A Quantitative Exploration of Preservice Teachers’

Intent to Use Computer-based Technology

Kioh Kim, Sachin Jain, Guy Westhoff, and Landra Rezabek

Based on Bandura’s (1977) social learning theory, the purpose of this study is to
identify the relationship of preservice teachers’ perceptions of faculty modeling of
computer-based technology and preservice teachers’ intent of using computer-based
technology in educational settings. There were 92 participants in this study; they
were enrolled in “Teaching with Microcomputers” class at a major university in
Rocky Mountains.
Two survey instruments were used in this study. The first instrument was Preservice
Teachers’ Perceptions of Faculty Modeling Survey (PTPFMS). The second instru-
ment was Intent to Use Computer-based Technology Survey (ITUCTS). The results
showed that preservice teachers’ perception of faculty modeling of computer-based
technology significantly affected their intent to use computer-based technology; re-
sults were similar for the use dimension and its sub dimensions, but on the dimension
of role of technology and its sub dimensions the interaction was insignificant. The
paper concludes by stating the limitations and implications of this study.

Will the trilogy of Matrix come true?
We have not even completed the first decade
of the 21st century and advancements in
computer-based technology are so great that
we rely on it more than any other species
on this planet. Every sword has two faces,
one good another bad. One good applica-
tion of computer-based technology is within
educational settings. Using computer-based
technology in educational settings helps stu-
dents in their learning (Sahin, 2003; Stinson,
2003; Whetstone, & Carr-Chellman, 2001).
There are studies that indicate learners have
positive attitudes towards using technologies
in their classroom (Kurubacak,& Baptiste,
2002; Lee, 1996; Norby, 2002; Okinaka,
1992). In addition, teachers also improve their
Kioh Kim, Assistant Professor, College of
Education, Northwestern State University. Sachin
Jain, Assistant Professor, College of Education,
University of Idaho. Guy Westhoff, Assistant
Professor, Department of Teaching & Learning,
Washington State University. Landra Rezabek, As-
sociate Professor, Department of Adult Learning
& Technology, University of Wyoming.
Correspondence concerning this article
should be addressed to Kioh Kim at kimk@nsula.
edu.
275
instruction by using a variety of technology
resources such as the Internet, multimedia
CD-ROMs, audio and graphics (Jao, 2001).
There is evidence that suggests teaching with
technology provides more benefits for both
teachers and students than teaching without
any technology.
There has been a scarcity of research-
ers exploring the ways in which preservice
teachers can be taught to effectively integrate
computer-based technology within their
instruction. According to the National Cen-
ter for Education Statistics (2000), teacher
preparation for technology integration is
minimal, and in 1999 most teachers reported
feeling less than well prepared to use com-
puters and the Internet for instruction. Thus,
an appeal to amplify attention to this topic
in teacher preparation programs has been
issued by numerous organizations including
the International Reading Association (2002),
the National Council for the Accreditation
of Teacher Education (2004), and the U.S.
Department of Education (1996).
“To realize any vision of smarter school-
ing by using technology… college education
must prepare teachers to use the technology.
Adequate teacher preparation is probably the
276/ Journal of Instructional Psychology, Vol. 35, No. 3
most important determinant of success” (Han-
cock, & Betts, 1994, p. 29). To effectively
integrate computer-based technology in their
teaching practice, it is pertinent that prospec-
tive teachers develop appropriate teaching
styles which incorporate computers to impact
student learning. Teaching with computers
requires a shift from the traditional teaching
practice. “Technology affects the way teach-
ers teach, students learn, and administrators
operate. Roles and teaching and learning
strategies are changing because technology
fosters the use of more student-centered
learning strategies” (Norum, Grabinger, &
Duffield, 1999, p. 189).
Teacher’s attitudes toward the use of
technology can significantly affect their
students’ opportunities to learn about technol-
ogy (Norby, 2002; Okinaka, 1992). In order
to help K-12 students, training preservice
teachers is the most direct and cost-effective
way (Fasion, 1996). Universities and colleges
are the places to train preservice teachers to
comprehensively integrate instructional tech-
nology into their future classroom instruction.
It is necessary for preservice teachers to be
trained using instructional technology so
that they can use the technology skills and
be confident in using technology in their
classroom as classroom teachers. There is a
great concern about the prospective teachers’
perception of the role of the computer in the
learning process.
The literature shows that there is a need
for better training to preservice teachers to
integrate computer-based technology while
they teach. Can this lack in training be ful-
filled by proper modeling from faculty of
preservice teachers? This study will explore
the relationship between preservice teachers’
perceptions of faculty modeling in the use of
computer-based technology, and preservice
teachers’ perceptions of their intent toward
using computer-based technology when they
become teachers.
This research is based on social learning
theory. The social learning theory originated
by Albert Bandura (1977) emphasizes that
learners learn by what they observe from
modeling, attitudes, and emotional reactions
of their teachers. Therefore, this research ar-
gues that preservice teachers are going to use
computer-based technology in ways similar to
the ways their college/university instructors’
modeled computer-based technology when
they become teachers in the future. Many re-
searchers mentioned that technology must be
modeled by college/university faculty to pro-
duce new inservice teachers to use technology
properly (Cassady & Pavlechko, 2000; Du-
haney, 2001, Krueger, Hansen, & Smaldino,
2000; Laffey & Musser, 1998; Luke, Moore,
& Sawyer, 1998; Persichitte, Caffarella, &
Tharp, 1999; Schrum & Dehoney, 1998;
Stetson & Bagwell, 1999; Wetzel, Zambo,
& Buss, 1996; Yidirim, 2000).
There is research literature that identified
that many professors use computers in their
classroom to teach (Carlson & Gooden, 1999;
Frey & Birnbaum, 2002; Nelson, 2004; Sim-
mons & Macchia, 2003). The computer-based
technologies that professors use include word
processing, database, spreadsheet, desktop
publishing, presentation software, World
Wide Web, and email. All the computer-based
technologies mentioned above should be used
in K-12 schools by teachers (Nelson, 2004).
In order for teachers to use computer-based
technology effectively in their classroom,
preservice teachers should be trained in how to
use computer-based technology while they are
in college/university courses. These courses
provide a model of what computer-based
technology their college/university instruc-
tors used within their teaching. It is these
models that preservice teachers use when
they become teachers in the future.
Social Learning Theory
The social learning theory of Bandura
(1977) emphasizes the importance of observ-
ing and modeling, the attitudes, and emotional
reactions of others in learning. Social learning
theory explains human behavior in terms of

continuous reciprocal interaction between
cognitive, behavioral, and environmental in-
fluences. Bandrua’s view of the social learning
theory is that “human behavior is the result
of a continuous interactive process involv-
ing cognition, behavior, and environmental
factors” (Rezabek, 1987, p. 3). Rezabek also
stated that “Social learning theory suggests
that people can learn by observing the be-
haviors of models” (p. 53).
Social learning theory has numerous
implications for classroom use. Rutledge
(2000) presents the following educational
implications of social learning theory:
1. Students often learn a great deal
simply by observing other people.
2. Modeling provides an alternative
for shaping new teaching behaviors.
Instead of using shaping, which
is operant conditioning; modeling
can provide a faster, more efficient
means for teaching new behaviors.
To promote effective modeling a
teacher must make sure that the four
essential conditions exist; attention,
retention, motor reproduction, and
motivation.
3. Teachers should expose students to
a variety of other models. This tech-
nique is especially important to break
down traditional stereotypes (p. 5).
According to Rutledge (2000) the roles
of teachers as well as parents are important
to model appropriate behaviors to their
students and children. This shows that the
concept of social learning theory underlies
the variable-faculty modeling in integrating
computer-based technology.
Instructional Technology Modeling
One of the applications of Social Learn-
ing theory is instructional technology mod-
eling. Higher education faculty must model
technology use to prepare new teachers to use
technology as a part of their future curriculum
(Cassady & Pavlechko, 2000; Duhaney, 2001;
Preservice Teachers . . / 277
Krueger, Hansen, & Smaldino, 2000; Laffey
& Musser, 1998; Luke, Moore, & Sawyer,
1998; Persichitte, Caffarella, & Tharp, 1999;
Schrum & Dehoney, 1998; Stetson & Bag-
well, 1999; Wetzel, Zambo, & Buss, 1996;
Yidirim, 2000). According to Smith, Frey, and
Tollefson (2003), preservice teachers stated
that the modeling conducted by the collab-
orative faculty made significant difference in
their attitude towards and understanding of
what collaboration was and what it took to
be successful. More importantly, respondents
expressed an understanding of how this team
building would lead to meeting the needs of a
variety of students in a specific classroom.
Instructional modeling in higher educa-
tion institutions is an important tool in training
preservice teachers. The instructional model-
ing done by faculty provides the foundation
from which preservice teachers use these
same or similar teaching models when they
become teachers (Lever-Duffy, McDonald,
& Mizell, 2005). In order for preservice
teachers to be comfortable in using com-
puter-based technology as future inservice
teachers, university and college instructors
should model computer-based technology in
their teaching.
Current research identifies that “good
technology mentoring is only achieved
through role modeling, ongoing evalua-
tion, constructive criticism, and coaching”
(Carlson & Gooden, 1999, p. 12). In another
case, teachers modeled the use of Power-
Point and the Internet through a Preparing
Teachers to Use Tomorrow’s Technology
(PT3) grant (Simmons & Macchia, 2003).
The preservice teachers who saw profes-
sors modeling PowerPoint and the Internet
are now making the effort to utilize various
instructional technologies to support class
projects within their classrooms (Simmons
& Macchia, 2003).
In one case, K-12 teachers with less
experience in using technology in their own
teaching began to use technology after ob-
serving more experienced teachers use tech-
278/ Journal of Instructional Psychology, Vol. 35, No. 3
nology (Mills & Tincher, 2002). In another
study, modeling technology as a professional
development model in technology integration
showed that there were changes in preservice
teacher beliefs and practices (Ross, Ertmer, &
Johnson, 2001). Therefore, modeling the use
of many types of hardware and software is
the primary method for modeling technology
use for preservice teachers.
Intent to use computer-based technology
Today, students have grown up with and
become accustomed to the visual stimulation
of television, computers, and video games,
and they expect technology to be used effec-
tively as part of their learning experience by
their teachers in school (Frey & Birnbaum,
2002). Thus, teachers who have a positive
intent to use technology and the technology
skills are more likely to integrate technology
into their own teaching practices.
There is research that suggests that the
more experience preservice teachers have
with computers, the less anxiety and the
more positive level of intent they will have
towards using instructional technology
(Downes, 1993; Koohang, 1989; Savenye,
1992). It is important for preservice teachers
to experience technology integration in col-
lege before they become inservice teachers
so they have less anxiety and a positive level
of intent to use technology in their classroom
in the future. Preservice teachers “envision
the computer primarily for word processing
and as a means to do administrative tasks”
(Mower-Popiel, Pollard, & Pollard, 1994, p.
138). Preservice teachers who feel comfort-
able in using computers have positive intent
toward integrating computers in K-12 schools
(Troutman, 1991).
One of the major goals of this study is to
find what role preservice teachers’perceptions
of faculty modeling in the use of computer-
based technology plays in preservice teach-
ers’ intent to use computer-based technology
when they become teachers.
Statement of the Problem
In this study the researcher is interested
in identifying a relationship between preser-
vice teachers’ perceptions of faculty modeling
of computer-based technology use and preser-
vice teachers’ intent toward computer-based
technology use in the classroom.
Research Question
Given this research problem, the guid-
ing question of the study is: Do preservice
teachers’ perceptions of faculty modeling in
the use of computer-based technology have
any relationship with the preservice teach-
ers’ perceptions of their intent toward using
computer-based technology?
Based on the literature review, it is hy-
pothesized that subjects’ scores on intent to
use computer-based technology survey can
be predicted by their scores on preservice
teachers’ perceptions of faculty modeling.
Methodology
This research aims to identify the relation
between preservice teachers’ perceptions of
faculty modeling of using computer-based
technology and preservice teachers’ intent
to use computer-based technology when
they become teachers. In order to collect
data from the participants quantitative pro-
cedures were used. This section includes a
description of the sample, pilot study, data
collection procedures, instrumentation, and
data analysis methods.
Sample Description
The participants in this study were
preservice teachers who were enrolled in
“Teaching with Microcomputers” class at a
major university in Rocky Mountains.
The course has five sections which
have a total of 100 students. The course is
a required instructional technology courses
for education majoring students. Since the
participants are taking the course on cam-
pus, the researcher requested the instructors
for their permission and then researcher

administered the survey for the research in
each classroom for all five sections. Overall
92 students participated in the study, out of
which 62 were females and 30 were males,
and 43 students had elementary education and
49 students had secondary education as their
major. The age of participants was between
18 years and 62 years.
Procedure
Data were collected in “Teaching with
Microcomputers” course which was taught by
three different instructors. All three instruc-
tors of the course allowed the researcher to
be in their classrooms for collecting data
from the students enrolled in the course. The
researcher distributed the questionnaires to
each section during the same week of the
semester. The participation of subjects was
voluntary in nature.
Instruments
For the study, two survey instruments
were utilized to collect the data from the
participants. They are described as follows:
a) Preservice Teachers’ Perceptions of
Faculty Modeling Survey (PTPFMS). The
first instrument to be used was the Preservice
Teachers’ Perceptions of Faculty Modeling
Survey (PTPFMS). This PTPFMS was used
to measure preservice teachers’ perceptions
of their university instructors’ modeling of
using computer-based technology in their
classroom. This instrument was created by
the researcher. In the pilot study the overall
reliability of PTPFM was found to be 0.92.
The PTPFMS instrument used a Likert scale
from (1) Never to (5) Always and consisted
of 24 questions divided into two main sec-
tions: Use of computer based technology and
Role of instructor. The two sections are each
divided into two focuses with six questions
being student-centered and six teacher-cen-
tered. PTPFMS includes three demographic
question items pertaining to the participants’
gender, age and major. Major includes two
Preservice Teachers . . / 279
categories; elementary education and second-
ary education.
b) Intent to Use Computer-based Tech-
nology Survey (ITUCTS): The second instru-
ment was the Intent to Use Computer-based
Technology Survey (ITUCTS). ITUCTS was
adopted from the writings of Bichelmeyer,
Reinhart, and Monson (1998) and Wang
(2001).
The ITUCTS instrument is divided into
two sections, each section has 12 questions.
The first section addresses the preservice
teachers’ perceptions of their future role in
a classroom equipped with computer-based
technology (Role). Role of the teacher in the
classroom was defined as the manner or style
in which the teacher engages during class-
room instruction, having a spectrum from,
the teacher as an authority figure (Teacher-
Centered Role) to the teacher as a learning
facilitator (Student-Centered Role). The sec-
ond section addresses the preservice teachers’
perceptions of how they will use computer-
based technology specifically when placed
in a computer-based technology enhanced
classroom (Use). Use of computer-based
technologies in the classroom is defined as
either the use of computer-based technology
by the students for learning activities (Stu-
dent-Centered Use) or use of computer-based
technology by the teacher in ways that enable
the teacher to more easily manage his or her
classroom and instruction (Teacher-Centered
Use). Both the sections used a Likert scale
from (1) Never to (5) Frequently with 12
questions in each section.
The reliability of the section measur-
ing teacher-centered role is .94, the section
measuring student-centered role is .93, the
section measuring teacher-centered computer
use is .86, and the section measuring student-
centered computer use is .93 (Wang, 2001).
The overall reliability of this questionnaire
in this study was found to be .83 and the reli-
abilities on the sub-scales were found to be
similar to the study of Wang (2001).
280/ Journal of Instructional Psychology, Vol. 35, No. 3
Data Analysis
Data from PTPFMS and ITUCTS were
organized in SPSS 11.5 statistical software to
analyze. This study used regression analysis to
determine the relationship between PTPFMS
and four dimensions of ITUCTS. Independent
variables were four dimensions of preservice
teachers’ perceptions of faculty modeling of
using computer-based technology, gender,
age and major. Dependent variables were
four dimensions of preservice teachers’ intent
to use computer-based technology survey.
The analysis was also conducted on overall
scores of preservice teachers’ perceptions of
faculty modeling of using computer-based
technology and preservice teachers’ intent to
use computer-based technology survey.
In the pilot study, none of the interactions
were significant at 0.05 level. Therefore, in
order to have more significant interactions,
0.10 level was used while analyzing the results
in the main study. But 0.05 level was also used
for results significant at that level.
Results
The table below shows the means of 92
participants on all the four dimensions of
Table 1
Means of participants on all the four dimensions of PTPFM and ITUCT
PTPFM
Teacher-centered Student-centered
Role Use Role Use
16.84 19.82 16.28 18.11
Table 2
Relation between Preservice Teachers’ Perceptions of Faculty Modeling
and Intent to Use Computer-based Technology
Predictor Variables Criterion Variables
Preservice teachers’ Intent to Use
Perception of Faculty Computer-based
Modeling Technology
* significant at 0.10 level
Preservice Teachers’ Perceptions of Faculty
Modeling and four dimensions of Intent to Use
Computer-based Technology (Table 1).
Further regression analysis is conducted
to evaluate the relationship between four di-
mensions of Preservice Teachers’ Perceptions
of Faculty Modeling with their corresponding
dimension on Intent to Use Computer-based
Technology.
Relation between Preservice Teachers’
Perceptions of Faculty Modeling and In-
tent to Use Computer-based Technology
Analysis of data showed that overall
scores on Preservice Teachers’ Perception
of Faculty Modeling of Computer-based
Technology Survey significantly predicted
subject’s overall score on Intent to Use Com-
puter-based Technology (Table 2).
Analysis of the best fitting line when
data were entered graphically showed that
as subjects’ score on Preservice Teachers’
Perceptions of Faculty Modeling Survey
increased, their score on Intent to Use
Computer-based Technology Survey also
increased (Figure 1).
ITUCT
Teacher-centered Student-centered
Role Use Role Use
23.03 23.86 21.38 19.52
β t p R2
0.182 1.759 0.082* 0.033

Relation between Preservice Teachers’
Perceptions of Faculty Modeling (Use) and
Intent to Use Computer-based Technology
(Use)
Analysis of data showed that overall
scores on use of Preservice Teachers’ Percep-
tion of Faculty Modeling of Computer-based
Technology Survey significantly predicted
subject’s overall score on use of Intent to Use
Computer-based Technology (Table 3).
Analysis of the best fitting line when
data were entered graphically showed that as
subjects’ score on overall use of Preservice
Teachers’ Perceptions of Faculty Modeling
Survey increased, their score on overall use
of Intent to Use Computer-based Technology
Survey also increased (Figure 2).
Relation between Preservice Teachers’
Perceptions of Faculty Modeling (Teacher-
centered Use) and Intent to Use Computer-
based Technology (Teacher-centered Use)
Analysis of data showed that overall
scores on teacher-centered use of Preservice
Teachers’ Perception of Faculty Modeling
of Computer-based Technology Survey sig-
nificantly predicted subject’s overall score
on teacher- centered use of Intent to Use
Computer-based Technology (Table 4).
Analysis of the best fitting line when
data were entered graphically showed that
as subjects’ score on overall teacher-centered
use of Preservice Teachers’ Perceptions of
Faculty Modeling Survey increased, their
score on overall teacher-centered use of Intent
to Use Computer-based Technology Survey
Table 3
Relation between Preservice Teachers’ Perceptions of Faculty Modeling (Use) and
Intent to Use Computer-based Technology (Use)
Predictor Variables Criterion Variables
Preservice teachers’ Intent to Use Com-
Perception of Faculty puter-based Technol-
Modeling (Use) ogy (Use)
** significant at 0.05 level
Preservice Teachers . . / 281
also increased (Figure 3).
Relation between Preservice Teachers’
Perceptions of Faculty Modeling (Student-
centered Use) and Intent to Use Computer-
based Technology (Student-centered Use)
Analysis of data showed that overall
scores on student-centered use of Preservice
Teachers’ Perception of Faculty Modeling
of Computer-based Technology Survey sig-
nificantly predicted subject’s overall score
on student-centered use of Intent to Use
Computer-based Technology (Table 5).
Analysis of the best fitting line when
data were entered graphically showed that
as subjects’ score on overall student-centered
use of Preservice Teachers’ Perceptions of
Faculty Modeling Survey increased, score
on overall student-centered use of Intent to
Use Computer-based Technology Survey also
increased (Figure 4).
Relation between Preservice Teachers’
Perceptions of Faculty Modeling (Role)
and Intent to Use Computer-based Tech-
nology (Role)
Analysis of data showed that Preservice
Teachers’ Perception of Faculty Modeling
on role of computer-based technology for
delivering course information does not sig-
nificantly predicted subject’s score on Intent
to Use of Computer-based Technology based
on its role for delivering course information,
results were similar for both teacher-centered
role and student-centered role.
Β t P R2
0.398 3.948 0.000** 0.148
282/ Journal of Instructional Psychology, Vol. 35, No. 3

Discussion
Students today have experienced much
technological advancement and are accus-
tomed to the visual stimulation of television,
computers, and video games. Hence, they
expect technology to be used effectively as
part of their learning experience. Many studies
have shown that using computer-based tech-
nology in educational settings helps students
in their learning (Sahin, 2003; Stinson, 2003;
Whetstone, & Carr-Chellman, 2001). So it is
pertinent for preservice teachers to effectively
learn integration of computer-based technol-
ogy in real life teaching scenario. So how can
they experience such learning process in their
training? This study analyzes the relationship
of preservice teachers’ perception of faculty
modeling of computer-based technology with
their intent to use computer-based technology
when they become teachers.
Conclusion
Inspired by various researchers that
shows teaching with technology provide
more benefits for both teachers and stu-
dents than teaching without any technology
(Sahin, 2003; Stinson, 2003; Whetstone, &
Carr-Chellman, 2001) and that teachers can
improve their instruction by using a variety
of technology resources such as the Internet,
multimedia CD-ROMs, audio and graph-
ics (Jao, 2001); this research explores the
relationship of preservice teachers’ percep-
tions of faculty modeling in computer-based
technology use with their intent of using
computer-based technology in educational
settings.
Universities and colleges are the places to
train preservice teachers to comprehensively
integrate instructional technology into their
future classroom instruction. This research,

Table 4
Relation between Preservice Teachers’ Perceptions of Faculty Modeling (Teacher-cen-
tered Use) and Intent to Use Computer-based Technology (Teacher-centered Use)

Predictor Variables Criterion Variables β t p R2

Preservice teachers’ Intent to Use Com-
Perception of Faculty puter-based Technol-
Modeling (Teacher- ogy (Teacher-centered 0.402 4.167 0.000** 0.162
centered Use) Use)
** significant at 0.05 level

Table 5
Relation between Preservice Teachers’ Perceptions of Faculty Modeling (Student-cen-
tered Use) and Intent to Use Computer-based Technology (Student-centered Use)

Predictor Variables Criterion Variables β t p R2

Preservice teach- Intent to Use
ers’ Perception of Computer-based
Faculty Modeling Technology (Stu- 0.252 2.469 0.015** 0.063
(Student-centered dent-centered Use)
Use)
** significant at 0.05 level

based on Bandura’s (1977) social learning
theory, hypothesized that preservice teachers’
perceptions of faculty modeling in computer-
based technology use will affect preservice
teachers’ intent of using computer-based
technology in educational settings when they
become teachers in the future.
The results showed that preservice
teachers’ perception of faculty modeling of
computer-based technology significantly
affected their intent to use computer-based
technology; results were similar for the use
dimension and its sub dimensions, but on the
dimension of role and its sub dimensions the
interaction was insignificant.
Limitations
This study has some limitations as fol-
lows:
First, the sample in this study is limited
to one specific course and specific university.
Hence, these results can not be generalized
as the sample is not representative. Second,
there is limited research on the relationship
between Preservice Teachers’ Perceptions of
Faculty Modeling, gender, age, major and
Intent to Use Computer-based Technology.
However, there is research in the literature
that examines each of these five variables
individually. So it is difficult to evaluate the
results of this research in light of this earlier
research.
The participants of this study are en-
rolled in other courses simultaneously, so
modeling by faculty of those courses may
Preservice Teachers . . / 283
influence their scores on Preservice Teach-
ers’ Perceptions of Faculty Modeling and
Intent to Use Computer-based Technology
surveys also their previous experience with
the use of computer-based technology may
also influence their scores on those surveys.
In future researchers may improve and add to
the results of this research by taking a more
representative sample and conducting the
research in a more controlled setting.
Implications
Over the course of the last decade tech-
nology has been gaining more importance
in teacher education programs but most
programs still have a way to go before they
can accurately prepare their graduates to use
technology to its fullest potential in their
teaching and administrative activities (Moore,
Knuth, Borse, & Mitchell, 1999). This re-
search shows the importance of preservice
teachers’ perceptions of faculty modeling of
computer-based technology in influencing
their intent to use computer-based technology.
This study is significant since college-level
instructors must be competent users of com-
puter-based technologies in order to influence
the full development of preservice teachers
who use them as role models. So the assess-
ment of competencies of preservice teachers’
instructors should be authentic and indicate
whether the competencies instructor’s posses
are adequate to support the vision of learning
in actual classroom settings. Figures
284/ Journal of Instructional Psychology, Vol. 35, No. 3

Figures

Figure 1. Relation between Preservice Teachers’ Perceptions of Faculty Modeling and Intent
to Use Computer-based Technology

Figure 2. Relation between Preservice Teachers’ Perceptions of Faculty Modeling (Use)

and Intent to Use Computer-based Technology (Use)
 Preservice Teachers . . / 285

Figure 3. Relation between Preservice Teachers’ Perceptions of Faculty Modeling (Teacher-

centered Use) and Intent to Use Computer-based Technology (Teacher-centered Use)

Figure 4. Relation between Preservice Teachers’ Perceptions of Faculty Modeling (Student-

centered Use) and Intent to Use Computer-based Technology (Student-centered Use)
286/ Journal of Instructional Psychology, Vol. 35, No. 3
References
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory.
New York: General Learning Press.
Bichelmeyer, B. A., Reinhart, J. M., & Mon-
son, J. (1998, February). Teachers’ perceptions
of teacher role in the information age classroom.
Paper presented at the 1998 National Convention
of the Association for Educational Communica-
tions and Technology, St. Louis, MO.
Carlson, R. D., & Gooden, J. S. (1999). Are
teacher preparation programs modeling technol-
ogy use for pre-service teachers? ERS Spectrum,
17(3), 11-15.
Cassady, J., & Pavlechko, G. (2000). Does
technology make a difference in preservice teacher
education? Paper presented at the International
Conference on Learning with Technology, Phila-
delphia.
Downes, T. (1993). Student-teachers’ ex-
periences in using computers during teaching
practice. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning,
9, 17-33.
Duhaney, D. C. (2001). Teacher educa-
tion: preparing teacher to integrate technology.
International Journal of Instructional Media,
28(1), 23-30.
Faison, C. L. (1996). Modeling instructional
technology use in teacher preparation: why we
can’t wait. Educational Technology, 36(5), 57-
59.
Frey, B. A., & Birnbaum, D. J. (2002). Learn-
ers’ perceptions on the value of powerpoint in
lectures. PA, U.S.
Hancock, V., & Betts, F. (1994). From the
lagging to the leading edge, Educational Leader-
ship, 51(7), 24-29.
International Society of Technology Educa-
tion (ISTE) Accreditation Committee (1992).
Curriculum Guidelines for Accreditation of
Education Computing and Technology Programs.
Eugene, OR: ISTE.
International Society of Technology Educa-
tion Natioinal Educational Technology Standards
(2000). Retrieved August 24, 2004, from http://
cnets.iste.org/teachers/t_profiles.html
International Reading Association (2002).
Retrieved January 5, 2005, from http://www.
reading.org
Jao, F. (2001). An investigation of preservice
teachers’ attitudes and confidence levels toward
educational technology standards and selected
instructional software applications, The Univer-
sity of Toledo.
Koohang, A. A. (1989). A study of attitudes
toward computers: Anxiety confidence, liking, and
perception of usefulness. Journal of Research on
Computing in Education, 22(2), 137-150.
Kruger, K., Hansen, L., & Smaldino, S. E.
(2000). Preservice teacher technology competen-
cies. TechTrends, 44(3), 47-50.
Kurubacak, G., & Baptiste, H. P. (2002).
Creating a virtual community with PT3: College
of education students’ beliefs, expectations and
attitudes toward online learning. World Confer-
ence on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia &
Telecommunications. Denver, CO.
Laffey, M., & Musser, D. (1998). Attitudes
of preservice teachers about using technology
in teaching, Journal of Technology and Teacher
Education, 6(4), 223-241.
Lee, L. S. (1996). Problem-solving as intent
and content of technology education. Paper pre-
sented at the Annual Meeting of the International
Technology Education Association, Phoenix,
AZ.
Lever-Duffy, J., McDonald, J. B., & Mizell, A.
P. (2005). Teaching and learning with technology,
(2nd ed.). Pearson Education, Inc., Boston, MA.
Luke, N., Moore, J. L., & Sawyer, S. B.
(1998). Authentic approaches to encourage
technology-using teachers. Paper presented at
the Site ’98: Society for Information Technology
& Teacher Education International Conference,
Washington D. C.
Mills, S. C., & Tincher, R. C. (2002). Be the
technology: Redefining technology integration
in classrooms. Paper presented at the National
Educational Computing Conference, San Anto-
nio, TX.
Moore, J., Knuth, R., Borse, J., & Mitchell
M. (1999). Teacher technology competencies:
Early indicators and benchmarks. Paper pre-
sented at Society for Information Technology &
Teacher Education International Conference, San
Antonio, TX.
Mower-Popiel, E., Pollard, C., & Pollard, R.
(1994). An analysis of the perceptions of preser-
vice teachers toward technology and its use in the
classroom. Journal of Instructional Psychology,
21(2), 131-138.
National Center for Education Statistics
(2000). Teachers’ tools for the 21st century: A
report on teachers’use of technology. Washington,
dc: U.S. Department of Education.

National Council for the Accreditation of
Teacher Education (2004), Technology and the new
professional teacher: Preparing for the 21st century
classroom. Retrieved December 15, 2004, from
http://www.ncate.org/projects/tech/TECH.HTM
Nelson, E. (2004). Faculty technology survey.
Retrieved November 9, 2004, from http://www.
csufresno.edu/ait/03fac-report.htm
Norby, R. F. (2002). A study of changes in
attitude towards science in a technology based k-8
preservice preparation science classroom. Paper
presented at the Annual Meeting of the National
Association for Research in Science Teaching,
New Orleans, LA.
Norum, K., Grabinger, R. S., & Duffield,
A. J. (1999). Healing the universe is an inside
job: Teachers’ views on integrating technology,
Journal of Technology and Teacher Education,
7(3), 187-203.
Okinaka, R. (1992). The factors that affect
teacher attitude towards computer use. (Teach-
ing and Teacher Education, No. SP033765).
CA, U.S.
Persichitte, K. A., Caffarella, E. P., & Tharp,
D. D. (1999). Technology integration in teacher
preparation: A qualitative research study. Jour-
nal of Technology and Teacher Education, 7(3),
219-233.
Rezabek, L. L. (1987). Perceived credibility
of female peer talent in the context of computer
instruction. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
University of Oklahoma, Norman.
Ross, E. M., Ertmer, P. A., & Johnson, T. E.
(2001). Technology integration and innovative
teaching practices: A staff development model for
facilitating change. Paper presented at the National
Convention of the Association for Educational
Communications and Technology, Atlanta, GA.
Rutledge, K. (2000). Social learning theory.
Ormond’s Psychology of Learning. Retrieved
September 7, 2004, from http://teachnet.edb.
utexas.edu/~lynda_abbott/Social.html
Sahin, T. Y. (2003). Student teachers’ per-
ceptions of instructional technology: Developing
materials based on a constructivist approach.
British Journal of Educational Technology,
34(1), 67-74.
Preservice Teachers . . / 287
Savenye, W. (1992). Effects of an educational
computing course on preservice teachers’ attitudes
and anxiety toward computers. Journal of Comput-
ing in Childhood Education, 3(1), 31-41.
Schrum. L., & Dehoney, J. (1998). Meeting
the future: A teacher education program joins
the information age. Journal of Technology and
Teacher Education, 6(1), 23-27.
Simmons, M. P., & Macchia, P. J. (2003).
Strategies for modeling technology integration.
Kappa Delta Pi Record, 39(3), 136-39.
Stetson, R. H., & Bagwell, T. (1999). Tech-
nology and teacher preparation: an oxymoron?
Journal of Technology and Teacher Education,
7(2), 145-152.
Stinson, A. D. (2003). Encouraging the use
of technology in the classroom: The webquest
connection. Reading Online, 6(7).
Troutman, A. P. (1991). Attitudes toward
personal and school use of computers. Paper
presented at the Annual Conference of the Eastern
Educational Research Association, Boston, MA.
U.S. Department of Education. (1996).
Getting America’s students ready for the 21st cen-
tury: Meeting the technology literacy challenge.
Retrieved December 15, 2004, from http://www.
zuni.k12.nm.us/Ias/Tech/TLC/TOC.htm
Wang, Y. (2001). Student teachers’ percep-
tions and practice of the teachers’ role when
teaching with computers. Journal of Educational
Computing Research, 24(4), 419-434
Wetzel, K., Zambo, R., & Buss, R. (1996).
Innovations in integrating technology into student
teaching experiences. Journal of Research on
Computing in Education, 29(Winter), 196-214.
Whetstone, L., & Carr-Chellman, A. A.
(2001). Preparing preservice teachers to use
technology: Survey results. TechTrends, 46(4),
11-17.
Yidirim, S. (2000). Effects of an educational
computing course on preservice and inservice
teachers: A discussion and analysis of attitudes
and use. Journal of Research on Computing in
Education, 32(4), 479-495.