This doctoral dissertation examines teachers' context beliefs about technology utilization in Georgia middle school classrooms. The study used a survey to assess 202 middle school teachers' beliefs about environmental support factors that may impact classroom technology integration. The survey examined teachers' perceptions of factors like adequate technology, accessibility of technology, availability of technology support, staff development opportunities, and administrative support. Overall, teachers held positive beliefs about enabling factors, but their beliefs about the likelihood of factors occurring were lower. No significant relationships were found between teachers' context beliefs and variables like years of teaching experience, subject taught, or gender. The researcher recommends further studies on both environmental and personal factors that influence teachers' use of technology.

1. AN EXAMINATION OF TEACHERS’ CONTEXT BELIEFS ABOUT
TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATION IN GEORGIA
MIDDLE-GRADE CLASSROOMS
Doctoral Dissertation Research
Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of
Argosy University, Atlanta
College of Education
In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree of
Doctor of Education
Educational Leadership
By
Natalie Holts Davis
May 2015

2. ii
AN EXAMINATION OF TEACHERS’ CONTEXT BELIEFS ABOUT
TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATION IN GEORGIA
MIDDLE-GRADE CLASSROOMS
Copyright ©2015
Natalie Holts Davis
All rights reserved

4. iv
ABSTRACT
Research identifies teacher beliefs as a barrier to technology integration. This quantitative
study examined the context beliefs of Georgia middle-grade teachers. The Belief about
Teaching with Technology survey created by Lumpe and Chambers was employed to
examine the environmental support factors that might have an impact on classroom
technology integration. This study helped establish the degree to which the respondents
believed certain support factors affect the integration of technology in Georgia middle-
grade classrooms. Convenience sampled (N = 202) middle-grade teachers completed the
survey instrument. Positive beliefs were held with varying degrees. Enabling factors yield
higher degrees than likelihood factors, suggesting that positive beliefs do not necessarily
equate to likelihood occurrence of technology in Georgia middle school classrooms. Years
of teaching experience, academic specialty, and gender had no significant bearing on
teacher contexts beliefs. The researcher recommends that more studies be conducted in the
area of environmental and personal factors affecting teaching with technology.

5. v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I will bless the Lord at all times; his praise shall continually be in my mouth.
—Psalm 34:1
Praise God from whom all blessings flow! I simply want to say, thank you, Lord!
I give you all the glory and all the praise! I certainly could not have done any of this
without you. You strategically navigated this course, calmed the raging seas, and
continued to hold me in your loving arms throughout this process! You did not let me
give up. You reminded me that the winds and the rains must obey your command. You
convinced me that no good thing would you withhold from me in your time (not mine).
You promised that I would reap if I fainted not. I am confident in this one thing; Lord,
you are certainly a rewarder of those who diligently serve you! You have showered me
with your favor, and I am forever grateful! I will continue to serve you in humble
adoration and gratitude all the days of my life. Lord God, You are worthy to be praised!
I am thankful to so many people for helping me get through this process. I have
had a host of encouraging friends and supporting family members, colleagues, and
professors who have been by my side every step of the way. I could not possibly name
them all, but I am truly thankful! I acknowledge my dedicated chair, Dr. Victoria Landu,
and faithful committee member, Dr. Deloris Banks. Both have guided me with loving
kindness, candor, and firm direction. To the Academic Resource Center, specifically
Nisha Johnson and Dr. Donald Gregg, and to my editor Wordsharp.net, know that I am
forever grateful for your invaluable support. I am truly indebted to my loving parents,
Rev. and Mrs. Nathaniel (Tonya) Holts, who often reminded me of my childhood dreams
and who continued to speak this accomplishment into existence long before the reality of

6. vi
it. Most of all, I am thankful to God for my amazing sons, Cameron and Caleb, and my
phenomenal husband, Demetrius. Shuga, you have been my rock! The meaning of “for
better or worse, richer or poorer, in sickness and in health” has been tested beyond limits
through this process. I love you forever and always! I thank God for letting you find and
secure your “good thing” (Proverbs 18:22).
Hang on family. The best is yet to come!!!

7. vii
DEDICATION
It is with tear-filled eyes and loving thoughts and memories that I dedicate this
research to my maternal grandmother, Ruth Taliaferro Williams, who celebrates my
accomplishments from heaven. Departing this life on February 17, 2014, she did not get
to physically see me achieve this milestone, but her prayers and encouragement fueled
my energy to keep on keepin’ on. She was my dearest friend and truest confidant. She
never shied from sharing the hard truths of life with me, but she also never passed up an
opportunity to encourage, reassure, and inspire me. I miss her more than words can
express, but I know she is smiling down from heaven and saying well done, Dr. Davis!

8. viii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF TABLES...............................................................................................................x
LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................... xi
LIST OF APPENDICES................................................................................................... xii
CHAPTER ONE: THE PROBLEM ....................................................................................1
Problem Background .......................................................................................................... 5
Purpose of the Study........................................................................................................... 7
Research Questions............................................................................................................. 7
Theoretical Framework....................................................................................................... 7
Limitations and Delimitations........................................................................................... 12
Limitations............................................................................................................ 13
Delimitations......................................................................................................... 14
Definition of Terms........................................................................................................... 15
Significance of the Study.................................................................................................. 16
Overview........................................................................................................................... 17
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE.....................................................19
Technology and Society.................................................................................................... 19
Technology and the Workplace ........................................................................................ 19
Technology in the Home................................................................................................... 20
Technology in Education .................................................................................................. 21
National Scope.......................................................................................................... 27
Global Scope............................................................................................................. 29
Personal Agency Beliefs: Capability Beliefs and Context Beliefs ................................... 31
Empiracal Studies on Teacher Beliefs about Technology Utilization.............................. 34
Technology Integration..................................................................................................... 38
Barriers to Integration....................................................................................................... 42
Adequacy of Technology.................................................................................................. 43
Accessabilty of Technology.............................................................................................. 43
Availability of Technology Support ................................................................................. 45
Staff Development Classes ............................................................................................... 46
School Administrative Attitude on Technology ............................................................... 47
Overview........................................................................................................................... 48
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY ..........................................................................49
Introduction....................................................................................................................... 49
Research Questions and Hypotheses ................................................................................ 49
Research Questions................................................................................................... 49
Null Hypotheses........................................................................................................ 49
Alternative Hypotheses............................................................................................. 50

9. ix
Research Design................................................................................................................ 50
Description of the Setting ................................................................................................. 51
Selection of Participants ................................................................................................... 51
Instrumentation ................................................................................................................. 51
Reliability and Validity..................................................................................................... 52
Methodological Assumptions and Limitations................................................................. 53
Procedures......................................................................................................................... 53
Data Processing and Analysis........................................................................................... 54
Overview........................................................................................................................... 55
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS ..........................................................................................56
Restatement of the Purpose............................................................................................... 56
Organization and Presentation of Results......................................................................... 56
Description of Sample............................................................................................... 56
Results....................................................................................................................... 57
Research Question One..................................................................................... 59
Research Question Two.................................................................................... 65
Summary........................................................................................................................... 67
CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...69
Summary of Study ............................................................................................................ 69
Discussion......................................................................................................................... 71
Research Question One......................................................................................... 72
Research Question Two ........................................................................................ 75
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 76
Implications for Practice................................................................................................... 77
Recommendations for Research ....................................................................................... 79
Summary........................................................................................................................... 80
REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................81
APPENDICES ...................................................................................................................89.

10. x
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 1. Leading PC Usage and Computer Usage by Country in 2011 ...........................31
Table 2. Adequacy of Technology....................................................................................43
Table 3. Demographic Data for Teacher Respondents .....................................................57
Table 4. Demographic Data for Teacher Respondents (Grades Taught)..........................58
Table 5. Demographic Data for Teacher Respondents (Subject Taught) .........................59
Table 6. Demographic Data for Teacher Respondents (Years of Experience).................60
Table 7. Means and Standard Deviations for Enabling and Likelihood Factors ..............61
Table 8. Frequency Analysis of Survey Results—Question Six for Enabling Factors ....62
Table 9. Paired Samples t-test Statistics ...........................................................................64
Table 10. RQ2 t-test and ANOVA Results.......................................................................66

11. xi
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 1. Beliefs, Knowledge, and Practice Relationships.................................................9
Figure 2. Formula for Motivation and Achievement........................................................10
Figure 3. Capability and Context Belief Relationships ....................................................33
Figure 4. Scatterplot of the Likelihood and Enabling Ratings..........................................63
Figure 5. Mean Summated Scores for Ratings of Likelihood and Enabling
Technology ........................................................................................................................65

12. xii
LIST OF APPENDICES
Page
Appendix A. Permission to Use the Beliefs About Teaching with Technology
Survey ................................................................................................................................93
Appendix B. Permission to Conduct Research Using SurveyMonkey.............................95
Appendix C. Letter of Approval for Academics...............................................................97
Appendix D. Beliefs about Teaching with Technology Survey .......................................99

13. 1
CHAPTER ONE: THE PROBLEM
With technology at its epicenter, the face of education has truly evolved over the
years. Today’s major educational thrust is technology integration into the curriculum
with the intent to improve student achievement (U.S. Department of Education, 2010). In
1996, President Clinton launched this thrust by establishing four national goals for
technological literacy. These four goals challenged the nation to provide: (a) adequate
technology training and support, (b) current, up-to-date equipment, (c) Internet
connection in every classroom, and (d) software and online learning resources (Bitter &
Pierson, 1999; Riley, 2005). Clinton’s vision was to have five computers in every
classroom by 2006 and to ensure technological literacy for all children without regard to
socioeconomic status (Riley, 2005).
President Bush pursued these four goals further through House Bill 1187 and the
passage of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB). This act was the catalyst for
both teacher and student accountability. Focusing on adequate yearly progress of schools
and achievement gaps, this legislation is considered one of the most comprehensive
reform initiatives introduced in the United States over the last four decades (Dee &
Jacob, 2010).
In addition to significantly transforming education at the state, system, and local
school levels, the 2005 revision of NCLB included the National Education Technology
Plan (U.S. Department of Education, 2004). Among other things, this plan has as its goal
that all students will be technologically literate by eighth grade. Furthermore, the plan
calls for increased training for teachers in the effective implementation of a technology-
rich curriculum. The aforementioned legislation repeatedly suggests that technology is

14. 2
an integral support for education and cross-curricular learning (Culp, Honey, Mandinach,
& Bailey, 2003).
In an effort to regain status as an international superpower and render students
“college and career ready,” President Obama’s education reform efforts must be an
integral part of the conversation. The Race to the Top challenge sparked K-12 school
reform by providing federal funds to schools across the nation (U.S. Department of
Education, 2009). This funding, supplied through the 2009 American Recovery and
Investment Act, is earmarked for schools that establish and meet criteria for excellence in
education (U.S. Department of Education, 2009). Through the National Education
Technology Plan (2010), President Obama set out to transform American education
through “Learning Powered by Technology.” This legislation presents five goals that
offer specific suggestions for all stakeholders. The fundamental components include
learning, assessment, teaching, infrastructure, and productivity (National Education
Technology Plan, 2010).
States join in the Race to the Top initiative with the implementation of Common
Core Standards (Roscorla, 2010). This initiative seeks to institute uniformity of
expectations of both knowledge and skill level for students in grades K-12 (Porter,
McMaken, Hwang, & Yang, 2011). The rigor of these standards is designed to promote
accelerated learning through the embrace of instructional best practices and data-driven
instruction (Porter, McMaken, Hwang, & Yang, 2011). These Common Core Standards
are not only used to address student access to technology; they also promote basic skill
acquisition by students such as keyboarding (Roscorla, 2010). Furthermore, the
implementation of these standards is expected to yield students prepared for the

15. 3
technology-driven, global marketplace in which we currently live (Roscorla, 2010).
Thus, seeking to satisfy President Obama’s goal to “have the highest portion of college
graduates in the world” by 2020 (Congressional Address, 2009, p. 10).
In this digital age, the question arises “Can old dogs (and new dogs) learn new
tricks?” With smart classrooms and new technology advances, are educators prepared to
integrate technology into daily instruction? Further, is there significant motivation to
shift from the traditional teacher-centered Industrial Age approach to a 21st-century
technology-driven education model? Last, are there environmental support factors that
influence educators’ decisions to integrate technology into the current curriculum?
In an article titled “Teacher Pedagogical Beliefs: The Final Frontier in Our Quest
for Technology Integration,” Ertmer (2005) suggested that conditions for optimal
technology infusion exist in today’s education arenas. These conditions were defined as
“ready access to technology, increased training for teachers, and a favorable policy
environment” (Ertmer, 2005, p. 25).
Various statistical findings echo Ertmer’s (2005) sentiments by citing revelatory
figures (CDW-G, 2006). Findings from The Digest of Educational Statistics (2011)
indicated that as of 2008, 98% of all public schools had access to the Internet. This
report further boasted an increase in the number of computers available for instructional
purposes in these same public schools at a 1:3 computer/student ratio (Digest of
Educational Statistics, 2011; Market Data Retrieval, 2010). However, despite this
optimal state of existence, technology is not being utilized in today’s classrooms with
fidelity and effectiveness (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010; Project RED, 2010;
Voogt, 2008; Williams & Kingham, 2003).

16. 4
U.S. school districts have spent $7.87 billion on technology equipment in recent
years to bring schools across the nation up to 21st-century standards (Quality Education
Data, 2004). Spurred by President Obama’s 2010 National Education Technology Plan,
schools across the country use federal dollars to become equipped with state-of-the-art
technology. Through an Education Financing Study Commission, Georgia lawmakers
proposed $20 million to expand technology infrastructure and $52 million for technology
classroom instruction starting in the 2013-2014 school year (Barrow, 2012).
Despite the extensive research on teacher beliefs with regard to technology
integration, a gap is evident at the middle school level. Many studies exist that explore
the K-12 environment holistically (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010; Hew & Brush,
2007; Inan, 2007; Judson, 2006; Palak & Walls, 2009; Schrum & Glassett, 2006;
Williams, 2006; Zhao & Frank, 2003), with a few even targeting specific core area
subjects (Cavas, Cavas, Karaoglan & Kisla, 2009; Gibbone, Rukavina, & Silverman,
2010; Zhao, 2007). Research has also done well in examining beliefs about integration
on both the university (Abdelraheem, 2004; Ferguson, 2004; Foley & Ojeda, 2007;
Georgina & Olson, 2008; Oniya & Oniya, 2011) and pre-service teacher levels (Chen,
2009; Park & Ertmer, 2008; Teo, Chai, Hung, & Lee, 2008; Wang, 2002). High school
studies (Chen, 2008; Holloway, 2012) and elementary school studies (Beeson, 2011; Liu,
2010; Miranda, 2007; Tweed, 2013) that research teacher beliefs are also available.
However, a specific target for middle school teachers’ beliefs has been somewhat
underserved. This study will focus on this underserved gap and add to existing research
concerning teacher beliefs about integrating technology in middle school classrooms
across the United States.

17. 5
Problem Background
Limited, ineffective use of technology is a major concern in today’s classrooms
across the United States (Friedman, 2005; Meadows, 2012). Ultimately, money is being
spent on technology, but the presence of computers in the classroom does not equal
integration (Starr, 2011). The greatest importance lies in what teachers and students do
with the computers (Adu, 2003; Johnson, 2004; Starr, 2011; Williams & Kingham,
2003). The integration of technology into both the classroom and into the public school
curriculum will constitute a fundamental shift in the way today’s teachers deliver
instruction and ultimately educate students (Starr, 2011).
Computers, software, and cutting-edge technology will no doubt be revolutionary
components of education, providing a shift from the conventional teacher-centered
classroom to a more hands-on, interactive, student-centered model (Zhao & Frank, 2003).
However, simply having technology-rich schools and classrooms is not enough (Starr,
2011). Research supports that though conditions are favorable, training models and
protocols are in place, and professional development is readily available, many teachers
will remain stagnant, set in traditional, teacher-centered instructional approaches that fail
to incorporate new technology or employ higher order thinking (Hughes, 2005; ISTE,
2008; Park & Ertmer, 2008). Moreover, researchers that boast the instructional benefits
of student-centered classroom models attend that aside from isolated cases, these
instructional practices have been scarcely utilized (Gahala 2001; Peck, Cuban, &
Kirkpatrick, 2002; Swanson, 2006).
Now that conditions that support technology are reaching optimal levels in
today’s schools (Aldridge, 2004; Swanson, 2006; Zucker, 2004), the prevailing focus of

18. 6
educators has shifted from whether to use technology to how best to integrate technology
into the current curriculum (Wells & Lewis, 2006). Barnett (2001) stated, “Over the last
20 years, k-12 schools have spent millions of dollars equipping their schools with the
latest technologies, but without a thoughtful plan of how their use would impact learning
and teaching” (p. 1). Barnett (2001) further suggested the need for a vision or
comprehensive plan (Wells & Lewis, 2006) to address how students and teachers will
incorporate technology into everyday practice. He contended that the vision should
ensure “students are using technology in ways that deepen their understanding of
academic content and advance their knowledge of the world around them” (Barnett,
2001, p. _).
Shifts in thinking toward greater technology integration in the K-12 classroom
bring into play the barriers that exist with regard to technology integration (Ertmer,
2005). Ertmer and Ottenbreit-Leftwich (2010) maintained that beliefs shape decisions
with regard to teaching practices. Therefore, a shift from a teacher-centered approach to
one that promotes student discovery and utilizes the teacher as a facilitator of learning
requires changes in beliefs (Palak & Walls, 2009). These changes in beliefs, in turn, will
yield different behaviors and teacher instructional practices, and, thus, give credence to
this study (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010).
Barriers to technology integration exist regardless of the user’s level of expertise
(Becker, 2000; Hew & Brush, 2007). Ertmer (2005) examined these barriers and
categorized them into two types, first-order and second-order. Ertmer (2005) described
first-order barriers as external. These barriers include lack of access to both equipment and
software, lack of administrative and technical support, and insufficient planning for

19. 7
curriculum integration. Second-order barriers, described as internal, include teacher beliefs
and classroom practices (p. 54). This study examined the first-order barriers that exist in
today’s middle-grade classrooms, and determined to what extent teacher beliefs affected
technology integration.
Purpose of the Study
Levin and Wadmany (2006) expressed “without teachers’ skilled pedagogical
application of education technology, technology in and of itself cannot provide
innovative school practice and educational change” (p. 158). With this as a prevailing
thought, the purpose of this quantitative study was to describe the relationships that exist
between teachers’ beliefs and their decisions to utilize technology in middle school
classrooms. Specifically, this study explored factors affecting teacher’s beliefs about
available resources, professional development, and their attitudes toward beliefs about
technology and its use in middle school classrooms.
Research Questions
This study sought to answer the following research questions and provide insight
into possible areas for improvement in Georgia middle school classrooms.
1. Is there a correlation between enabling factors and likelihood factors to the
utilization of technology in the classroom based on the environmental support
factors provided?
2. Do beliefs about factors enabling the use of technology vary according to faculty
members’ (a) teaching experience, (b) specialization, or (c) gender?
Theoretical Framework
Pajares (1992) made the following assumptions concerning the functions of

20. 8
educational beliefs:
1. Knowledge and beliefs are inextricably intertwined, but the potent affective,
evaluative, and episodic nature of beliefs makes them a filter through which new
phenomena are interpreted.
2. Epistemological beliefs play a key role in knowledge interpretations and cognitive
monitoring.
3. Belief substructures, such as educational beliefs, must be understood in terms of
their connections not only to each other but also to other, perhaps more central,
beliefs in the system. Psychologists usually refer to these substructures as
attitudes and values.
4. Individuals’ beliefs strongly affect their behavior.
5. Beliefs must be inferred, and this inference must take into account the congruence
among individuals’ belief statements, the intentionality to behave in a predisposed
manner, and the behavior related to the belief in question (pp. 7-8).
Pajares (1992) suggested that knowledge gained through efforts to achieve technology
proficiency would filter through the educator’s beliefs systems. Further implications
suggest that instructional practices and behaviors would be a consequence of this filtering
process. Because beliefs and belief systems are as varied as is the number of educators,
the technology integration knowledge may filter through various belief systems resulting
in behaviors that could affect teacher implementation of technology integration practices.
Figure 1 displays a pictorial representation of the relationship that exists between
educator beliefs, knowledge, and practices.

21. 9
Figure 1. Beliefs, knowledge, and practice relationships.
The role of beliefs has been studied by theorist seeking understanding about how
and why people behave the way they do (Ajzen & Madden, 1986; Bandura, 1977;
Pajares, 1992). Once one has accepted that a relationship exists between beliefs,
knowledge, and practice, one can assess how beliefs cause action. A scholarly definition
of motivation is “an inner drive” (Locke & Baum, 2006, p. 97) that causes behavior
(Fejes, 2008). Seeking to combine differing theories about why people are motivated to
behave and/or act in a particular way, Ford’s (1992) motivation systems theory (MST)
explores the notion that competence is a synthesis of motivation, skill, and environment.
In other words, how a person behaves (in this case integrates technology) is largely
dependent on their beliefs about the skills they possess and the environmental factors that
surround them. Coupling Pajares (1992) theory about beliefs with the inner drive that
causes behavior, Ford’s model provided the framework for this study and according to
creators, Lumpe and Chambers (2001), MST is the theoretical basis of the Beliefs About
Teaching with Technology (BATT) instrument used in this research (Julius, 2004).
MST categorizes motivation into three areas, direction, energization, and
regulation of goal-focused behaviors. Ford explained these terms as identifiers of “where
people are heading and what they are trying to do,” how people are “turned on or off,”
and “how people decide to try something, stick with it or give up” (Ford, 1992, p. 3).
Educator
Professional
Development/ Training
Knowledge/
Competence
Beliefs about
Professional Development
Availability of Resources
Technical Support
Administrative Support
School culture/vision
Existing beliefs about
teaching with technology
Behaviors /Integration
Practices

22. 10
Personal goals, emotions, and personal agency beliefs (which include context beliefs and
capability beliefs) are the elements Ford (1992) described as working together to produce
behavior. Thus, a heuristic (non-mathematical) equation for MST is:
Motivation = Goals x Emotions x Personal Agency Beliefs
Ford (1992) did not rank these variables in order of importance but suggested that the
variables were interdependent. In other words, if any variable is absent from this
triumvirate process, motivation will not occur and achievement/competence will not be
realized (Ford, 1992). Ford (1992) conceptualized motivation and achievement through
this simplistic figure that shows how the components of MST connect.
Figure 2: Formula for motivation and achievement (Ford, 1992).
According to Colbeck (2002):
MST is grounded in the premise that motivation provides the psychological basis
for individuals’ development of competence . . . and a desired consequence of
motivation is achievement, the attainment of a personally or socially valued goal
within a specific context. (p. 2)
Ford (1992) defined personal goals as “thoughts about desired (or undesired)
states or outcomes that one would like to achieve (or avoid)” (p. 248). MST deems goals
to be a critical component in that they represent the outcome one is trying to accomplish,
and they are directly related to the process one uses to yield that desired outcome. In
other words, goals are direct motivational patterns and are indicators of how they are
pursued. Ford (1992) asserted, however, that in order for goals to have this guiding

23. 11
capacity, they must push past the wishful thinking mode and be a well-defined priority.
According to Ford (1992), emotional arousal processes involves affective,
physiological, and transactional attributes. Serving both regulatory and energizing
purposes, emotions can provide a meaningful look at how a person responds to his or her
environment and to what extent he or she believes goals are achievable (Colbeck, Cabrera
& Marine, 2002; Einarson, 2001; Ford 1992). Emotions can be described as ephemeral,
and often lack the ability to change behavior if they are not directly connected to current
goals (Ford, 1992). Emotions impact a person’s ability to make decisions, solve
problems, and acquire knowledge. Categorically, emotions can provide different
functions. For example, the ability to cope with difficult situations might be served
through instrumental emotions (such as fear or anger), while social emotions (such as
guilt or embarrassment) may give way to more conforming behaviors (Ford, 1992).
Ford (1992) defined personal agency beliefs as “evaluative thoughts involving a
comparison between a desired consequence (a goal) and an anticipated consequence
(expectations about what will happen if the goal is pursued)” (p. 251). Personal agency
beliefs are further defined in two distinct categories: capability beliefs and context
beliefs. Capability beliefs denote a person’s own subjective evaluation of whether he or
she possesses the ability, skill, or aptitude to realize a particular goal. Context beliefs
refer to a person’s subjective appraisal of whether he or she is in a “responsive
environment” conducive to the achievement of an articulated goal through the provision
of sufficient resources and support structures (Ford, 1992, p. ).
Further validating Ford’s (1992) model as a framework for empirical research,
recent studies embrace the tenants of MST. In a study published in the Journal of

24. 12
Education Media and Library Science, Lee (2000) explored student motivation in the
online learning environment. Campbell (2007) researched MST through the exploration
of the academic performance of college students in pursuit of a degree in business. In
2009, Richardson employed MST to examine the factors that influence the teaching
practices of an undergraduate social work faculty at an accredited secondary institution.
MST was again used in 2013 to study the correlation between motivation and reading
achievement (Miller, 2013). These studies suggest that Ford’s (1992) composite MST
has merit in the realm of empirical research.
Ford’s MST can be useful for understanding factors that influence teacher beliefs
about technology utilization in middle school classrooms. Richardson (2009)
summarized the strength of this theory as addressing “the problems of conceptual
narrowness, lack of cohesion and consensus, and lack of practical utility common to
many other theories of motivation (p. 34). Empirically tested in numerous research
studies, MST boasts an adequate level of internal cogency and is easily replicated
(Colbeck, Cabrera and Marine, 2002; Lumpe & Chambers, 2001; Richardson, 2009).
Further, it provides the theoretical framework of the BATT instrument used for
exploration by this researcher (Lumpe & Chambers, 2001).
Limitations and Delimitation
Creswell (2003) reminded researchers to be mindful of limitations and
delimitations as they institute boundaries critical for investigative inquiry. By his
definition, limitations expose potential weaknesses of research (p. 142). Alternatively,
delimitations aid the researcher in narrowing the scope of the intended study (p. 142).
This section will address the limits and delimits as seen by the researcher and supported

25. 13
through peer-reviewed literature.
Limitations
Four significant limitations potentially impact the outcome of this research,
Subjective responses to survey questions, inability for survey respondents to vary their
responses beyond the given choices, the singular quantitative method employed by this
research, and the length of time associated with this study.
Glasow (2005) suggested that while surveys are useful for obtaining information
from large samples of a given population, the subjective nature of responses may
potentially yield some biases, prejudices, and flawed responses. Glasow (2005) further
implied that Likert-scaled surveys limit respondents to the given parameters of the scale
and do not allow for elaboration. Instead of the researcher conducting actual
observations, survey respondents are left to describe their own beliefs, behaviors, and
surroundings with respect to technology integration. This researcher assumes that
respondents will answer questions about their beliefs and current resource availability,
honestly. Additionally, the BATT instrument will not be modified to include open-ended
questions that could provide respondents with greater flexibility in further clarifying
current beliefs.
Next, the length of time associated with this study and the singular quantitative
method used imposes limitations. Creswell (2003) argued that mixed methods
approaches that use both quantitative and qualitative assessments provide the researcher
with a more encompassing view of what is being studied. As presented, this study can
only provide a quantitative snapshot of technology integration at the time of the study and
does not take into account that technology and technology integration processes are ever-

26. 14
changing (Roblyer, 2003).
In recommendations for further research, creators of the BATT instrument,
Lumpe and Chambers (2001), suggested researchers use longitudinal studies to explore
beliefs and technology integration. Creswell (2003) agreed that longitudinal studies
provide information that would otherwise not be obtained by shorter, less lengthy studies.
This researcher is embracing a shorter study that mirrors the initial efforts of Lumpe and
Chambers (2001) but uses a different target population. In the future, a longitudinal
study that employs a mixed-methods approach could possibly offer a more
comprehensive view by identifying relevant changes over time (Trochim, 2006).
Delimitations
The likelihood that home and/or personal use of various technologies may affect
teachers’ context beliefs about technology integration is great (Huang & Liaw, 2005).
The feasibility for the researcher to effectively assess the impact of this likelihood does
not exist. The conscious decision by this researcher to exclude any assessment of prior
home and/or personal use qualifies this delimitation and, therefore, must be identified
(Simon & Goes, 2013).
Additionally, the population for this study is delimited to middle school teachers
across the United States who opted to complete surveys for a prevalent online database.
Generalizing the findings of this or any study is unrealistic due to the vast differences that
occur in differing situations, namely, middle schools across the U.S. (Creswell, 2003).
The findings of this study should be considered indicative of the populations and settings
examined, and not definitive for all situations (Creswell, 2003).

27. 15
Definition of Terms
 Capability beliefs: Those beliefs that individuals hold about their own capacities
and abilities to act in a way to bring about change and development (Ford, 1992;
Lumpe & Chambers, 2001).
 Context beliefs: Those beliefs about the ability of external factors or people to
enable a person to reach a goal plus the belief that a factor is likely to occur (Ford,
1992; Lumpe & Chambers, 2001).
 Enabling factors: Factors that make it possible (or easier) for individuals or
populations to change their behavior or their environment (Ford, 1992; Lumpe &
Chambers, 2001).
 Instructional technology: The application of technology concepts and terminology
to the instructional, curricular, and management demands of a school district. For
this study, educational and instructional technologies are used interchangeably
(International Society for Technology in Education, 2008).
 Likelihood factors: Factors related to the possibility of something occurring
(Ford, 1992; Lumpe & Chambers, 2001).
 Motivation: “An inner drive” (Locke & Baum, 2006, p. 97) that causes behavior
(Fejes, 2008).
 Personal agency beliefs: Beliefs and expectations about whether one has the
capabilities needed to attain the goal, and beliefs about whether the person’s
context will support his or her efforts (Ford, 1992).
 Subject/specialty: The primary subject taught by teachers (Moersch, 2009)
 Technology: A tool that is well-matched to specific content areas and learning

28. 16
goals that assist teachers in the daily instruction of students (McMillan, Honey,
Mandinach, & Bailey, 2003)
 Technology integration: The ability to use computer information and technology
in a way that supports and enhances the achievement of specific teaching and
learning goals (Yepes-Baraya, 2002). For the purposes of this study, technology
integration and technology utilization will be used interchangeably.
Significance of the Study
Research supports that teacher beliefs are a significant factor in the push toward
effective technology integration (Beeson, 2011; Ertmer, 2005; Mishra & Koehler, 2006;
Palak & Walls, 2009; Williams, 2006). Pajares (1992) maintained, “attention to beliefs
of current and preservice teachers can inform educational practice in ways that prevailing
research agendas have not and cannot” (p. 329). To this end, learning about the beliefs of
teachers, how to influence those beliefs and, therefore, influence behaviors and
integration practices, not only helps the meeting of current national and statewide
technology goals, but also is in educational research’s best interest (Ertmer, 2005).
This investigation seeks to add to the existing body of research on context beliefs.
It may possibly provide a snapshot of the external technology resources available in the
sample population. Knowledge gained could possibly be used to design and execute both
district and statewide instructional technology plans. Moreover, by augmenting current
information available to school leaders and local boards of education about beliefs and
technology utilization, this study may provide strategies for increased student
achievement. Last, this study will address implications for school leaders, provide
information for persons who construct educational building designs, and provide

29. 17
information to educators for the day-to-day operations of middle school classrooms.
Overview
Current research asserts that positive attitudes about technology tend to be a
precursor to effective technology integration across curriculum (Beaudrie & Boschmans,
2004; Broussard, 2009; Gray & Madson, 2007; Martineau, 2009; Vannatta & Fordham,
2004; Williams, 2006). Large amounts of funding through the United States Department
of Education have been provided for school districts to improve the face of technology in
their respective locales. With current funding provisions coupled with the researched
implications of technology as an instructional tool that can significantly enhance
education, it is imperative that obstacles preventing educators from properly utilizing
technology are identified. Further, it is in the best interest of research to help teachers
redirect negative beliefs that may stifle the infusion of technology into the current
curriculum, therefore, hindering the enhancement of academic performance.
This study is an attempt to ascertain what factors are believed by teachers to have
the greatest impact on technology integration in U.S. middle school classrooms. This
will be explored using the BATT. Additionally, a picture of the technological richness of
Georgia middle schools will be described.
In line with current practices for empirical research, this study will be
systematized into five distinct chapters, respectively: (a) Chapter One defines the study
by identifying the problem and its context, highlighting the theoretical framework used,
and pinpointing why the research that is significant today; (b) Chapter Two summarizes
current literature on technology integration and beliefs, further connecting theory to
current technology trends, and identifying potential obstacles regarding technology

30. 18
integration; (c) Chapter Three covers methodology, including procedures and research
designs used to conduct this study; (d) Chapter Four addresses findings and summarizes
survey results; (e) Chapter Five concludes by recapitulating the research and providing
suggestions for further exploration.

31. 19
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Technology and Society
Technology has, and continues to have, a profound impact on society in an overall
grand schema. This impact impels the areas of work, home, government, and ultimately
education. This review of literature briefly examines the societal influences of
technology, and determines the implications of these societal influences on education. It
further describes both the national and global scope of technology integration and
expounds on funding sources. Next, it focuses on educational technology integration and
teaching practices, explain the existing barriers to technology integration, and looks at
research concerning educators’ beliefs about teaching with technology.
Technology and the Workplace
Technological advances have revolutionized the business world and have changed
the face of the typical workplace setting (Burg, 2013). From the invention of telegraphy
in the 1850s, to telephones, fax machines, and photocopiers of the 1900s, to the more
recent developments of wireless communication and video conferencing, offices around
the world are quickly evolving (Digipro, 2007). With this evolution comes the need for
employee skill sets to meet the increasing technical needs of today’s employer and highly
technical workplace (National Education Technology Plan, 2010).
Today’s employer expects new employees to come to the table with technical skill
sets that increase productivity. Hansen and Hansen (2007) list computer and technical
literacy as one of the 10 most sought after skill sets employers seek when selecting new
hires. In a study conducted by Stella, Krider, and Ash (1997), employee qualifications
did not meet employer needs in the area of communication and technical skills. This

32. 20
study further assumed that this trend would likely hold true in future studies.
Furthermore, The Secretary’s Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills (SCANS),
developed by the U.S. Department of Labor and Education, conducted a study that
researched the competencies required for success of new employees in today’s
workforce. This study concluded that technological perceptiveness is a competency for
prospective employees in today’s job market. This competence included not only
working with various technologies and technical applications, but also maintaining and
troubleshooting equipment (U.S. Department of Labor, 1991). These studies and many
others like them, solidify the notion that today’s student must exit the K-12 setting (and
even K-16 setting) with the technical knowledge to be successful in the 21st century
workplace (National Education Technology Plan, 2010).
Technology in the Home
Technology in the home allows many freedoms. Noted researcher of technology
advances, Schement (1996), said, “Whether rich or poor, the home will become the
information processing center of the 21st century as Americans intensify the domestic
functionalities of refuge, window, marketplace, and workshop” (p. 35). Today, people
are able to work from home, watch high-definition television, access hundreds of
channels, play video games with 3D and 4D graphical representations, download music
and talk on telephones that do all of the aforementioned and more (Burg, 2013).
Kitchens are equipped with microwaves and self-cleaning ovens, computerized
dishwashers, and talking refrigerators (Home Depot, 2007). Cable and satellite TV
stream in hundreds of channels, providing viewers with digital, “on demand” (Comcast,
2007) capabilities and the vivid clarity of plasma screens and high-definition, surround

33. 21
sound. From home, computer users are afforded the luxury of direct deposit, online
banking, and bill payment options. Even the newest home computer user is transformed
into a freelance photographer with just a click of a digital camera. Homes are guarded
with intricate alarms systems that provide two-way voice capabilities, making law
enforcement, medical assistance, and fire protection just a button-push away (Comcast,
2007). Pizza deliveries, movie rentals, grocery shopping, medical, and legal advice, and
so much more are just a click away and require basic technical preparedness. This
profound effect that technology advancements have made on society as a whole, and
personal computing specifically, makes technology integration in education a must (U.S.
Department of Education, 2001, 2009, 2011).
Technology in Education
The last two decades have placed technology at the forefront of education
(Simkins, Vodicka, & Gonzales, 2009). In 1983, an informational report entitled “A
Nation at Risk” was birthed through the U.S. Department of Education’s National
Commission on Excellence in Education. This report echoed the sentiments of federal
educational leaders, warning that the foundation of the existing education system is being
“eroded by a rising tide of mediocrity that threatens our very future as a nation and as a
people” (National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983). This report suggested
that schools across the nation are failing to challenge students academically, particularly
in the areas of mathematics and science. This report further suggested that technology
and basic computer skills were severely deficient (Goodlad, 1984). This gave way to the
extension of literacy to include five new basics—English, mathematics, science, social
studies, and computer science (Goodlad, 1984). With the inclusion of computer science,

34. 22
the report expressed the expectation that students graduating from high school, should
emerge understanding “the computer as an information, computation, and communication
device; [be able to] use the computer in the study of the other basic and for personal and
work-related purposes; and understand the world of computers, electronics, and related
technologies” (National Commission on Excellence in Education, p. 1).
This report sparked the insurgence of a nationwide computer revolution and
exposed the need for education reform (National Commission on Excellence in
Education, 1983). Fearing that students were neither qualified to enter college or the
world of work, the U.S. Department of Education initiated this reform to improve
education in five areas (U.S. Department of Education, 2004, 2008): (a) academic
achievement, particularly in the areas of math and science; (b) remediation and
enrichment—meeting the needs of all students, providing challenging enrichment for
gifted students and providing remediation for students needing additional reinforcement;
(c) classroom management—decreasing class sizes and providing tutorial support as
needed; (d) challenge and encouragement—engaging students through rigorous standards
and encouraging interest in computers and technology; (e) preparation and training—
teachers are encouraged to promote continuing education to include college and pursuing
advanced degrees, particularly in science and math. Additionally, this report propelled
education to the forefront of political agendas across the United States since then
(Danielson, 2002). In summary, this report warned that if change did not occur in a
strategic manner, our nation would not be able to compete in the increasingly global
arena in which we live (Barlow & Robertson, 1994, Bracey 2003).
In 1991, a report titled “What Work requires of Schools: SCANS Report for

35. 23
America 2000” revealed skills necessary for high workplace proficiency. This report,
released by the Secretary for the U.S. Department of Labor’s Commission on Achieving
the Necessary Skills, defined three essentials for the 21st-century learner. The three
necessary skills reported were “a solid foundation in the basic literacy and computational
skills, thinking skills necessary to put knowledge to work, and personal qualities that
make workers dedicated and trustworthy” (U.S. Department of Labor, 1991, p. 3).
In 1994, President Clinton’s administration sparked the technology momentum on
a national level. Goals 2000: Educate America Act was established with the expressed
goal to “improve student learning through a long-term, broad-based effort to promote
coherent and coordinated improvements in the system of education throughout all levels
of education” (Goals 1996, p. 1, 2000). This law set the stage for later legislation such as
No Child Left behind (NCLB) that shared the same fundamental principle of improving
educational technology efforts across the United States (Goals, 1998, 2000).
In 1996, the U.S. Department of Education issued the Technology Literacy
Challenge program aimed at rendering technology literate students for the 21st century.
Through a report titled “Getting America’s Students Ready for the 21st Century: Meeting
the Technology Literacy Challenge,” four goals were emphasized. These goals centered
on improving technology skills, increasing training and support for teachers, acquiring
multimedia computers in classrooms, and ensuring Internet connection coupled with
supporting software in every classroom.
Describing the reform as the cornerstone of his administration, President George
W. Bush signed the No Child Left Behind Act into law on January 8, 2002. Citing
disappointment in the nation’s public school system, he expressed his belief that despite

36. 24
the federal spending of nearly $200 billion dollars resulting from the 1965 passage of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), “too many of our neediest children
are being left behind.” The president solicited bipartisan support intended to provide
more accountability, choice, and flexibility within federal education programs (U.S.
Department of Education, 2010, p. 2). This legislation echoed the emergent consensus
that computer literacy is of paramount importance for 21st-century learners. President
Bush set out to “assist every student in crossing the digital divide by ensuring that every
student is technology literate by the time the student finishes the eighth grade” through
“the effective integration of technology resources and systems with teacher training and
curriculum development to establish research-based instructional methods that can be
widely implemented as best practices by state educational agencies” (U.S. Department of
Education, 2010).
The NCLB, part D of Title II outlines the technology standard for schools across
the United States. This section challenges schools to increase student academic
achievement using technology. Further, it demands full integration of technology,
requiring schools to effectively utilize technology to improve curriculum and instruction.
NCLB Title II part D stated:
Section 2401 Title: Enhancing Education through Technology Act of 2001
Section 2402: Purposes and Goals:
1. To provide assistance to State and localities for the implementation and
support of a comprehensive system that effectively uses technology in
elementary schools and secondary schools to improve student academic
achievement.
2. To encourage the establishment or expansion of initiatives, including
initiatives involving public-private partnerships, designed to increase access to
technology, particularly in schools served by high-need local educational
agencies
3. To assist States and localities in the acquisition, development, interconnection,
implementation, improvement, and maintenance of an effective educational

37. 25
technology infrastructure in a manner that expands access to technology for
students (particularly for disadvantaged students) and teachers.
4. To promote initiatives that provide schoolteachers, principals, and
administrators with the capacity to integrate technology effectively into
curricula and instruction achievement standards, through such means as high-
quality professional development programs.
5. To enhance ongoing professional development of teachers, principals, and
administrators by providing constant access to training and updated research
in teaching through electronic means.
6. To support the development and utilization of electronic networks and other
innovative methods, such as distance learning of delivering specialized or
rigorous academic courses and curricula for students in areas that would not
otherwise have access to such courses and curricula, particularly in
geographically isolated regions.
7. To support the rigorous evaluation of programs funded under this part,
particularly regarding the impact of such programs on student academic
achievement, and ensure that timely information on the results of such
evaluations is widely accessible through electronic means.
8. To support local efforts using technology to promote parent and family
involvement in education and communication among students, parents,
teachers, principals, and administrators. (NCLB, 2007)
In summary, the NCLB, Title II D allows for strategic, data-driven planning on the
national, state, and local levels that embed fundamental success components such as
hands-on, intensive, high-quality, professional development (Givens, 2006).
In 2003, over six billion taxpayer dollars were spent on educational technology
(Anderson & Dexter, 2005). This investment alone confirms the important role that
technology plays in education. Taxpayer dollars equate to state and local leaders having
an obligation to ensure that technological resources are used wisely to ensure student
success, and further speaks to the important role technology plays in education at large.
In 2010, through the U.S. Department of Education, President Barak Obama
introduced the latest national technology plan called “Transforming American Education:
Learning Powered by Technology.” As its name implies, this plan specifies how
educational leaders will transform learning during the 21st century by implementing
strategies intended to create a more individualized instructional model and provide

38. 26
increase connectivity across the United States (U.S. Department of Education, 2010).
U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan envisioned a “state of the art, cradle to
college” school system that offers a more engaged, custom-made experience for today’s
learner (National School Board Association [NSBA], 2010, p. 1). NSBA’s Director of
Education Technology, Ann Flynn, expressed her opinion that technology was an
essential rather than an “optional add-on” to learning and productivity (NSBA, 2010, p.
1). She further expresses that districts should refrain from the notion that technology is a
costly investment, and rather, focus on how to do things in such a way that maximizes the
impact of technology resources (NSBA, 2010, p. 1). Both Duncan and Flynn embraced
the five main goals of the national education technology plan, realizing that the plan’s
articulated goals provide a vision for technology in K-12 education. The five main goals
of this plan examine:
1. Learning—making this process more engaging and fitted to individual learner
needs
2. Assessment—using technology to measure outcomes effectively
3. Teaching—providing resources to teachers that connect them with their peers
and other experts, providing them with up-to-date resources to better impart
knowledge to the 21st-century learner
4. Infrastructure—building frameworks for increased access to technology in and
out of the classroom
5. Creativity—increasing the productivity of school districts coupled with
increasing student achievement through the innovative measures allowed by
educational technology. (U.S. Department of Education, 2010, p. 6)
In reference to these goals, Duncan expressed, “if we accomplish all of these goals, we’ll
have realized the advance potential for technology to prepare students for success in the
internationally competitive, knowledge-based economy.” He further expressed that
nothing replaces great teachers, but believes that technology has the potential to
fundamentally improve the way students learn (NSBA, 2010, p. 1)
Dissecting technology in education a bit further, the next two sections will

39. 27
examine both the national and global scopes of technology in education. Additionally,
these sections will highlight the depth of importance that technology utilization in
education holds across national and international arenas, thus, providing a bigger
backdrop on which to compare how technology impacts education across the globe.
National Scope
The western part of the United States boasts technology plans that include
improved professional development opportunities and increased technical support (U.S.
Department of Education, 2010). California’s plan is a prime example, with professional
development earmarked for increasing the ability of teachers to integrate technology and
embedded administrative support structures that also offer increased classroom
technology integration. The state of Washington spent in excess of $3.5 million dollars
on professional development, instructional computers (hardware and software), online
courses, and other teacher support resources (U.S. Department of Education, 2010).
While the Wyoming plan brags on the lowering of student/computer ratios to a four to
one minimum, offering teacher support mentors for increased technology integration, and
offering access to web-based instruction on the incorporation of technology into the
curriculum (U.S. Department of Education, 2010).
The central region of the United States includes state technology plans that seek
to increase the effective and efficient use of technology (U.S. Department of Education,
2010). Plans such as Nebraska’s Digital Education Initiative seek to increase technology
integration through the backing of statewide telecommunications (U.S. Department of
Education, 2010). Other plans, such as Illinois’ plan, focus on ensuring ready access to
technology for students and making certain that teachers and educators have the

40. 28
knowledge necessary to engage students in meaningful pedagogy that promotes the
ability to solve problems (U.S. Department of Education, 2010). Illinois invested
approximately 25 million dollars to drive home the serious need for increased
technological literacy and higher order thinking strategies for the 21st-century learner
(U.S. Department of Education, 2010). Similarly, the state of Wisconsin highlights the
importance of technology by sinking millions into the use of common media, software,
and other equipment to encourage effective technology integration in schools and address
standards set forth in the state’s technology plan (U.S. Department of Education, 2010).
Looking at the northeastern region, state technology plans support the importance
of technology integration in 21st-century education. In Massachusetts, 85% of teachers
reportedly use technology daily with their students (U.S. Department of Education,
2010). That same percentage apparently report daily use of technology outside of
teaching (U.S. Department of Education, 2010). The U.S. Department of Education
(2010) further suggested that these teachers participate in 45 hours of high-quality
professional development comprised of coaching, online support, modeling, mentoring,
and various study groups. In comparison, the state of Vermont’s plan boasts continuous
technology access for both teachers and students. Data collection and assessment
methods for students are included in this plan (U.S. Department of Education, 2010).
This plan also outlines the creation of technology-friendly learning environments that
utilize the development of community partnerships that foster enhanced integration (U.S.
Department of Education, 2010).
States in the southeast region of the United States utilize resources afforded them
through the Enhancing Teaching Through Technology (ETTT) and the NCLB acts (U.S.

41. 29
Department of Education, 2010). Through its state technology plan, Florida seeks to
increase learning opportunities for its students and teachers by outlining proficiency and
literacy standards related to educational technology (U.S. Department of Education,
2010). Mississippi provides opportunities for its teachers to become proficient in
technology integration through local, in-building support and ongoing professional
development. Additionally, administrators are trained not only to integrate technology
into the curriculum but also increase parental and community support with regard to
technology integration. The state of Georgia plan is comprised of seven major goals
intended to increase technology integration. These goals include increasing community
support, cultivating teacher integration ability, improving administrators’ use of
computers, investing in quality district supports, and providing adequate access to all
stakeholders (U.S. Department of Education, 2010).
Global Scope
In 1997, England and Hong Kong provided global points of comparison with
regard to technology integration (Wang, 2002). In an effort to increase resources and
training for teachers, England’s Labor Party spent billions on information communication
technology (ICT; Wang, 2002). With similar goals, Hong Kong’s Special Administrative
Region (SAR) funded technology reforms, including efforts to train ICT coordinators and
other significant personnel at a lower expense, in the millions (Wang, 2002). However,
more financial support in England failed to equate to better integration success.
England’s teachers report difficulty adjusting to the increased workload, feeling
overwhelmed and ill prepared to integrate technology effectively (Wang, 2002). Even
with significantly more financial support, England teachers referred to the lack of

42. 30
resources, skills, meaningful direction, and administrative support needed to integrate
technology successfully (Wang, 2002). In direct contrast, teachers in Hong Kong
achieved greater reform success that yielded schools connected to the Internet and
teachers properly trained in the successful integration of educational technology (Wang,
2002).
In Taiwan, engaging students with creative strategies that employ the use of
technology is highly encouraged (ChanLin et al., 2006). Student interests in learning are
inspired through the strategic implementation of innovative technology that makes
learning fun (ChanLin et al., 2006). Technology also affects the time frame needed to
acquire more information, providing students with the opportunity to learn more, faster
(Almekhani & Almeqdadi, 2010). Effective technology integration is a result of teachers
being properly trained and having the skill set to use technology meaningfully (ChanLin
et al., 2006; U.S. Department of Education, 2010).
In 2002, the Sultanate of Oman, located in Southwest Asia, was home to a
university study on technology integration. Abdelraheem (2004) sought to study the
context beliefs of Sultan Qaboos University faculty in relation to their decision to utilize
technology in daily instruction. Using the BATT instrument created by Lumpe and
Chambers (2001), the researcher explored the enabling factors and likelihood factors
surrounding technology utilization decisions. This study was a direct result of the
increased attention given to beliefs as an indicator of teacher behavioral change in the last
thirty years, and serves as a model for the investigation conducted through this research
(Abdelraheem, 2004).
Many countries are mandating classroom technology utilization during

43. 31
instructional delivery. Increased resource availability and knowledge expansion
opportunities are a direct result to being connected through technology (U.S. Department
of Education, 2008). According to the Computer Industry Almanac, the United States is
the world leader in computer usage. If expected growth rates are maintained, this same
source predicts that by 2015, the number of personal computers will surpass the number
of people in the U.S. (U.S. Department of Education, 2010). The following table outlines
the personal computer and computer use of countries considered.
Table 1
Leading PC Usage and Computer Usage by Country in 2011
Countries PCs in Use (#M) Computers in Use
U.S. 310.6 321.4
China 195.1 200.4
Japan 98.1 101.9
UK 54.5 56.7
Source: Computer Industry Almanac, Inc. U.S. Department of Education, 2012
Personal Agency Beliefs: Capability Beliefs and Context Beliefs
Personal agency beliefs are defined as “evaluative thoughts involving a
comparison between a desired consequence (a goal) and an anticipated consequence
(expectations about what will happen if the goal is pursued)” (Ford, 1992, p. 251). Ford
(1992) further described personal agency beliefs by dividing them into two distinct
categories, capability and context. His view of capability beliefs mirrors the commonly
studied views of Bandura’s (1977) self-efficacy, a person’s beliefs about his or her ability
(p. 3). Ford’s (1992) notion of context beliefs examines external factors (both resources
and people) that may affect a person’s achievement of a particular goal. Ford (1992)
proposed that these two distinct types of beliefs came together to form patterns that cause
behaviors or motivates a person to act. This section will delineate the two personal

44. 32
agency belief types, discuss personal agency belief patterns, and describe the importance
of context beliefs to this research.
First, Bandura’s (1977) self-efficacy (i.e., capability beliefs) is a common
research paradigm of human motivation and goal realization. Defined as “beliefs in one’s
capabilities to organize and execute the courses of action required to produce given
attainments,” Bandura’s (1977) self-efficacy theory looks at a person’s beliefs about
whether he or she can succeed in a given situation (p. 3). He postulated that these
capability beliefs are factors in how people think, feel, and behave. Further, he offered
four sources of these beliefs: a) mastery experiences—a person’s successful execution of
a specific task; b) social modeling—a person’s witnessing of the successful execution of
a task by others; c) social persuasion—the idea that a person can be persuaded that he or
she possesses the skills and abilities to success; and d) psychological responses—the idea
that a person’s own reactions and emotional responses impact his or her beliefs about his
or her own abilities. Thus, it can be hypothesized that capability (self-efficacy) beliefs
are a key determinant in motivating a person to action.
Next, in an effort to expand Bandura’s (1977) theory to include a broader
examination of belief types, Ford (1992) introduced the construct of context beliefs. He
explained these beliefs to include those about the external factors or human resources that
enable one to reach a goal, coupled with beliefs about the likelihood of occurrence of
those external factors in their environment. Context beliefs take into account a person’s
personal assessment of the accessibility of resources, the availability of support, and/or
any obstacles that may exist in their environment. Ford (1992) believed that a person’s
context beliefs provide an important element in the acquisition of “challenging but

45. 33
attainable goals” (p. 125).
Characterizing the relationships that exist between capability and context beliefs,
Ford (1992) organized a chart that classifies personal belief patterns. These patterns
range from the most sought after robust pattern indicating a synthesis of strong capability
beliefs with positive context beliefs, to the least desired hopeless pattern that links weak
capability beliefs with negative context beliefs. Figure 3 indicates this arrangement.
ContextBeliefs
Negative
Fragile
(Intact but easily
broken)
Modest
(moderate estimate of
ability)
Robust (strong/firm
in purpose)
Neutral
or
Variable
Self-Doubting
(lack of faith in chance
for success)
Vulnerable
(fascinating, but at risk
under stress)
Tenacious (strength
in dealing with
challenge)
Positive
Hopeless
(no hope or
confidence)
Discouraged
(maintains some hope)
Accepting or
Antagonistic (endures
or expresses hostility
Weak Modest or Variable
Capability Beliefs
Strong
Figure 3: Capability and context beliefs relationships.
So how are technology integration and teacher context beliefs a relevant topic of
research? Well, technology utilization in school classrooms adequately fit Ford’s (1992)
description of a goal that is both “challenging” and “attainable” (p. 124). This gives
credence to an examination of teacher beliefs that cause the behavior of technology
integration. The next section will highlight empirical studies that explore the relationship
between teacher beliefs and technology utilization in an educational context.
Empirical Studies on Beliefs about Technology Utilization
In 2001, Lumpe and Chambers conducted research that resulted in the creation of
the BATT instrument (Appendix A). This instrument assesses teacher’s context beliefs

46. 34
about using technology in the classroom. With the expressed goal of effective
technology utilization, this study examined teacher attitudes and behaviors that influence
technology integration in an engaged environment. Survey content development was
based on Ford’s (1992) motivational systems theory (MST) coupled with Bandura’s
(1977) research on self-efficacy. Self-efficacy is a generalized expectancy of a teacher,
given the teacher’s beliefs about their own ability to perform certain professional tasks
and influence students (Bandura, 1977). The study concluded that exploring teacher
context beliefs could serve as an effective program evaluation tool.
Wang (2002) introduced research pertaining to how those seeking to enter the
teaching profession think about the integration of computers in education. The study
polled 78 preservice teachers’ as they entered student teaching for a public university
bordering the Pacific Rim of the United States. Wang’s basis for this study is rooted in
the theory that preservice teacher’s beliefs and perceptions offer significant insight into
future behaviors related to computer integration (Williams, 2006). Noting the naivety of
preservice teachers, Wang (2002) suggested that simply having the ability to use
computers and/or technology does not equate to their incorporation into daily instruction.
The study implied that preservice teachers are more likely to take a teacher-centered
approach, using computers and other technology as tools to support the implementation
of the lesson rather than as a student-centered tool to fully engage students in the learning
process. Wang (2002) attributed this finding to the likelihood that the preservice teachers
had yet to experience learning environments where they themselves were engaged using a
student-centered approach. The study concluded that beliefs about teaching and learning
tend to be products of prior personal experience (Wang, 2002).

47. 35
Another 2002 study of preservice teachers yielded a definition of beliefs as
“dispositions to act” (Leatham, 2002, p. 6). This exploration of secondary mathematics
teacher candidates sought to examine the relationship between their beliefs about
teaching math with technology and beliefs about teaching and learning in general. This
qualitative study monitored four preservice teachers using observations, emails,
interviews, and data collection methods aimed at ascertaining how their beliefs would
impact their technology integration practices. The study identified technology
availability, the intended instructional purpose for technology use, and the teacher’s
knowledge of technology as factors attributing to their beliefs about technology
integration in the classroom (Leatham, 2002).
A multi-case, qualitative study conducted by Loague (2003) failed to reveal a
definitive indication that technology influenced the instructional decisions of a university
faculty. In an attempt to assess how technology influenced instructional practices of a
higher educational faculty, Loague (2003) collected data on various elements/factors
needed for technology integration. Institutional vision, access to technology, available
technical support, and administrative leadership were examined as factors attributing to
successful technology integration (Loague, 2003). The study surmised that technology
had not made a significant impact on participants’ beliefs about teaching and learning.
Additionally, there was no marked change in the teaching styles of participants (Loague,
2003).
In 2004, Ferguson examined the relationship that exists between the pedagogical
beliefs of experienced university professors and their teaching styles. More specifically,
this qualitative research study conducted on a small liberal arts campus in the southern

48. 36
region of the United States sought to determine how beliefs about teaching practices
correspond to how technology is utilized in the classroom. The study established that a
professor’s teaching philosophy plays a significant role in how integration is realized in
the classroom setting (Ferguson, 2004).
In 2004, Zhao targeted 17 social studies teachers in grades 7-12 to study their
perceptions of technology integration as an effective tool for instructional purposes. This
study also looked at the impact technology training had on their decision to integrate
technology into daily classroom practices. Participants had an average of 11 years of
teaching experience, ranging from 23 to 62 years in age. Data were extracted from
interviews and various documents related to their teaching, concluding that technology
integration training had a positive impact on their daily instructional practices.
Furthermore, mandated professional developments and personal commitment were cited
as the major factors influencing their attitudes and positive instructional changes.
A 2005 National Teacher Survey conducted by CDW-G revealed disturbing
statistics. The study reported that 80% of K-12 teachers’ primary use for computers is
administrative in nature (National Teacher Survey, 2005). The study went on to report
that slightly over 50% of the teachers even attempt to incorporate computers in everyday,
routine instruction (National Teacher Survey, 2005). To compound the problem, the
study informs that 33% of the population studied reported very little training or no
training devoted to the incorporation of computers into daily lessons and/or training on
how to utilize instructional software (National Teacher Survey, 2005).
In 2007, Inan and Lowther conducted a survey in Tennessee on the direct and
indirect effects of technology integration. With 1,382 public school teachers surveyed,

49. 37
this study identified a lack of readiness as the number one reason for minimum classroom
computer usage. The study further identified lack of competency, lack of computer
support, and varying beliefs about technology and the curriculum as major barriers to
effective integration (Inan, 2007).
A longitudinal study conducted in 2009 by Glassett and Schrum (2009) sought to
achieve three primary goals: (a) technology intensive classrooms, (b) a collegial
environment for educators conducive to sharing and learning, and (c) an intense,
“pedagogy first” training program for teachers in high poverty schools in Illinois. The
researchers sought to understand not only how teachers were incorporating technology
and professional development strategies into their everyday instruction, but also
compared student achievement in classrooms receiving the intervention and those without
it for a two-year timeframe. The pedagogical beliefs and practices that evolved from
participating were identified, and study conclusions indicated a slight increment increase
in student achievement. A positive pedagogical shift in how educators viewed
technology integration was also realized.
As access and support barriers seem to diminish, a 2010 study conducted by
Ertmer and Ottenbriet-Leftwich revisited the notion that pedagogical beliefs and
technology integration practices are aligned. This multiple case-study research involved
the interviewing of 12 classroom teachers, who were selected based on their award-
winning technology practices. This study overwhelming supported that a teacher’s own
beliefs and attitudes about the relevance technology plays in student learning affected
their integration practices more than any other factor. This study further purposed that
internal factors coupled with the appropriate use of information and information

50. 38
technology resources facilitate student learning in meaningful and successful ways.
In 2013, Tweed conducted a quantitative study intended to identify the
combination of factors that support the effective implementation of new technologies in
the classroom. Specifically, age, gender, teaching experience, professional development,
and teacher self-efficacy, as defined by Bandura (1977), were explored to discover how
these factors related to new technology implementation in the classroom (Tweed, 2013).
The findings did not report a noteworthy finding with regard to the aforementioned
factors. However, it did conclude that self-efficacy had a significant, positive correlation
to classroom technology use by teachers (Tweed, 2013).
Technology Integration
What should successful technology integration in today’s 21st-century classroom
look like? Through its technology plan, the Department of Education suggested that
technology integration encompasses the use of available tools to meet the needs of
teachers, students, parents, and administrators (U.S. Department of Education, 2008).
According to Royer (2002), improvements in student achievement result when teachers
effectively use computer-based instructional programs. With teachers being the catalyst
of education for students in school, it is important that trainings occur that render them
knowledgeable about effectively embedding technology into the current curriculum. In
other words, a copious blueprint that includes plans for adopting new hardware and
funding sources for both hardware and software must be in place.
Gorder (2008) explained a five-stage development process that describes how
individuals learn to use technology. Stage one consists of teachers who are aware of
existing technologies, but choose not to use it. Dissonance is a common characteristic for

51. 39
these educators. Students at this same stage tend to be very aware of technology and
make use of it readily for non-educational purposes. At level two, teachers are rethinking
their position on technology integration. This is usually spurred by relevant training
and/or persuasion from their peers. During this stage, students are presented with the
idea of educational technology use. The decision to accept or reject technology is made
by educators at level three. Accepting technology gives way to using it in an effort to
heighten instruction. Experimentation occurs, and strategies learned are slowly
incorporated into daily instruction. By level four, teachers begin to actively use
technology for instructional purposes, incorporating technology that they deem relevant
to enhance the subject matter being taught. Stage five culminates the technology
integration process by undertaking full integration initiatives that enhance instruction and
promote student achievement (Gorder, 2008). By this stage, teachers assign tasks that
require students to use technology in meaningful ways. This effort results in teachers
beginning to master skills that not only help them connect technology to a specific
assignment but, engage students in a way that evokes positive learning opportunities.
Blankenship (2010) warned that, at this stage, teachers must be taught how to use
technology well enough not to overwhelm them to the point of discouragement and
discontinued use.
Reaching the final stage in learning to integrate technology enables teachers to
utilize resources available, incorporate those resources into the classroom, and provide
students with rich experiences that enhance learning opportunities (Gorder, 2008). Both
Blankenship (2010) and Gorder (2008) agreed that the ultimate goal of technology
integration is to improve teaching and learning significantly. Therefore, introducing

52. 40
interactive technologies into the classroom can excite student users, encourage the
employment of problem-solving methods, and provide multiple measures for representing
course materials. With this, lessons become more student-focused versus teacher-
focused, and allow students to embrace responsibility for their own learning (Brewer,
2003). According to Gorder (2008), teacher beliefs and knowledge about how
technology can support instruction are the keys to student success. Research confirms
that teachers who choose not to integrate technology usually do so because of having
insufficient skills to properly integrate technology (Gorder, 2008).
Rakes and Casey (2002) raised fundamental concerns of many teachers with
regard to why they choose not to integrate technology more in the classroom. Many are
uncertain if technology use will actually raise student achievement. Teachers also cite
concerns about resource availability for classroom use. Rakes and Casey (2002) further
cited classroom management concerns with regard to technology integration, and the
looming concern of the impact technology will have on the teaching profession. These
and other concerns can swiftly become hindrances to classroom computer use and render
themselves as barriers to effective technology integration (Gorder, 2008; Rakes & Casey,
2002; Roblyer, 2003).
Recent research exposes factors such as teacher attitudes and beliefs, lack of or
insufficient access to, computers (hardware, software, and other resources), and available
technology supports as hindrances to teacher willingness with regard to technology
integration (Inan & Lowther, 2010). Inan and Lowther (2010) offered three categories
for technology utilization by teachers. Category one is lesson preparation—using word
processing software, spreadsheets, and presentation software to facilitate this need.

53. 41
Category two is lesson delivery—using interactive whiteboards, projectors, and other
software to facilitate this need. Category three involves using technology as a learning
tool—student response systems and other creative software and/or hardware that engages
the student and provides in-time progress monitoring through immediate feedback
(Demiski, 2010; Edens, 2006; Ferritter, 2009; Granberg & Witte, 2005; Inan & Lowther,
2010; Koenig, 2010; Manzo, 2009; Mula & Kavanagh, 2009; Penuel, Boscardin, Masyn
& Crawford, 2007; Salend, 2009; Strasser, 2010; Tarasiuk, 2010; Zucker & King, 2009).
Kopecha (2010) outlined a four-stage model for technology integration. Each
stage involves a mentor proficient in technology integration designed to support a peer
teacher. Stage one examines the initial setup for using technology, troubleshooting and
addressing issues through supported guidance. Stage two deals with teacher preparation
in integration techniques. Stage three is the learning stage, addressing the “how” aspect
of technology integration. Stage four gives the mentee the opportunity to practice learned
behaviors from stage three. Kopecha (2010) concluded from this study that technology
integration occurs effectively when teachers are provided a mentor to “negotiate the
interplay of multiple barriers (time, beliefs, access, professional development, culture).”
As quoted by Senge (2000), Brown said, “To be a teacher you must be a
prophet—because you are trying to prepare people for a world thirty to fifty years into
the future” (p. 51). In other words, continuing a teacher-focused, textbook, paper, and
pencil approach will prepare students for a past existence rather than for a future reality
(Senge, 2000). Some intransigent educators will make the choice not to integrate
technology into their daily teaching routines. This clearly puts students at risk. Fulton
(1998) stated, “educators must agree on the most appropriate ways to assess both

54. 42
student’s knowledge and their information-age skills” (p. 62). Mckenzie (2001)
classified teachers as either traditional or constructivists. Its Mckenzie’s thought that
traditional teachers are less likely to use novel technologies even though they may have
access to it in their classrooms, whereas, constructivists are more likely to incorporate
new technology strategies. Kaplan and Rogers (1996) quoted Richard White who
proposed that in order to move forward, “Teachers will have to get as comfortable with
computers as blackboards, or it all will be a waste of money” (p. 61). In other words, to
produce technology proficient children, educators must be the common link that bridges
the digital divide.
Barriers to Integration
Managing potential technology integration barriers is a complex process at best.
As is the nature of any paradigm, barriers are inevitable, and Becker (2000) argued that
impeding barriers occur all too often in today’s education settings. Ertmer (2005)
categorized technology integration barriers as first order (i.e., extrinsic—external factors
that impede teachers), or second order (i.e., intrinsic—beliefs or internal feelings that
have the potential to impede teacher. This section more closely defines the first order,
external barriers of adequacy, accessibility, availability, professional development
opportunities, and administrative and technical support.
Adequacy of Technology
Technology cannot be a meaningful support to teachers if equipment is obsolete.
Lemke and Coughlin (1999) identified five things needed in order to provide the
adequate technology that educators need to improve instruction (see Table 2).

55. 43
Table 2
Adequacy of Technology
Adequacy of Technology
Installed base Schools have an installed base of modern technology equipment to support the
learning, communication, and administrative goals of the education system.
Connectivity The connectivity in the school/district is adequate to support current and rapidly
growing demands created by the learning, communication, and administrative
requirements of the education system.
Technical support There is adequate technical support to provide timely, expert troubleshooting,
technical assistance, ongoing maintenance, operation, and upgrades.
Client orientation The client’s technical needs are being met with a high degree of customer
satisfaction.
Facilities The facilities within the system are “technology-ready.”
Source: Lemke & Coughlin. (1999). Technology in American Schools: Seven dimensions for gauging
progress. A policymaker’s guide, p. 28.
In some cases, it is not what the educator knows, but rather the inadequate, out-of-
date equipment and/or technology resources available in a school or district. Brush,
Glazewski, and Hew (2008) proposed that teachers are unable to effectively integrate
technology into the curriculum if the available technology is inadequate. Money invested
in educational technology reaches into the billions of dollars (U.S. Department of
Education, 2010). However, in some instances, technology is increasing faster than the
available money to update it. After being in service for only a few months or if lucky, a
couple of school years, hardware and software can potentially become obsolete (Scott,
2014). This can pose a substantial barrier for educators with regard to integrating
technology.
Accessibility to Technology
New technology has significantly changed the world and, thus, has had a
substantial impact on education both in thought and in practice. The decrease in size and
expense of computers and various technologies has made accessibility an easier feat.
Although technology varies tremendously from school to school, from district to district,

56. 44
and from state to state, “the expansion of educational technologies has provided a wider
access to educational opportunities such as enhanced staff development capabilities and
an increase in the ability of school leaders to manage change” (Jones, 1997).
However, access to technology goes beyond merely the availability of technology
in a school; it encompasses the provision of both the proper amount and the right types of
technology in locations where teachers and students are privy to them (Brush, Glazewski,
& Hew, 2008; Fabry & Higgs, 1997; Zhao, Pugh, Sheldon, & Byers, 2002). Technology
that is convenient and easily accessible is of the most benefit to both teachers and
students alike (Zhao, Pugh, Sheldon, & Byers, 2002).
Computers are typically arranged for student use in one of three ways: (a)
grouped in a computer lab or centralized locale, (b) set up in individual instructional
classroom settings, or (c) a combination of the first two ways described (Garfield &
Burrill, 1997). Unfortunately, even in situations where technology is plentiful, there is
still little guarantee that teachers have easy and/or frequent access to those resources
(Hew & Brush, 2007). Selwyn (1999), for example, documented that many technology
resources in K-12 education tend to be dominated by technology classes (e.g., computer
studies). In other words, a hierarchy is established, and little priority is given to teachers
of non-technological subjects (e.g., art, humanities), placing them at a disadvantage. Vast
data (Hardwood & Asal, 2007; Lowther et al., 2003; Sandholtz et al., 1997; Sandholtz &
Reilly, 2004; Tearle, 2004) support Mann and Shakeshaft’s (2003) findings, “the
computers inside classrooms were more effective than centralized computer labs in
producing basic skill gains in students and promoting the confidence and technological
competence of teachers” (p. 3).

57. 45
Availability of Technology Support
Not having technical support onsite is a significant obstacle to teacher use of, or
integration of, technology (Cuban, Kirkpatrick, & Peck, 2001). Once a teacher has made
a commitment to incorporate technology into the curriculum, support is paramount in the
sustained use of technology (Cuban, Kirkpatrick, & Peck, 2001). Teachers want to know
that if problems arise, there is sufficient technical help available. This adds to the
security and confidence of teachers in their decision to incorporate technology into the
curriculum (Cuban, Kirkpatrick, & Peck, 2001).
Soloman and Weiderhorn (2000) reported that the average technical issue takes
53.6 hours to repair if support must be garnered from out of the building. During this
time, teachers usually revert to non-technology driven methods of doing things (Cuban,
Kirkpatrick, & Peck, 2001). This is perceived to be a more expedient effort than waiting
for external technical support. The thought is that education must continue and waits for
nothing (Cuban, Kirkpatrick, & Peck, 2001).
In the 1999 Education World article “Laptop Computers for Every Student!”,
Grignano, a technology coordinator/systems engineer, is quoted as saying, “it is a waste
of money for a school to buy computers for every classroom unless there is a full-time
technology coordinator in the school (Cromwell, p. 3). His rationale seems to conclude
that at schools where technical support is available onsite, teachers are more apt to
incorporate technology into the curriculum without fear of running into problems with
equipment and/or software.
In a paper entitled “Challenges and Strategies in Using Technology to Promote
Education Reform,” the US Department of Education lists five kinds of support necessary

58. 46
with regard to technology. These five kinds of support include helping and planning for
technology uses and acquisitions, providing training in how to use new hardware and
software, providing on-demand help when software problems and hardware failures arise,
and last, performing low-level maintenance on the system. The kinds of support needed
in a building vary according to the confidence and ability levels of the teachers in the
building (Cuban, Kirkpatrick, & Peck, 2001). However, with the advent of new,
improved technology, and with the aging of the equipment, technology maintenance, and
ongoing support certainly are needed (Cuban, Kirkpatrick, & Peck, 2001).
Staff Development Classes
Knowing how to use computers and various technologies and knowing how to
integrate that knowledge into the curriculum are two separate issues altogether. For
technology to be effective, teachers must feel confident in their ability to utilize
technology to enrich the learning process (Kurt, 2010; Palak & Walls, 2009). Molenda
and Sullivan (2002) implied that while many thousands of teachers and educators know
how to use the computer for word processing and Internet research, they are not educated
in how to integrate this knowledge into the daily curriculum. The responsibility then falls
on the school districts to utilize effective staff development strategies to teach teachers
how to use already acquired skills in their everyday lesson planning (Yildirim, 2000).
The traditional focus of technology staff development has been to show teachers
how to use technology equipment properly (McCannon & Crews, 2000). Perhaps a better
use of the staff development time would be to not only show them how to operate the
equipment, but also show teachers how to integrate the new technology into the current
curriculum (Palak & Walls, 2009). Goldman, Cole, and Syer (1999), suggested that