Care, 38(1), 13-31. doi: 10.1080/0300443880380102

Starkey, L. (2008). Evaluating learning in classroom activities using digital

technologies. Paper presented at the ACEC conference, Canberra, Australia.

Stringer, E. T. (1999). Action Research (2nd ed.). London: Sage.

Studnicki, E. A. (2012). Beliefs and Technology - Does One Lead to the Other

Eva;luating the Effects of Teacher Self-Efficacy and School Collective Efficacy

on Technology Use in the Classroom. (Doctor of Education), Duquesne

Unversity.

Tymms, P. (2012). Questionnaires J. Arthur, M. Waring, R. Coe & L. V. Hedges


Publications.

Vartuli, S. (1999). How Early Childhood Teacher Beliefs Vary Across Grade Level.

Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 14(4), 489-514.

Wang, F., Kinzie, M. B., McGuire, P., & Pan, E. (2010). Applying Technology to

Inquiry-Based Learning in Early Childhood Education. Early Childhood

Education Journal, 37(5), 381-389. doi: 10.1007/s10643-009-0364-6

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2009.03.002

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.08.028


21

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), 165-205.

Wood, E., & Bennett, N. (2000). Changing theories, changing practice: exploring

early childhood teachers’ professional learning. Teaching and Teacher

Education, 16(5), 635-647.

Documents

Thesis Proposal - WordPress.com...Christine Jack Thesis Proposal 2 I have a personal interest and experience to draw on. There has also been relatively little research into the use