Fethi A. Inan a,*, Deborah L. Lowther b, Steven M. Ross c, Dan Strahl c

1. Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (2010) 540–546
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Teaching and Teacher Education
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tate
Pattern of classroom activities during students’ use of computers: Relations
between instructional strategies and computer applications
Fethi A. Inan a, *, Deborah L. Lowther b, Steven M. Ross c, Dan Strahl c
a
Instructional Technology, Texas Tech University, College of Education, Room #267, Box 41071, Lubbock, TX 79409, USA
b
The University of Memphis, USA
c
Center for Research in Educational Policy, The University of Memphis, USA
a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t
Article history: The purpose of this study was to identify instructional strategies used by teachers to support technology
Received 13 November 2007 integration. In addition, relations between types of computer applications and teachers’ classroom
Received in revised form practices were examined. Data were direct observation results from 143 integration lessons implemented
2 January 2009
in schools receiving federal technology grants. Results reflect use of student-centered practices such as
Accepted 16 June 2009
teacher as a facilitator, project-based learning, and independent inquiry. Furthermore, this study
revealed that classroom practices tend to be more student-centered when students use the computer as
Keywords:
a learning tool such as the Internet, word processing, and presentation software. Conversely, drill and
Computer uses in education
Technology integration practice software showed a dissimilar pattern.
Instructional technology Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Teaching methods
Computer-assisted instruction
Educational software
Technology implementation in schools has been a major focus of as drill and practice, tutorials, and simulations (Hohlfeld, Ritzhaupt,
educational reform and policies for several decades (Culp, Honey, & Barron, & Kemker, 2008; Moursund & Bielefeldt, 1999; O’Dwyer,
Mandinach, 2003; Web-Based Education Commission, 2000). Russell, & Bebel, 2004; Smeets, 2005).
Within the last decade, over $40 billion was spent to place The use of computers as a delivery tool has been the trend for
computers in schools and provide Internet connections to each more than a decade, as a 1994 report by Becker (1994) revealed
school (CEO Forum, 2001; Dickard, 2003). Consequently, the that students at the elementary level used computers extensively
student-to-Internet-connected computer ratio has improved; to do drills or play educational games rather than as learning
today, almost every school has Internet access and about one tools. An early study by Rakes, Flowers, Casey, and Santana (1999)
computer per every four students (Bausell, 2008; National Center found that approximately one-third (66.4%) of the 435 teachers
for Education Statistics [NCES], 2004). surveyed reported that their students used drill and practice type
Unfortunately, increased availability of technology in the school software in the classroom as a regular part of their curriculum,
has not lead to overall improvement in classroom teaching prac- however, 74.7% reported that their students did not use basic
tices (Cuban, 2001; Cuban, Kirkpatrick, & Peck, 2001; Rutherford, desktop publishing software. More recent studies have found that
2004; Windschitl & Sahl, 2002). The computers are rarely used as little has changed since Becker’s 1994 findings. A study by Ross,
learning tools, which would not only extend student abilities to Smith, Alberg, and Lowther (2004), which presented findings
solve problems, create products, communicate and share their from almost 10,000 classroom observations, also revealed that
perspectives with others, but also build 21st Century knowledge technology was used infrequently as a learning tool, but rather
and skills (Jonassen, Howland, Marra, & Crismond, 2008; Morrison used to deliver instruction such as drill and practice. Relatively
& Lowther, 2010; Partnership for 21st Century Skills, 2004; Ton- few teachers who used computers in their classroom had
deur, van Braak, & Valcke, 2007). Teachers mainly use computers as students use analytic and project-oriented software, but instead,
delivery tools to present instructional content or to engage they personally used content delivery tools to support their
students in the use of computer-assisted learning applications such teaching (Smeets & Mooij, 2001). This type of use is not sufficient
to provide students with the essential skills such as critical
thinking and problem solving for economic survival in a 21st
* Corresponding author. Century work environment (Casner-Lotto & Barrington, 2006;
E-mail address: fethi.inan@ttu.edu (F.A. Inan). Dickard, 2002; CEO Forum, 2001).
0742-051X/$ – see front matter Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.tate.2009.06.017

2. F.A. Inan et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (2010) 540–546 541
In contrast to the aforementioned studies, researchers show classroom observations. Specifically, the following research
evidence that use of computers as learning tools can improve the questions were addressed:
nature of teaching, student learning, and problem solving (Butzin,
2001; Grant, Ross, Wang, & Potter, 2005; Kozma, 2003; Lowther, - What type of classroom orientation, instructional strategies,
Ross, & Morrison, 2003; Means & Golan, 1998). Unfortunately, as and student computer activities are conducted in technology-
mentioned the use of technology as a learning tool to support integrated classrooms?
student learning in K-12 schools has not been a common teaching - Is there any common pattern between types of computer
practice (Ertmer, Addison, Lane, Ross, & Woods, 1999; Vannatta & activities (production software, Internet and research software,
Fordham, 2004). Based on data collected from approximately and educational software) and classroom practices (classroom
2156 K-12 teachers, Barron, Kemker, Harmes, and Kalaydjian (2003) orientation, instructional strategies, and student activities)?
found low use of technology to support student productivity,
research, or problem solving. Teachers indicated that when the 2. Method
computer was used as a learning tool, the primary purpose was to
search for information or to write papers (Wozney, Venkatesh, & 2.1. Participants
Abrami, 2006). Other studies have found that one of the most
commonly used software in K-12 settings is word processing due to The 39 participating schools were located in Tennessee and had
teacher familiarity with the software, which in turn reduces the received federal funding from the US Department of Education to
need of technical support (Becker & Ravitz, 2001; Ross & Lowther, implement school-wide technology initiatives. Thirteen of the
2003). Not surprisingly, the Internet is reported as one of the most schools had received Title II Part D (EdTech) funding from the No
commonly used digital tools in K-12 classrooms (Muir-Herzig, Child Left Behind Act and 26 received funding from the Technology
2004; Wozney et al., 2006). Literacy Challenge Fund (TLCF). Both grants required whole-school
professional development under the guidance of a full time tech-
1. Relations between instructional strategies and type nology coach. The data from this study were collected from 143
of computer software classroom observations of full (45–60-min) pre-scheduled tech-
nology integration lessons at both EdTech (N ¼ 39) and TLCF
Studies related to K-12 technology integration typically provide (N ¼ 104) schools.
a profile of computer availability, Internet access, and type of
software use. However, the examination of relations between 2.2. Data collection instruments
teacher pedagogical practices and type of computer application
gets little attention. In multiple studies, teachers’ pedagogical Two instruments were used to descriptively, not judgmentally
orientation and practices toward technology use in the classroom record observed classroom practices: the School Observation
were differentiated into two broad categories: teacher-centered Measure (SOMÓ) (Ross, Smith, & Alberg, 1999) and the Survey of
and student or learner-centered (Becker, 2000; Ertmer et al., 1999; Computer Use (SCUÓ) (Lowther & Ross, 2000). Both instruments
Niederhauser & Stoddart, 2001). For example, a study by had been shown to be reliable and valid (Lewis, Ross, & Alberg,
Niederhauser and Stoddart (2001) indicated a significant relation- 1999; Lowther & Ross, 1999; Lowther et al., 2003; Ross et al., 2004;
ship between teachers’ pedagogical perspectives and the type of Sterbinsky & Burke, 2004). In addition, trained, unbiased site
software used by the students in the classroom This study showed researchers conducted all data collection procedures.
that teachers with learner-centered perspectives preferred to have
their students use ‘‘open-ended software,’’ which allows active 2.2.1. SOM
student participation, production, and construction of knowledge The SOM was developed to determine the extent to which
with tools such as word processing or presentation software. On different common and alternative teaching practices are used
the other hand, teachers with traditional teacher-centered orien- throughout an entire school or in a targeted 1-hour lesson (Ross
tation leaned toward skilled-based software such as tutorials and/ et al., 1999). The observer examines classroom events and activities
or drill and practice. These findings support those of Becker (2000), descriptively, not judgmentally. Notes are taken relative to the use
which indicated that teachers with constructivist-oriented peda- or nonuse of 24 target strategies. The target strategies include both
gogies frequently assign students to use digital learning tools such traditional practices (e.g., direct instruction, independent seatwork,
as presentation, spreadsheet, and word processing that require and technology for instructional delivery) and alternative,
input and analysis of information. predominately student-centered methods associated with educa-
Although previous studies examined the relation between tional reforms (e.g., cooperative learning, project-based learning,
teacher pedagogical orientation and practices and student use of inquiry, discussion, using technology as a learning tool). An inter-
computers, most of these studies relied on self-report data from rater reliability study of SOM with trained observers was conducted
teachers. As several researchers point out, teachers usually have by Lewis et al. (1999). The study indicated that pairs of observers
some notion concerning desirable answers, so these types of data selected the identical response on the five-category rubric on 67%
may be unreliable and biased or provide limited and invalid of the observation form items. Agreement within one category
information (Hakkarainen et al., 2001; Kopcha & Sullivan, 2007). occurs 93.8 of the time and within two categories 100% of the time.
Furthermore, Hakkarainen et al. (2001) indicated that there is even A more recent reliability study (Sterbinsky & Burke, 2004) found
a discrepancy between teachers’ pedagogical perspectives and their similar results in that observer ratings were within one category for
reported classroom practices. Ertmer, Gopalakrishnan, and Ross 96% of the whole-school observations and for 91% of the targeted
(2001) suggest that researchers should focus on what teachers are observations.
doing in terms of beliefs and practices regarding computer use in
the classrooms. Therefore, it is important to observe and record 2.2.2. SCU
type of computer software and how and to what extent these The SCU is a companion instrument to the SOM and was also
applications are used in actual classroom settings. This study used during the targeted observations (Lowther & Ross, 1999). The
examined the pattern between types of computer applications and SCU was designed exclusively to capture student access to, ability
classroom practices based on realistic data gathered by direct with, and use of computers, rather than teacher use of technology.

3. 542 F.A. Inan et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (2010) 540–546
Observers record computer activities by the software being experiential/hands-on learning, systematic individual instruction,
used. The computer activities are divided into three categories sustained writing/composition, sustained reading, independent
based on the type of software used: (a) production software (word inquiry/research on the part of students, student discussion). Each
processing, databases, spreadsheets, draw-paint graphics, presen- of the variables was coded as not observed (rubric category ¼ 0)
tation, authoring, concept mapping, and planning), (b) Internet or and observed (categories 1–4 combined). Results did not include
research software (Internet browser, CD reference materials, and analyses that had an expected count of less than five (Huck, 2008;
communications), and (c) educational software (drill-practice- Sheskin, 2000).
tutorial, problem solving, and process software). Early interrater
reliability of SCU was determined in a study that involved pairs of 3. Results
trained observers who conducted observations in 42 targeted visits
to classrooms that were scheduled to have students utilizing 3.1. Student computer activities
technology. Results from the study revealed that overall, the paired
observers selected the identical SCU response on 86% of the items, SCU results indicate that the students were using a variety of
with all other responses being only one rating apart (Lowther & software applications during classroom observations. Internet
Ross, 1999). A more recent reliability study for the SCU (Sterbinsky browser was the most commonly observed application as it was
& Burke, 2004) show that observer ratings were within one cate- observed being used by students rarely to extensively in nearly 60%
gory for 91% of the targeted observations. of the classrooms. In nearly 25% of the classes, other software
observed in the range of rarely to extensively were word processing
2.3. Procedures (22.1%), drill/practice/tutorials (21.4%), and presentation (21.3%).
Database, concept mapping, communications, and process software
In this study, the SOM and SCU was used during targeted were the least observed software, which were being utilized in less
observations to explore classroom practices in prearranged 1-hour than 5% of the visits. Authoring software was the only software not
sessions in which the teachers were asked to integrate technology. observed. Table 1 depicts the observed student computer activities.
Observed strategies and student computer activities were recorded
on SOM and SCU Notes forms that represented 15 minutes of
3.2. Instructional strategies
observed time. At the conclusion of the visit, the observer
summarized, on data summary forms, the frequency with which
SOM data revealed that the most commonly observed strategies
each of the strategies and the computer activities /and software
across all classes were teacher acting as a coach or facilitator
were observed. The frequency for both instruments was recorded
(90.1%), direct instruction (72.7%), use of higher-level questioning
using a five-point rubric that ranges from (0) Not Observed to (4)
(46.8%), cooperative or collaborative learning (46.2), and project-
Extensively observed. To ensure the reliability of data, observers
based learning (42.7%). Systematic individual instruction and
participated in a comprehensive training session. An observer’s
parent/community involvement in learning activities were only
manual provided definition of terms, examples and explanations of
observed in less than 5% of the observations. In the majority of the
the target strategies, and a description of procedures for
observations (85.3%), technology was used as a learning tool or
completing the instrument. After the training session, each
resource more commonly than for instructional delivery (55.2%).
observer also participated in sufficient practice exercises in real
Table 2 presents the observed classroom activities.
classroom settings to ensure that his/her data were comparable
with those of experienced observers.
Observation data from TLCF and EdTech schools were collected 3.3. Type of software and instructional strategies
by trained observers and both SOM and SCU were used during the
observations. Four targeted observations for each of the 26 TLCF The chi-square analysis revealed that word processing, presen-
schools and three-targeted observation for each of the 13 EdTech tation and Internet had a significant relationship with student-
schools were conducted. Teachers from each grant school were centered activities. This included collaborative learning, integration
randomly selected and informed prior to the observation to of subject areas, project-based learning, independent inquiry, and
demonstrate a prepared lesson using technology. Observers
worked with the teachers, technology coaches, and administrators
Table 1
to schedule all data collection events. Frequency of student computer activities (N ¼ 143).
NO (%) R (%) O (%) F (%) E (%)
2.4. Data analysis
Production software used by students
Word processing 77.9 5.0 2.9 5.0 9.3
Observation data were analyzed by descriptive statistical tech- Database 97.1 0.7 2.2 0.0 0.0
niques including frequencies, percentages, means and standard Spreadsheet 90.7 1.4 0.0 2.9 5.0
deviations. Furthermore, two-way contingency table analyses Draw/paint/graphics/photo-imaging 88.6 0.0 3.6 2.1 5.7
(chi-square for independence) were conducted to determine if Presentation 78.7 2.8 4.3 5.7 8.5
Authoring 100 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
relationships existed between the four most commonly used soft-
Concept mapping 95.7 0.7 0.0 0.0 3.6
ware applications and the 17 most frequently observed instruc- Planning 99.3 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0
tional strategies. The most commonly used software applications
Internet/research software used by students
were Internet browser, word processing, drill and practice, and Internet browser 40.1 3.5 2.8 12.0 41.5
presentation. The instructional strategies consisted of four orien- CD reference 93.6 2.1 2.1 0.7 1.4
tations (direct instruction, team teaching, cooperative learning, and Communications 97.8 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.7
individual tutoring), six instructional strategies (higher-level Educational software used by students
instructional feedback, integration of subject areas, project-based Drill/practice/tutorial 78.6 2.9 6.4 4.3 7.9
learning, use of higher-level questioning strategies, teacher acting Problem-solving 94.9 1.4 0.0 2.2 1.4
as a coach/facilitator, parent/community involvement in learning Process software 97.1 0.7 0.7 0.0 1.4
activities), and seven student activities (independent seatwork, NO ¼ Not Observed, R ¼ Rarely, O ¼ Occasionally, F ¼ Frequently, E ¼ Extensively.

4. F.A. Inan et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (2010) 540–546 543
Table 2 (e.g., production and research) rather than used for instructional
Frequencies of instructional strategies used (N ¼ 143). delivery in the majority of observations. In other words, teachers
NO (%) R (%) O (%) F (%) E (%) implemented student-centered strategies more frequently than
Instructional orientation teacher-centered strategies. For example, teachers acted as a coach
Direct instruction (lecture) 27.3 24.5 13.3 18.2 16.8 or facilitator rather than lecturer when technology was integrated
Team teaching 84.6 1.4 2.8 4.2 7.0 as a learning tool in the lesson. Moreover, use of higher-level
Cooperative/collaborative learning 53.8 4.2 9.8 17.5 14.7
questioning, cooperative and project-based learning were observed
Individual tutoring 88.8 5.6 4.2 1.4 0.0
in almost one-half of the observations. These results contrast
Instructional strategies previous studies which showed the computers primarily being
Higher-level instructional feedback 60.8 12.6 12.6 7.7 6.3
Integration of subject areas 72.7 2.1 7.0 9.1 9.1
used for instruction delivery (e.g., tutorial or drill and practice)
Project-based learning 57.3 2.8 4.2 13.3 22.4 rather than a tool to facilitate student learning and engagement
Use of higher-level questioning strategies 53.2 15.6 16.3 9.2 5.7 (Lowther et al., 2003; Niederhauser & Lindstrom, 2006; Ross &
Teacher acting as a coach/facilitator 9.9 5.0 14.2 31.2 39.7 Lowther, 2003; Smeets & Mooij, 2001).
Parent/community involvement 96.5 0.7 0.7 0.7 1.4
Student activities 4.2. Relations between instructional strategies and type
Independent seatwork 48.3 9.1 7.7 14.7 20.3 of computer software
Experiential, hands-on learning 65.0 2.8 6.3 14.0 11.9
Systematic individual instruction 95.8 0.7 1.4 2.1 0.0
Sustained writing/composition 83.9 3.5 6.3 3.5 2.8 As previously mentioned, word processing is one of the most
Sustained reading 87.4 5.6 3.5 2.1 1.4 commonly used software applications in K-12 because it is easy to
Independent inquiry/research 57.0 5.6 9.2 12.0 16.2 use and enables students to create and edit more visually appealing
Student discussion 69.2 9.8 4.9 9.8 6.3
and grammatically accurate products (Morrison & Lowther, 2010;
NO ¼ Not Observed, R ¼ Rarely, O ¼ Occasionally, F ¼ Frequently, E ¼ Extensively. Norton & Sprague, 2001). According to the findings, word
processing was found to be positively related to several student-
centered activities including cooperative learning, integration of
student discussion. Drill and practice applications showed subject areas, project-based learning, sustained writing, indepen-
a dissimilar pattern compared to other computer applications. dent inquiry and student discussion. Some of the relationships such
These applications were most commonly used for independent as project-based learning, integration of subject areas, and
seatwork and instructional delivery. Table 3 summarizes the asso- sustained writing can be logically explained. However, the rela-
ciations between software applications and instructional strategies. tionship between word processing and collaborative learning and
student discussion was less obvious. Although word processing is
4. Discussion typically considered a way to enhance individual productivity, it
can allow students to work on writing activities in a group (Forcier,
4.1. Student computer use and classroom activities 1996). These activities can be a result of incorporating collaborative
learning or from the lack of computers in classroom (Kumpulainen
In terms of the usage of computer applications in the class- & Wray, 1999; Mumtaz & Hammond, 2002). In this study, students
rooms, the results showed that although various software appli- were observed working at computers in pairs during at least 20% of
cations were being used by the students, the Internet browser was the observations. It is more likely that groups of students using
the most commonly observed application. Other software observed word processing may work collaboratively to brainstorm ideas or
rarely to extensively, in nearly 25% of the classes, were word pro- conduct research for a writing project.
cessing, drill and practice, and presentation. Understandably, The findings revealed that draw/paint/graphics/photo-imaging
studies conducted when the Internet was first introduced to applications were positively related with independent seatwork.
schools showed that drill and practice and word processing, rather This is understandable because a student working with or creating
than the Internet, were the most commonly used software graphics is more likely to work alone. In a writing activity, two or
(McGraw, Blair, & Ross, 1999; Reichstetter, 2000; Ross & Lowther, more students may discuss a topic and then compose a joint
2003). However, more recent studies reflect results similar to this representation of their understanding. On the other hand, the
study in that they revealed an increased use of Internet (Bennett & nature of the drawing or editing a photo may not lend itself as
Pye, 2003; Grant et al., 2005; Lowther, Strahl, Inan, & Bates, 2007). easily to the input of multiple students.
Researchers suggest that this shift is probably a part of movement Presentation software was found to be related with three
away from traditional drill and practice use of the computer to student-centered activities: integration of subject areas, project-
more project-oriented student-centered and collaborative activi- based learning, and student discussion. This relationship can be
ties (Lindstrom & Niederhauser, 2003; Liu, 2004; Niederhauser & explained by affordance of the software. First, presentations help
Lindstrom, 2006). students to present their ideas or artifacts of project-based learning
In this study, extent of computer application usage was broad; to other students (Norton & Wiburg, 2003). These presentations
ranging from moderate (60%) to not observed at all. The results can lead to discussions between students. Second, presentation
could possibly be attributed to two main factors: the innate func- software (e.g., PowerPoint) can be used as an authoring software
tions and attributions of the software and teacher proficiency with allowing students to create interactive multimedia products that
the software. For example, word processing is fundamental to address more than one subject area (Garcia, 2004).
writing reports, essays, and other forms of writing activities that are One of the critical elements of today’s classrooms is access to the
the main component of student work for all grade levels and subject Internet. Through means of the Internet, students are provided
areas. In a related study by Muir-Herzig (2004), the author found opportunities to search, discover, and utilize information that
that students most commonly used word processing and Internet meets individual learning goals (Chen & Paul, 2003; Jonassen, Peck,
during classroom activities. They also found that teacher profi- & Wilson, 1999; Morrison & Lowther, 2010). The current findings
ciency on these two computer applications was similarly very high. revealed that there were positive relationships between the
In regard to classroom practices, the results of this study Internet and student-centered activities. These activities involved
revealed that computers were used as a learning tool conducting research, collaboration among students, and the

5. 544 F.A. Inan et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (2010) 540–546
Table 3
Summary of strategies showing significant association with computer applications.
Word Processing Drawing Presentation Internet Drill
Instructional orientation
Direct instruction (lecture)
Team teaching
Cooperative/collaborative learning C C
Individual tutoring
Instructional strategies
Higher-level instructional feedback
Integration of subject areas CC CC
Project-based learning C CC Q
Use of higher-level questioning strategies
Teacher acting as a coach/facilitator C
Parent/community involvement in learning
Student activities
Independent seatwork C Q CC
Experiential, hands-on learning
Systematic individual instruction
Sustained writing/composition CC
Sustained reading
Independent inquiry/research C CC
Student discussion CC CC
C ¼ Positive and Significant, p < 0.05,; CC ¼ Positive and Significant, p < 0.01; Q ¼ Negative and Significant, p < 0.05.
teacher serving as a facilitator. Consequently, independent seat- technology training and computer experiences can extend an
work was less observed when students used the Internet. understanding of teacher use of technology (Atkins & Vasu, 2000;
As would be expected, drill and practice or tutorial applications Robinson, 2003). Similarly, studies should examine how contextual
were used for instructional delivery of subject matter content and barriers influenced instructional practices and teaching strategies
practice exercises. While research has shown positive results of (Dexter, Anderson, & Becker, 1999; Zhao & Frank, 2003). Further-
using educational software in specific conditions (Reed, 1996; Reed more, use of software and instructional strategies may differ with
& Spuck, 1996), other findings revealed that these applications can respect to grade level or subject area of the classroom (Newhouse &
have some drawbacks and limitations (Forcier, 1996; Solmon & Rennie, 2001; Ruthven, Hennessy, & Brindley, 2004). Therefore,
Wiederhorn, 2000). The findings of this study showed that drill and further research may account for grade level and subject areas.
practice applications had a negative relationship with project- Future studies may also employ mixed method research to
based learning, while exhibiting a positive relationship with inde- incorporate quantitative research methods along with qualitative
pendent seatwork. Drill and practice activities are completed data (e.g., observation, interviews), as well as data collected from
individually; therefore, they may not allow active student principals’, parents’, and students’ perceptions and experiences
engagement in the learning process. Moreover, drill and practice (Creswell, 2009; Creswell & Plano Clark, 2007; Tashakkori &
activities limit collaboration between students (Morrison & Low- Teddlie, 2003). Such rich data would provide useful insights into
ther, 2010). understanding technology integration in K-12 schools (Baylor &
Ritchie, 2002; Judson, 2006; Ruthven et al., 2004). The findings of
5. Conclusion this study come from structured observation data (Painter, 2001).
There are many advantages of using classroom observation.
This study showed that classroom practices tend to be more Well-designed observations can provide sufficient data and
student-centered when technology is integrated into lessons where evidence on the effective use of technology in the classroom
students use production or research software (e.g., word process- (Hilberg, Waxman, & Tharp, 2004). However, a classroom obser-
ing, presentation, Internet). In contrast, drill and practice applica- vation technique presents challenges and limitations with regard to
tions showed a negative relationship to student-centered activities. gathering valid and reliable data. There are concerns regarding the
By providing data from actual classroom practices, the results of amount of time for observation and appropriate number of obser-
this study extended the findings of previous studies (c.f, Becker, vation needed, observer effect, or reliability of administered
2000; Niederhauser & Stoddart, 2001) that demonstrate relations observation instruments (Dirr, 2006; Volpe, DiPerna, & Hintze,
between teachers’ software selection and their pedagogical 2005). The previously mentioned criticisms and limitations do not
perspectives. necessarily detract from the value and utility of the observational
Although, this study revealed relationships between the soft- method (Painter, 2001; Waxman, Hilberg, & Tharp, 2004). Obser-
ware and instructional strategies, it did not examine the direction vations can allow researchers to explore the process of teaching in
of this relationship. Further studies can investigate whether the a naturalistic setting, provide information that precisely describes
computer applications lead to use of student-centered strategies or the status of classroom practices, and identify instructional prob-
vise versa. This study also did not intend to evaluate the effec- lems (Fish, 2000; Hilberg et al., 2004). If the limitations are
tiveness of computer use but, rather the frequency of each software addressed and data collection instruments and processes are
use. Therefore, future studies should consider the quality of carefully designed and administered, classroom observation tech-
computer use rather than the amount of use. This study could be niques have promise as reliable and valid classroom measures of
extended by examining the influence of teacher characteristics classroom practice (Dirr, 2006; Patton, 2002)
(e.g., age, experience) and school characteristics (e.g., technology Teachers’ pedagogical perspectives and practices appeared to
availability, support) on instructional strategies and software shape the type, amount, and way that technology is utilized in the
preferences (Hew & Brush, 2007). An addition of teachers’ previous classrooms (Ertmer et al., 1999; Niederhauser & Lindstrom, 2006;

6. F.A. Inan et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (2010) 540–546 545
Pajares, 1992; Watson, 2001). Therefore, professional development Dexter, S. L., Anderson, R. E., & Becker, H. J. (1999). Teachers’ views of computers as
catalysts for change in their teaching practice. Journal of Research on Computing
opportunities for both preservice and in-service teachers should
in Education, 31(3), 221–239.
mainly concentrate on teachers’ pedagogical readiness and beliefs Dickard, N. (2002). Great expectations: Leveraging America’s investment in educa-
to integrate technology (Ertmer, 2005; Gonzales, Pickett, Hupert, & tional technology. Washington, DC: Benton Foundation.
Martin, 2002; Lowther, Bassoppo-Moyo, & Morrison, 1998; Parr, Dickard, N. (2003). The sustainability challenge: Taking EdTech to the next level.
Washington, DC: Benton Foundation.
1999; Yildirim, 2000). However, it is suggested that initially Dirr, P. J. (2006). Classroom observation protocols: Potential tools for measuring the
teachers will need to acquire primary technology competencies and impact of technology in the classroom. Alexandria, VA: Appalachian Technology
basic software skills (Snoeyink & Ertmer, 2002; Zhao & Cziko, in Education Consortium.
Ertmer, P. A. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: the final frontier in our quest for
2001). Teachers’ computer and software knowledge can help them technology integration? Educational Technology Research & Development, 53(4),
figure out the functions and capacity of the technology and how 25–39.
each particular software application might be beneficial to student Ertmer, P. A., Addison, P., Lane, M., Ross, E., & Woods, D. (1999). Examining teachers’
beliefs about the role of technology in the elementary classroom. Journal of
learning (Becker & Ravitz, 2001; Newhouse & Rennie, 2001; Research on Computing in Education, 32(1), 54–72.
Snoeyink & Ertmer, 2002). After teachers become more familiar Ertmer, P. A., Gopalakrishnan, S., & Ross, E. (2001). Comparing perceptions of
with technology, training should be centered on how the use of exemplary technology use to best practice. Journal of Research on Technology in
Education, 33(5).
technology enables them to implement student-centered learning, Fish, M. (2000). The Classroom Systems Observation Scale: development of an
such as collaborative learning, higher-order questioning, encour- instrument to assess classrooms using a systems perspective. Learning Envi-
aging student independence, and facilitating/coaching student ronments Research, 3(1), 67–92.
Forcier, R. C. (1996). The computer as a productivity tool in education. Englewood
learning (Ertmer, 2005; Rodriguez & Knuth, 2000; Windschitl &
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Sahl, 2002). Therefore, introducing technology gradually and Garcia, P. (2004). Retooling PowerPoint for hypermedia authoring. In Proceeding of
promoting teachers’ current practices with continuous support will the Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International
more effectively enhance teacher use of technology as a learning Conference, 2004(1) (pp. 4098–4099).
Gonzales, C., Pickett, L., Hupert, N., & Martin, W. (2002). The regional educational
tool overtime (Cooley, 2001; Lowther, Ross, Inan, & Strahl, 2006; technology assistance program: its effects on teaching practices. Journal of
Snoeyink & Ertmer, 2002; Van Melle, Cimellaro, & Shulha, 2003) Research on Technology in Education, 35(1), 1–18.
Grant, M. M., Ross, S. M., Wang, W., & Potter, A. (2005). Computers on wheels: an
alternative to ‘each one has one’. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(6),
1017–1034.
References Hakkarainen, K., Muukkonen, H., Lipponen, L., Ilomaki, L., Rahikainen, M., &
Lehtinen, E. (2001). Teachers’ information and communication technology (ICT)
Atkins, N. E., & Vasu, E. S. (2000). Measuring knowledge of technology usage and skills and practices of using ICT. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education,
stages of concern about computing: a study of middle school teachers. Journal 9(2), 181–197.
of Technology and Teacher Education, 8(4), 279–302. Hew, K. F., & Brush, T. (2007). Integrating technology into K-12 teaching and
Barron, A. E., Kemker, K., Harmes, C., & Kalaydjian, K. (2003). Large-scale research learning: current knowledge gaps and recommendations for future research.
study on technology in K-12 schools: technology integration as it relates to the Educational Technology Research & Development, 55(3), 223–252.
national technology standards. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, Hilberg, R. S., Waxman, H. C., & Tharp, R. G. (2004). Introduction: purposes and
35(4), 489–507. perspectives on classroom observation research. In H. C. Waxman, R. G. Tharp, &
Bausell, C. V. (2008). Tracking U.S. trends. Education Week: Technology Counts, R. S. Hilberg (Eds.), Observational research in U.S. classrooms: New approaches for
27(30), 39–42. understanding cultural and linguistic diversity. Cape Town, South Africa: Cam-
Baylor, A. L., & Ritchie, D. (2002). What factors facilitate teacher skill, teacher bridge University Press.
morale, and perceived student learning in technology-using classrooms? Hohlfeld, T. N., Ritzhaupt, A. D., Barron, A. E., & Kemker, K. (2008). Examining the
Computers & Education, 39(4), 395–414. digital divide in K-12 public schools: four-year trends for supporting ICT literacy
Becker, H. J. (1994). Analysis and trends of school use of new information technologies. in Florida. Computers & Education, 51(4), 1648–1663.
Washington, DC: Office of Technology Assessment. Huck, S. W. (2008). Reading statistics and research. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
Becker, H. J. (2000). Findings from the teaching, learning, and computing survey: is Jonassen, D. H., Howland, J., Marra, R. M., & Crismond, D. P. (2008). Meaningful
Larry Cuban right? Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8(51). learning with technology (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Merrill
Becker, H. J., Ravitz, J. L. (2001). Computer use by teachers: Are Cuban’s predictions Prentice Hall.
correct? Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Jonassen, D. H., Peck, K. L., & Wilson, B. G. (1999). Learning with technology:
Research Association, Seattle, WA. A constructivist perspective. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bennett, L., & Pye, J. (2003). Usage of instructional technology in teaching middle Judson, E. (2006). How teachers integrate technology and their beliefs about
school social studies. Middle School Computer Technologies Journal, 6(1). learning: is there a connection? Journal of Technology and Teacher Education,
Butzin, S. M. (2001). Using Instructional technology in transformed learning envi- 14(3), 581–597.
ronments: an evaluation of project CHILD. Journal of Research on Technology in Kopcha, T., & Sullivan, H. (2007). Self-presentation bias in surveys of teachers’
Education, 33(4), 367–373. educational technology practices. Educational Technology Research and Devel-
Casner-Lotto, J., & Barrington, L. (2006). Are they really ready to work: Employers opment, 55(6), 627–646.
perspectives on the knowledge and applied skills of new entrants to the 21st Kozma, R. B. (2003). Technology and classroom practices: an international study.
Century U.S. workforce. The Conference Board, Inc., the Partnership for 21st Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 36(1), 1–14.
Century Skills, Corporate Voices for Working Families, and the Society for Kumpulainen, K., & Wray, D. (1999). Analysing Interactions during collaborative
Human Resource Management. Retrieved January 21, 2008 from. http://www. writing with the computer: An innovative methodology. Retrieved May 4, 2005,
conference-board.org/pdf_free/BED-06-Workforce.pdf. from. http://www.warwick.ac.uk/staff/D.J.Wray/Articles/facct.html.
CEO Forum. (2001). Key building block for student achievement in the 21st century: Lewis, E. M., Ross, S. M., & Alberg, M. (1999). School observation measure: Reliability
Assessment, alignment, accountability, access, analysis. Washington, DC: The CEO analysis. Memphis, TN: Center for Research in Education Policy.
Forum on Education and Technology. Lindstrom, D., Niederhauser, D. (2003). Teaching elementary students with tech-
Chen, S. Y., & Paul, R. J. (2003). Editorial: individual differences in web-based nology: integration with classroom activities. In Proceeding of the Society for
instruction – an overview. British Journal of Educational Technology, 34(4), Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference, 2003(1)
385–392. (pp. 3660–3665).
Cooley, V. E. (2001). Implementing technology using the teachers as trainers staff Liu, M. (2004). Examining the performance and attitudes of sixth graders during
development model. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 9(2), 269–284. their use of a problem-based hypermedia learning environment. Computers in
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods Human Behavior, 20(3), 357–379.
approaches (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications. Lowther, D. L., Bassoppo-Moyo, T., & Morrison, G. R. (1998). Moving from computer
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods literate to technologically competent: the next educational reform. Computers
research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. in Human Behavior, 14(1), 93–109.
Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom. Cambridge, Lowther, D. L., & Ross, S. M. (1999). Survey of computer use: Reliability analysis.
MA: Harvard University Press. Memphis, TN: Center for Research in Educational Policy, The University of
Cuban, L., Kirkpatrick, H., & Peck, C. (2001). High access and low use of technologies Memphis.
in high school classrooms: explaining an apparent paradox. American Educa- Lowther, D. L., & Ross, S. M. (2000). Survey of computer use (SCU). Memphis, TN:
tional Research Journal, 38(4), 813–834. Center for Research in Educational Policy, The University of Memphis.
Culp, K. M., Honey, M., & Mandinach, E. (2003). A retrospective on twenty years of Lowther, D. L., Ross, S. M., Inan, F. A., & Strahl, J. D. (2006). Changing classroom
education technology policy. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, environments through effective use of technology. In D. M. McInerney, S. Van
Office of Educational Technology. Etten, & M. Dowson (Eds.), Effective schooling: research on sociocultural

7. 546 F.A. Inan et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (2010) 540–546
influences on motivation and learning, Vol. 6. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Ross, S. M., & Lowther, D. L. (2003). Impacts of the Co-nect school reform design on
Publishing. classroom instruction, school climate, and student achievement in inner-city
Lowther, D. L., Ross, S. M., & Morrison, G. M. (2003). When each one has one: the schools. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 8(2), 215–246.
influences on teaching strategies and student achievement of using laptops in Ross, S. M., Smith, L. J., & Alberg, M. (1999). The school observation measure. Mem-
the classroom. Educational Technology Research & Development, 51(3), 23–44. phis, TN: Center for Research in Educational Policy, The University of Memphis.
Lowther, D. L., Strahl, J. D., Inan, F. A., & Bates, J. (2007). Freedom to learn program Ross, S. M., Smith, L. J., Alberg, M., & Lowther, D. L. (2004). Using classroom
Michigan 2005–2006 evaluation report prepared for freedom to learn and the one- observations as a research and formative evaluation tool in educational reform:
to-one institute. Memphis, TN: The University of Memphis, Center for Research the school observation measure. In H. C. Waxman, R. G. Tharp, & R. S. Hilberg
in Educational Policy. (Eds.), Observational research in U.S. classrooms: New approaches for under-
McGraw, T. M., Blair, B. C., & Ross, J. D. (1999). Educational software use: Results of standing cultural and linguistic diversity. Cape Town, South Africa: Cambridge
a 1999 regional survey. Greensboro, NC: SouthEast and Islands Regional Tech- University Press.
nology in Education Consortium. Rutherford, J. (2004). Technology in the schools. Technology in Society, 26(2–3),149–160.
Means, B., & Golan, S. (1998). Transforming teaching and learning with multimedia Ruthven, K., Hennessy, S., & Brindley, S. (2004). Teacher representations of the
technology. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International. successful use of computer-based tools and resources in secondary-school English,
Morrison, G. M., & Lowther, D. L. (2010, forthcoming). Integrating computer tech- mathematics and science. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20(3), 259–275.
nology into the classroom (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Merrill Sheskin, D. J. (2000). Parametric and nonparametric statistical procedures. Boca
Prentice Hall. Raton, FL: Chapman & Hall.
Moursund, D., & Bielefeldt, T. (1999). Will new teachers be prepared to teach in Smeets, E. (2005). Does ICT contribute to powerful learning environments in
a digital age? A national survey on information technology in teacher education. primary education? Computers & Education, 44(3), 343–355.
Santa Monica, CA: Milken Family Foundation. Smeets, E., & Mooij, T. (2001). Pupil-centred learning, ICT, and teacher behaviour:
Muir-Herzig, R. G. (2004). Technology and its impact in the classroom. Computers & observations in educational practice. British Journal of Educational Technology,
Education, 42(2), 111–131. 32(4), 403–417.
Mumtaz, S., & Hammond, M. (2002). The word processor re-visited: observations on Snoeyink, R., & Ertmer, P. A. (2002). Thrust into technology: how veteran teachers
the use of the word processor to develop literacy at key stage 2. British Journal of respond. Educational Administration Abstracts, 37(3), 279–412.
Educational Technology, 33(3), 345–347. Solmon, L. C., & Wiederhorn, J. A. (2000). Progress of technology in the schools: 1999
National Center for Education Statistics. (2004). Digest of education statistics 2003. report on 27 states. Santa Monica, CA: Milken Family Foundation.
(No. NCES 2005-025). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Sterbinsky, A., & Burke, D. (2004). Tennessee EdTech accountability model (TEAM)
Newhouse, P., & Rennie, L. (2001). A longitudinal study of the use of student-owned reliability study. Alexandria, VA: The CNA Corporation.
portable computers in a secondary school. Computers & Education, 36(3), Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (2003). Handbook of mixed methods in social &
223–243. behavioral research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Niederhauser, D. S., & Lindstrom, D. L. (2006). Addressing the NETS for students Tondeur, J., van Braak, J., & Valcke, M. (2007). Curricula and the use of ICT in
through constructivist technology use in K-12 classrooms. Journal of Educational education: two worlds apart? British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(6),
Computing Research, 34(1), 91–128. 962–976.
Niederhauser, D. S., & Stoddart, T. (2001). Teachers’ instructional perspectives and Van Melle, E., Cimellaro, L., & Shulha, L. (2003). A dynamic framework to guide the
use of educational software. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(1), 15–31. implementation and evaluation of educational technologies. Education and
Norton, P., & Sprague, D. (2001). Technology for teaching. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Information Technologies, 8(3), 267–285.
Norton, P., & Wiburg, K. M. (2003). Teaching with technology: Designing opportunities Vannatta, R. A., & Fordham, N. (2004). Teacher dispositions as predictors of class-
to learn (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Thompson/Wadsworth. room technology use. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 36(3),
O’Dwyer, L., Russell, M., & Bebel, D. (2004). Elementary teachers’ use of technology: 253–271.
Characteristics of teachers, schools, and districts associated with technology use. Volpe, R. J., DiPerna, J. C., & Hintze, J. M. (2005). Observing students in classroom
Boston, MA: Technology and Assessment Study Collaborative, Boston College. settings: a review of seven coding schemes. The School Psychology Review, 34(4),
Painter, S. R. (2001). Issues in the observation and evaluation of technology integra- 454–474.
tion in K-12 classrooms. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 17(4), 21–25. Watson, D. M. (2001). Pedagogy before technology: re-thinking the relationship
Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: cleaning up between ICT and teaching. Education and Information Technologies, 6(4),
a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307–332. 251–266.
Parr, J. M. (1999). Extending educational computing: a case of extensive teacher Waxman, H. C., Hilberg, R. S., & Tharp, R. S. (2004). Future directions for classroom
development and support. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 31(3), observation research. In H. C. Waxman, R. G. Tharp, & R. S. Hilberg (Eds.),
280–292. Observational research in U.S. classrooms: New approaches for understanding
Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2004). Partnership for 21st century skills. cultural and linguistic diversity. Cape Town, South Africa: Cambridge University
Retrieved December 27, 2008 from. http://www.21stcenturyskills.org. Press.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Web-Based Education Commission. (2000). The power of the internet for learning:
Oaks, CA.: Sage Publications. Moving from promise to practice. Retrieved June 5, 2008, from. http://www.
Rakes, G. C., Flowers, B. F., Casey, H. B., & Santana, R. (1999). An analysis of hpcnet.org/upload/wbec/reports/WBECReport.pdf.
instructional technology use and constructivist behaviors in K-12 teachers. Windschitl, M., & Sahl, K. (2002). Tracing teachers’ use of technology in a laptop
International Journal of Educational Technology, 1(2), 1–18. computer school: the interplay of teacher beliefs, social dynamics and institu-
Reed, W. M. (1996). Assessing the impact of computer-based writing instruction. tional culture. American Educational Research Journal, 39(1), 165–205.
Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 28(4), 418–438. Wozney, L., Venkatesh, V., & Abrami, P. (2006). Implementing computer technolo-
Reed, W. M., & Spuck, D. W. (1996). Summary of special issue on assessing the gies: teachers’ perceptions and practices. Journal of Technology and Teacher
impact of computer-based learning since 1987. Journal of Research on Computing Education, 14(1), 173–207.
in Education, 28(4), 554–557. Yildirim, S. (2000). Effects of an educational computing course on preservice and
Reichstetter, R. (2000). Building successful teacher use of computers in the classroom. inservice teachers: a discussion and analysis of attitudes and use. Journal of
Raleigh, NC: NC Department of Evaluation and Research. Research on Computing in Education, 32(4), 479–495.
Robinson, W. I. (2003). External, and internal factors which predict teachers’ computer Zhao, Y., & Cziko, G. A. (2001). Teacher adoption of technology: a perceptual control
usage in K-12 classrooms. Detroit, MI: Wayne State University. theory perspective. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 5–30.
Rodriguez, G., & Knuth, R. (2000). Critical issue: Providing professional development for Zhao, Y., & Frank, K. A. (2003). Factors affecting technology uses in schools: an
effective technology use. Naperville, IL: North Central Regional Educational Laboratory. ecological perspective. American Educational Research Journal, 40(4), 807–840.