Self-presentation bias in surveys of teachers' educational technology practices

Educational Technology Research and Development

Volumn 55, Issue 6, 2007, Pages 627-646

  Kopcha, Theodore J ^a   Sullivan, Howard ^a  

^a ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Self presentation bias; Self report bias; Teacher use of educational technology; Technology integration

Indexed keywords

EID: 35348884245     PISSN: 10421629     EISSN: 15566501     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11423-006-9011-8     Document Type: Article

References (63)

1. Adams, A. S., Soumerai, S. B., Lomas, J., & Ross-Degnan, D. (1999). Evidence of self-report bias in assessing adherence to guidelines. International Journal for Quality Health Care, 11, 187-192.
2. Anderson, R. E., & Ronnkvist, A. (1999). The presence of computers in American schools. teaching, learning, and computing: 1998 National Survey (Report #2). Irvine, CA: Center for Research on Information Technology and Organizations. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 430 548).
3. Baker, T. L. (1994). Doing social research (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
4. Baldwin, W. (2000). Information no one else knows: The value of self-report. In A. Stone, J. Turkkan, J. Jobe, C. Bachrach, H. Kurtzman, & V. Cain (Eds.), The science of self report. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
5. Bielefeldt, T. (2002). Teacher outcomes: Improved technology skills. In J. Johnson, & L. Barker (Eds.), Assessing the impact of technology in teaching and learning: A sourcebook for evaluators (pp. 119-137). University of Michigan: Institute for Social Research.
6. Bober, M. (2002). Teacher outcomes: Changed pedagogy. In J. Johnson, & L. Barker (Eds.), Assessing the impact of technology in teaching and learning: A sourcebook for evaluators (pp. 87-118). University of Michigan: Institute for Social Research.
7. Bober, M. J., Sullivan, H. J., Lowther, D. L., & Harrison, P. (1998). Instructional practices of teachers enrolled in educational technology and general education programs. Educational Technology Research & Development, 46(3), 81-97.
8. Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-42.
9. Brush, T. (Ed.) (2003). Introduction to the special issue on Preparing Tomorrow's Teachers To Use Technology (PT3). Educational Technology Research and Development, 51(1), 57-72.
10. Brush, T., Glazewski, K., Rutkowski, K., Berg, K., Stromfors, C., Van-Nest, M., Stock, L., Sutton, J. (2003). Integrating technology in a field-based teacher training program: The PT3@ASU project. Educational Technology Research and Development, 51(1), 39-40.
11. Cable News Network [CNN]. (2003). States stick with high-school exit exams. Retrieved May 22, 2004, from http://www.cnn.com/2003/EDUCATION/08/13/ high.school.exams.ap.
12. Choi, J.-I., & Hannafin, M. (1997). The effects of instructional context and reasoning complexity on mathematics problem-solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 45(3), 43-55.
13. Cuban, L., Kirkpatrick, H., & Peck, C. (2001). High access and low use of technologies in high school classrooms: Explaining an apparent paradox. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 813-834.
14. Dick, W., Carey, L., & Carey, J. O. (2001). The systematic design of instruction (5th ed.). New York: Addison-Wesley Educational Publishers Inc.
15. Dick, W., & Reiser, R. A. (1989). Planning effective instruction. NJ: Englewood Cliffs.
16. Dwyer, D. C. (2002). Since computers came to school. Educational Technology, 42(4), 17-19.
17. Earle, R. S. (1994). Instructional design and the classroom teacher: Looking back and moving ahead. Educational Technology, 34(3), 6-10.
18. Earle, R. S. (1996). Instructional design fundamentals as elements of teacher planning routines: Perspectives and practices from two studies. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Indianapolis, IN.
19. Earle, R. S. (1998). Instructional design and teacher planning: Reflections and perspectives. Educational Media and Technology Yearbook, 23, 29-41.
20. English, F., & Steffy, B. (2001). Deep curriculum alignment. Lanham, Maryland: Scarecrow.
21. Forcier, R. C., & Descy, D. E. (2002). The computer as an educational tool (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Merrill-Prentice Hall.
22. Gagne, R. M., & Briggs, L. J. (1979). Principles of instructional design (2nd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
23. Gustafson, K. L., & Branch, R. M. (2002). What is instructional design? In R. A. Reiser, & J. V. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and issues in instructional design and technology (pp 16-25). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.
24. Hannafin, M. J., & Peck, K. L. (1988). The design, development, and evaluation of instructional software. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.
25. Hargrave, C. P., & Hsu, Y-S. (2000). Survey of instructional technology courses for preservice teachers. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 8(4), 303-314.
26. Harris, M. B. (1998). Basic statistics for behavioral science research (2nd ed.). Massachusetts: Allyn & Bacon.
27. Igoe, A. R., & Sullivan, H. J. (1993). Self-presentation bias and continuing motivation among adolescents. Journal of Educational Research, 87(1), 18-22.
28. International Society for Technology in Education [ISTE]. (2004). Educational technology standards and performance indicators for all teachers. Available at: http://cnets.iste.org/teachers/t_stands.html [Feb, 2005].
29. Jonassen, D. H. (1991). Objectivism versus constructivism: Do we need a new philosophical paradigm? Educational Technology Research and Development, 39(3), 5-14.
30. Kopcha, T. J. (2003, October). Authentic learning in the schools: Teacher practices, attitudes, and challenges. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Anaheim, CA.
31. Ku, H., & Sullivan, H. J. (2000). Personalization of mathematics word problems in Taiwan. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(3), 49-59.
32. Ku, H., & Sullivan, H. J. (2002). Student performance and attitudes using personalize mathematics instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(1), 21-34.
33. Lowther, D. L., Sullivan, H. J. (1994). Teacher and technologist beliefs about educational technology. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(4), 73-87.
34. McCombs, B. L., & Whisler, J. S. (1997). The learner-centered classroom and school. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
35. Moallem, M., & Earle, R. S. (1998). Instructional design models and teacher thinking: Toward a new conceptual model for research and development. Educational Technology, 38(2), 5-22.
36. Moallem, M., & Micallef, S. (1997). Instructional technologists at public schools: A study of the role and effectiveness of technology resource teachers. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Albuquerque, NM.
37. Morrison, G. R., & Lowther, D. L. (2002). Integrating computer technology into the classroom (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Merrill-Prentice Hall.
38. Morrison, G. R., Ross, S. M., & Kemp, J. E. (2004). Designing effective instruction (4th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
39. Mullens, J., & Kasprzyk, D. (1999). Validating item responses on self-report teacher surveys: NCES working paper. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
40. National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE). (1997). Technology and the new professional teacher: Preparing for the 21st century classroom. Retrieved May 22, 2004, from http://www.ncate.org/accred/projects/ tech/tech-21.htm.
41. Niederhauser, D. S., & Stoddart, T. (2001). Teachers' instructional perspectives and use of educational software. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 15-31.
42. Neidermeyer, F., & Yelon, S. (1981). Los Angeles aligns instruction with essential skills. Educational Leadership, 38(8), 618-620.
43. Northwest Educational Technology Consortium [NETC]. (1997). The Northwest Regional Profile: Integration of Technology in Preservice Teacher Education Programs. Retrieved May 22, 2004, from http://www.netc.org/preservice/challenge. html#survey.
44. Office of Technology Assessment [OTA]. (1995). Teachers and technology: Making the connection. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1995. Retrieved May 22, 2004, from http://www.wws.princeton.edu/~ota/ns20/alpha_f. html.
45. Phillips, D. L., & Clancy, K. J. (1972). Some effects of social desirability in survey studies. American Journal of Sociology, 77(5), 921-940.
46. Reiser, R. A. (1994). Examining the planning practices of teachers: Reflections on three years of research. Educational Technology, 34(3), 11-16.
47. Reiser, R. A., & Dick, W. (1996). Instructional planning: A guide for teachers (2nd ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
48. Russell, M., Bebell, D., O'Dwyer, L., O'Connor, K. (2003). Examining teacher technology use: Implications for preservice and inservice teacher preparation. Journal of Teacher Education, 54(4), 297-310.
49. Sardo-Brown, D. (1990). Experienced teachers' planning practices: A US survey. Journal of Education for Teaching, 16(1), 57-71.
50. Scaeffer, N. C. (2000). Asking questions about threatening topics: A selective overview. In A. Stone, J. Turkkan, J. Jobe, C. Bachrach, H. Kurtzman, & V. Cain (Eds.), The science of self report. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
51. Schrum, L., Skeele, R. W., & Grant, M. (Winter, 2003). One college of education's effort to infuse technology: A systemic approach to revisioning teaching and learning. Journal of Research in Technology and Education, 35(2), 257-269.
52. Shen, S., Sullivan, H., Igoe, A., & Shen, X. (1996). Self-presentation bias and continuing motivation among Chinese students: A cross-cultural phenomenon. Journal of Educational Research, 90(1), 52-56.
53. Smerdon, B., Cronen, S., Lanahan, L., Anderson, J., Iannotti, N., & Angeles, J. (2000). Teachers' tools for the 21st century: A report on teachers' use of technology (NCES 2000-102).
54. Smith, S. (2001). Teacher education associate editor column: Technology 101: Integration beyond a technology foundations course [On-line]. Journal of Special Education Technology E Journal, 16(1), Winter 2001. Retrieved May 22, 2004, from http://jset.unlv.edu/16.1T/tasseds/smith.html.
55. Sullivan, H., & Higgins, N. (1983). Teaching for competence. New York: Teachers College Press.
56. Thompson, A. D., Schmidt, D. A., & Davis, N. E. (2003). Technology collaboratives for simultaneous renewal in teacher education. Educational Technology Research and Design, 51(1), 73-90.
57. United States Department of Education. (2001). No child left behind [On-line]. Available at http://www.ed.gov/nclb/landing.jhtml?src = fb [May, 2004].
58. United States Department of Education, National Center for Educational Statistics [NCES] (2000). Public school teachers use of computers and the internet survey. In B. Smerdon, S. Cronen, S. Lanahan, L. Anderson, & J. Angeles, Teachers' tools for the 21st century: A report on teachers' use of technology, NCES2000-102. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
59. United States Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics [NCES]. (2003). Internet access in U.S. public schools and classrooms: 1994-2002, NCES 2004-011, by A. Kleiner and L. Lewis. Project Officer: Bernard Greene. Washington, DC: 2003..
60. Whetstone, L., & Carr-Chellman, A. A. (2001). Preparing preservice teachers to use technology: Survey results. Tech Trends, 46(4), 11-17.
61. Winn, W. (1989). Toward a rationale and theoretical basis for educational technology. Educational Technology Research and Development, 37(1), 35-46.
62. Wiggins, G. (1998) Educative assessment: Designing assessments to inform and improve student performance. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
63. Yildirim, S. (2000). Effects of an educational computing course on preservice and inservice teachers: A discussion and analysis of attitudes and use. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 32(4), 479-495.