Running head: RESEARCH ANALYSIS & CRITIQUE

An Investigation of Factors Influencing Student Use of Technology in K-12 Classrooms

Michael De Angelis

The University of British Columbia

ETEC 500

March 20th 2019

Running head: RESEARCH ANALYSIS & CRITIQUE

Study Purpose

This study was conducted by The University of Florida, they collected data and measured factors
that influence student use of technology in the classroom. The focus of the study was to locate
factors within the framework of the teacher referring to improving student learning, the school
and approach to technology within the classroom.

A common issue that arises within the discussion of technology integration is the gap between
theory and practice. In theory, technology is advancing at an alarming pace and the accessibility
to technology-driven education is a common denominator in the conversation of integrating
technology into classrooms. However, in practice, there is a lag for its application due to
extraneous factors such as cost-gates, uncertainty of success and un-trained educators which
begins to lend itself some answers in this literature review.

The US Department of Education (USDOE) 2010 Blueprint for Reform identified technology as
a component of a complete education and emphasized the need to invest in “evidence-based
instructional models and supports” (USDOE, 2010, p.4). The University of Florida conducted
their study with a path analysis model in conjunction with a two-year TTS (Teacher Technology
Survey) to support the notion that exogenous and endogenous variables within the study had a
positive impact on student use of technology in the K-12 classroom.

This study is not to be mistaken with the potential benefits for learning by integrating technology
in the classroom but serves to examine the effects on student use of technology as done so by
instructional usage, teacher experience and accessibility.

Previous Studies

The study acknowledges there are other methodologies and approaches to this form of research
but makes its connection with the following 4 studies due to their similar approach as a path
analysis study but differ in their specific endogenous variable studied.

1. Mathews and Guarino, 2000

- Mathews and Guarino (2000) studies the use of technology by a teacher and
examined a flurry of variables including gender, experience and accessibility. Their
resolve determined that younger teachers generally apply more computer usage than
older teachers in addition to factors contributing to usage of computers by the
teachers themselves. (Mathews and Guarino, 2000).

2. Robinson, 2003
Running head: RESEARCH ANALYSIS & CRITIQUE

- Robinson (2003) focused on a more superficial variable on the plane of technology

support and attitudes towards integration. The study demonstrated that main factors
include proficiency and computers for enhancement activities are significant.
(Robinson, 2003).

3. Van Braak et al., 2004

- Similar to Mathews and Guarino (2000), Van Braak, Tondeur and Valcke (2004)
explore technology usage by a teacher. Their findings however, differed slightly by
identifying experience and attitudes as the main contributing factors to the usage of
computers by teachers. (Van Braak et al., 2004).

4. Inan and Lowther, 2010

- This study focused on technology integration which include a breakdown of
accessibility, support and attitudes towards technology integration within the
classroom. The study determined age has a negative contribution, while readiness and
proficiency had positive contributions to instructional integration (Inan and Lowther,
2010).

STUDY COMPARISONS

1. Experimental versus non-intervention

- This study is a non-intervention study because in the path analysis model used, there
are several dependent variables and there are no specified control groups that tested
an intervention. As listed below in the tables, there are several dependent variables in
addition to independent variables. The data was collected through the TTS (Teacher
Technology Survey) as participating teachers filled out the document at the beginning
of the year. One may argue this can be experimental as the TTS was conducted over
two-years with non-overlapping groups, but the TTS was adapted over the two years
for clarification and relevance, which may have influenced the results and does not
act as a control to test the intervention.

2. Problem Based versus theory based

- This study was more theory-based than problem based as the focus of its results were
to support theories that technology integration is a necessity in modern successful
education. The study does not concern itself over specific details of benefits of
technology integration for learning, but merely seeks to examine if student usage of
technology is influenced by factors of the teacher, school and accessibility culture.
The results they determine attempt to support the theory that there are positive
impacts of teacher usage in technology but are not focused on what these impacts are
other than the fact that they are positive.
Running head: RESEARCH ANALYSIS & CRITIQUE

3. Quantitative versus qualitative

- This study has evidence of mixed methods of research. The study at the glance of an
eye is clearly quantitative as there are numbers and statistical data that can be
analyzed for a conclusion. There are references to means, standard deviations,
skewness and kurtosis which indicate tangible data for comparisons. I’ve included
quantitative research to form a mixed method in this study because as the results are
published, it is evident that there are influential factors caused by feelings or
expressions of non-measurable factors. For example, the study is all derived from
self-reported data which includes teachers reporting on their observations of student
technology usage of computers which excludes other devices such as mobile devices.
In addition, several variables in this study were based upon a teachers’ arbitrarily
decided level of comfort, attitude towards technology integration and school cultural
context of technology which can all be summarized by qualitative methods.

CONSTRUCTS AND OPERATIONAL DEFFINITIONS

The following table is extracted from the article that outlines significant constructs and
operational definitions of the study. The “measures” column indicates variables which were
examined in our path analysis model and is supported by their operational definition of how the
study understood the context of these variables. The variables include both exogenous and
endogenous variables.

Table 2. Description of Variables in Model. Reprinted from “An Investigation of Factors

Influencing Student Use of Technology in K-12 Classrooms Using Path Analysis,” by A.D.
Ritzhaupt, K. Dawson, and C. Cavanaugh, 2012, Journal of Educational Computing Research,
Vol 46(3), p. 235. Copyright 2012 by Baywood Publishing Co., Inc .
Running head: RESEARCH ANALYSIS & CRITIQUE

Table 2. Description of independent variables in Model. Reprinted from “An Investigation of

Factors
Influencing Student Use of Technology in K-12 Classrooms Using Path Analysis,” by A.D.
Ritzhaupt, K. Dawson, and C. Cavanaugh, 2012, Journal of Educational Computing Research,
Vol 46(3), p. 235. Copyright 2012 by Baywood Publishing Co., Inc .
Running head: RESEARCH ANALYSIS & CRITIQUE

INDEPENDENT & DEPENDENT VARIABLES

Independent variables in this study include 3 categories and are the first level of variables in the
path analysis diagram (Figure 1) indicated in the following:

First Block
Teacher
1. Teaching Experience with Technology
2. Level of Education
3. K-12 classroom teaching experience

School
1. School Technology Professional Development
2. School Technology Support
3. School Access to Technology in Classrooms

Contextual
1. Grade Level
2. Average Number of Students in Class

References

USDOE
Running head: RESEARCH ANALYSIS & CRITIQUE

Dependent variables in this study are the second and third level of variables in the path analysis
diagram indicated by the following:

Block 2
- Teacher Use of Technology
- Classroom Technology Integration

Block 3
- Student Use of Technology

Figure 1: Path Diagram of Hypothesized Relationships. Reprinted from “An Investigation of

Factors Influencing Student Use of Technology in K-12 Classrooms Using Path Analysis,” by
A.D. Ritzhaupt, K. Dawson, and C. Cavanaugh, 2012, Journal of Educational Computing
Research, Vol 46(3), p. 233. Copyright 2012 by Baywood Publishing Co., Inc.

Refer to Table for definitions of each variable.

RESEARCH DESIGN

The primary research design of this study is a path analysis approach with a hypothesized path
model. While there are various forms of conducting research and producing data for analysis,
this study follows a path analysis model. Path analysis is a method that produces data for
hypothesized variables, indirect and direct to the problem proposed. The general format of a path
analysis method is a systematic diagram which express relationships between exogenous and
endogenous variables. In other terms, exogenous variables are independent while endogenous
variables are dependent. Together, they form the relationships explored within a path analysis
diagram. The study uses variables within 3 separate categories as noted by “teacher related
variables, school related variables and contextual related variables.” The study was conducted
from results of a TTS (Teacher Technology Survey) that was represented by nonoverlapping
groups of teacher participants over a two-year period at the beginning of the year. The TTS is
noted to have been modified over the two-year period for clarification and relevance which
includes questions that range from usage of relevant and unique software to frequency of usage
to content area, pedagogy and experience.

PARTICIPANT SAMPLES

All data collected is from “teachers involved with Enhancing Education Through Technology
(EETT) funding in the state of Florida during the 2006-07 and 2007-08 school years. There was
a total of 732 teachers involved across 107 schools within 17 school districts. TTS was used to
gather data from participants at the start of the Fall semester in both school years and the number
of teachers involved in each year was roughly equal. 364 teachers participated in the study in the
2006-07 year and 368 in the 2007-08 year for the total of 732 teachers. Both years included
Running head: RESEARCH ANALYSIS & CRITIQUE

teachers whom were non-overlapping and had various years of experience teaching and teaching
with technology, level of education and content area (pedagogy and K-12).

RELIABILITY AND VALIDITIY

Although the study is conducted with a degree of randomness in participant selection, the study
has been noted to have shaky reliability which influences its validity to an extent. In the sample
of participants, the TTS was conducted over a two-year period with equal number of teachers in
both years, a variety of teaching experience and expertise and a range of ages/pedagogical areas.
The path analysis model also discredits outliers in the study which increases its reliability.
However, the study indicates on its own there are a few factors that may influence results due to
the nature of the study. Interpretation of data is limited because the TTS was modified from year
to year to increase clarification and relevance of questions. This may have influenced the
reliability of data as clarification is a parallel factor that should be evident from the application of
the questionnaire. Relevance of questions, such as the usage of specific software (ie.
Dreamweaver) can be negatively affected by new comfort levels, experience or support provided
for technology integration over the two years. All variables within the data is also self-reported
and the study itself notes a large factor of influence settles amongst the aspect of teachers
reporting on observable means of student technology use. Teachers report on student computer
usage and neglect mobile and other forms of technology usage.

CRITIQUE

A study of the work provided by the University of Florida offers a twofold purpose and a unique
perspective into a form of research that bridges a gap between research questions. At a short
glance of the abstract, one may discover that the study seems to be well-supported in nature and
comes to a concrete solution to a problem that was rendered during hypothesis. However, in my
discovery, this study seems to serve better as a discussion piece with a simple approach that
opens itself up for a more complex evaluation with the statistics it provides.

The strength in this study is its self-awareness of its reliability and validity but continues to prove
its importance and relevance in literature in educational technology. While the gathering of data
can be picked apart by statisticians, the nature of where the data derived from is of incredible
importance. There is relevant anecdotal evidence from practicing teachers on their observations
of students and their own self-ability to conduct integration of technology in their own
classrooms. From a larger perspective, the study here supports questions that were brought up
from previous research and allows future study with more concrete empirical data. For example,
the main question answered in this study is the undoubted importance of teachers’ usage of
technology to influence the levels of student usage of technology. It answers the question of
potential lag time between theory and practice of technology integration in the classrooms which
is the hesitation from teachers or the lack of accessibility support by school districts. This now
opens future research on the benefits of technology integration in the classroom and how to
appropriately support teachers to positively influence their classrooms. One weakness of the
Running head: RESEARCH ANALYSIS & CRITIQUE

study is its reliability and validity. While the TTS provides practical and relevant information for
gathering data, the way it was controlled is an area marked for improvement. The study would
not stand up against attempts to attack its credibility because of the lack of control in questioning
and the answers being self-reported in nature. However, I did not find the results of this study
required as much reliability as a typical study as the answer we are seeking here is more of a
yes/no answer as opposed to statistical differential between impacts of variables. A reader must
still, nevertheless, receive this data with a grain of salt as there can be many implications of the
results when the validity is in question.

Overall, this study served the purpose it sought out to answer. It introduces a path analysis model
which is different from standard methodologies and allows a reader to receive the simple yet
crucial pieces of information or to examine the data further with the added formulas and tables.

CONCLUSION

The study conducted by the University of Florida fulfills its purpose as a piece of literature that
does not concern itself directly with intricate numerical analysis but lends itself to support
previous research and to foster a relationship with future research. The data that was gathered
and analyzed in this study, although not strictly controlled, provides enough evidence that
student technology usage in the classroom is positively and increasingly impacted by the use of
the studied variables of the teacher, classroom and contextual factors. It is determined in the
study that the teacher’s use of technology, integration in the curriculum, experience with
technology, access and professional development are all contributing factors to a positive impact
of increased technology usage within students. The study also relates that integration is hindered
by the years of experience of the teacher as older teachers are less likely to attribute the same
attitudes as their younger colleagues. This study also connects the prior research as formerly
mentioned and supports their notion of importance in attitude and teacher usage of technology
while segueing into potential future research in empirical data related to the benefits of using said
technologies in the classroom. The major findings at the end of this study are summarized by a
noted major influence in student use of technology by a variety of factors such as teacher, school
and contextual usage of technology.
Running head: RESEARCH ANALYSIS & CRITIQUE

References:

Inan, F. A., & Lowther, D. L. (2010). Factors affecting technology integration in K-12
classrooms: A path model. Educational Technology Research & Development,
58(2),137-154.

Mathews, J. G., & Guarino, A. J. (2000). Predicting teacher computer use: A path analysis.
International Journal of Instructional Media, 27
(4), 385-392

Ritzhaupt, A. D., Dawson, K., & Cavanaugh, C. (2012). An investigation of factors influencing
student use of technology in K-12 classrooms using path analysis. Journal of
Educational Computing Research, 46(3), 229-254. doi:10.2190/EC.46.3.b

Robinson, W. I. (2003). External, and internal factors which predict teachers’ computer usage
in K-12 classrooms. Detroit, MI: Wayne State University.

U.S. Department of Education (USDOE). (2010). Office of Planning, Evaluation and

Policy Development, ESEA Blueprint for Reform, Washington, DC.

Van Braak, J., Tondeur, J., & Valcke, M. (2004). Explaining different types of computer
use among primary school teachers. European Journal of Psychology of Education,
19(4), 407-422.