Five instruments and a portfolio were used to collect data for this study. Four of the instruments were developed by the researcher, field-tested, and revised according to relevant findings. 1. Demographics Questionnaire (Appendix A) - The Demographics Questionnaire was developed by the researcher to collect data that would provide a thorough description of the sample. Questions concerning the participants' gender, age, educational level, and teaching experience were included as well as questions concerning previous computer experience--both personally and professionally. A validation panel discussed in detail in the next section was used to establish the content validity of the demographics questionnaire. 2. Teacher Questionnaire (Appendix B) - The Teacher Questionnaire is a self-report survey developed by the researcher to assess the level of technology implementation demonstrated by the participants. The questionnaire was given to provide a pre- and posttest measurement of technology implementation. Questions were included on the Teacher Questionnaire to assess qualitative aspects of technology implementation. A validation panel was formed to establish the content validity of the instrument. The panel noted any area of difficulty and made suggestions for revision. Overall, the panel made very few suggestions concerning the content of the questionnaire. However, they did make a few recommendations concerning the questionnaire format. Additional suggestions were made to reduce ambiguities in the wording of a few questions. To enhance further the validity of the Teacher Questionnaire, a field test was conducted with a group of 23 elementary school teachers. The teachers were asked to (a) complete the questionnaire, (b) circle any questions that were confusing or difficult to understand, and (c) suggest changes/improvements in the margins next to the questions. General comments concerning the overall questionnaire were solicited from the teachers along with the amount of time it took them to complete the questionnaire. The suggestions from the teachers focused primarily on the wording of a few questions on the instrument. A final questionnaire was developed after reviewing all of the suggestions gathered from the teachers in the field test. 3. Skills Survey (Appendix C) - The Skills Survey was developed for this study to assess the participants' perception of their hardware, software, and integration skills. It was given as a pre- and posttest measurement. The Skills Survey represents a modification of a similar skills instrument developed by researchers at a local university. The skills on the original instrument were replaced with the skills that were taught during the InTech Project. In addition, the original instrument contained a section for participants to rate the level of skill they wished to attain. This section was of no interest to the researcher and, therefore, was omitted on the modified version of the Skills Survey used in this study. The reliability of the Skills Survey was established through a test-retest procedure conducted with a group of 23 elementary school teachers. The Skills Survey yielded a reliability coefficient of .87 on the hardware skill subscale, .95 on the software skill subscale, and .94 on the integration skill subscale. The overall Skills Survey yielded a reliability coefficient of .96. 4. Microcomputer Utilization in Teaching Efficacy Beliefs Instrument (MUTEBI) (Appendix D) - The Microcomputer Utilization in Teaching Efficacy Beliefs Instrument (MUTEBI) was used in this study to assess the participants' computer self-efficacy. Twenty-one efficacy statements are included on the instrument. After reading each statement, the participants circled one of five Likert-scale response choices ranging from Strongly Agree (SA) to Strongly Disagree (SD). 5. InTech Project Summative Evaluation (Appendix E | Appendix F) - The InTech Project Summative Evaluation was developed by the researcher to determine what components of the InTech Project participants viewed as the most useful in enabling them to integrate technology into their curriculum. Nine components were listed and participants rated each one by circling one of five Likert-scale response choices ranging from 1 (low level of usefulness) to 5 (high level of usefulness). Frequency distributions were generated and reported. The Summative Evaluation asked participants to describe any changes they would make to improve the InTech Project. General comments concerning the InTech Project were also solicited. Tables listing the suggestions for improvement and general comments were generated and reported. The InTech Project Summative Evaluation instrument was validated by the same validation panel described earlier. 6. Portfolio. The participants in the study were required to generate a portfolio throughout the school year. A portfolio can be a notebook, folder, or other container that holds examples of work completed over a specified period of time. The subjects in this study were given a 3-inch binder and asked to collect lesson plans of technology-based activities they completed with their students. These lesson plans served as evidence of their progression in the use of technology in their classrooms. The teachers also collected hard and soft copies of student technology-based projects completed throughout the school year. These projects served as evidence of the students' increasing proficiency in the use of various technologies. At each training session, the teachers shared their activities with the other teachers in the study. The subjects were also required to keep a reflective journal inside their portfolios. In the journals, teachers were asked to include a self-assessment of how well they were integrating technology into their curriculum. They described their successes and failures, as well as their frustrations and concerns. Teachers were asked to record any shifts that may have occurred in the teaching and learning process as a result of introducing technology as an instructional tool. Journal entries were discussed in both small and large groups at the beginning of each training session.
|
