Understanding factors associated with teacher-directed student use of technology in elementary classrooms: A structural equation modeling approach

British Journal of Educational Technology

Volumn 43, Issue 4, 2012, Pages 652-666

  Miranda, Helena P ^a   Russell, Michael ^b  

^a FLORIDA GULF COAST UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b BOSTON COLLEGE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ELEMENTARY CLASSROOMS; EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE; HYPOTHETICAL MODELS; INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY; MASSACHUSETTS; STRUCTURAL EQUATION MODELING; TECHNOLOGY IN THE CLASSROOM;

EDUCATION;

TECHNOLOGY;

EID: 84863330816     PISSN: 00071013     EISSN: 14678535     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2011.01228.x     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (33)

1. Bebell, D., &, Kay, R., (2010). One to one computing: a summary of the quantitative results from the Berkshire wireless learning initiative. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 9, 2, 2-60 [Online journal]. Retrieved from
2. Bebell, D., Russell, M., &, O'Dwyer, L. M. R., (2004). Measuring teachers' technology uses: why multiple-measures are more revealing. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 37, 1, 45-63. Retrieved December 1, 2010, from
3. Becker, H. J., (2000). The "exemplary teacher" paper-how it arose and how it changed its author's research program. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education [Online Serial], 1, 2. Retrieved December 1, 2010, from
4. Becker, H., Ravitz, J., &, Wong, Y., (1999). Teacher and teacher-directed student use of computers and software (Report No. 3). Irvine, CA: Center for Research on Information Technology and Organizations (CRITO). Retrieved December 1, 2010, from
5. Becker, H. J., &, Riel, M. M., (2000). Teacher professional engagement and constructive-compatible computer usage (Report no. 7). Irvine, CA: Teaching, Learning, and Computing. Retrieved December 1, 2010, from
6. Byrne, B. M., (2001). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: basic concepts, applications, and programming. Rahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
7. Clausen, J., Britten, J., &, Ring, G., (2008). Envisioning effective laptop initiatives. Learning & Leading with Technology, 36, 2, 18-22. Retrieved December 1, 2010, from
8. Cuban, L., (2001). Oversold and underused: computers in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
9. Cuban, L., (2006). Commentary: the laptop revolution has no clothes. Education Week, p. 29. Retrieved December 1, 2010, from
10. Ertmer, P. A., (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: the final frontier in our quest for technology integration? Educational Technology Research and Development, 53, 4, 25-39. Retrieved December 1, 2010, from
11. Ertmer, P. A., Gopalakrishnan, S., &, Ross, E. M., (2001). Technology using teachers: comparing perceptions of exemplary technology use to best practice. Journal of Research on Technology Education, 33, 5, 25-39. Retrieved December 1, 2010, from
12. Ertmer, P. A., &, Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T., (2010). Teacher technology change: how knowledge, confidence, beliefs, and culture intersect. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 4, 3, 255-284. Retrieved December 1, 2010, from
13. Fisher, C., Dwyer, D., &, Yocam, K., (1996). Education and technology, Reflections on computing in classrooms. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
14. Fraenkel, J. R., &, Wallen, N. E., (2003). How to design and evaluate research in education (5th ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw Hill.
15. Guha, S., (2001). Integrating computers in elementary grade classroom instruction-analyses of teachers' perceptions in present and preferred situations. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 37, 3, 275-303; doi: 10.2190/EC.37.4.d.
16. Hox, J., (2002). Multilevel analysis: techniques and applications. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
17. Hoyle, R., (Ed.) (1995). Structural equation modeling: concepts, issues and applications. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
18. Kebritchi, M., (2010). Factors affecting teachers' adoption of educational computer games: a case study. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41, 2, 256-270; doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2008.00921.
19. Kline, B. R., (1998). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: Guilford Press.
20. Mathews, J., &, Guarino, A., (2000). Predicting teacher computer use, a path analysis. International Journal of Instructional Media, 27, 4, 385-392. Retrieved December 1, 2010, from
21. Miranda, H. P., (2007). Predictors of technology use for elementary school teachers in Massachusetts: a multilevel SEM Approach. Dissertation Abstract International. Section A. Humanities and Social Sciences, 68, 05, 1895.
22. Miranda, H. P., &, Russell, M., (2011). Predictors of technology use for elementary school teachers in massachusetts: a multilevel SEM approach. Journal of Research in Technology Education, 43, 4, 301-323. Retrieved August 1, 2011, from
23. Mueller, J., Wood, E., Willoughby, T., DeYoung, T., Ross, C., &, Specht, J., (2008). Identifying discriminating variables between teachers who fully integrate computers and teachers with limited integration. Computers & Education, 51, 1523-1537; doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2008.02.003.
24. O'Dwyer, L. M., Russell, M., &, Bebell, D., (2004). Identifying teacher, school, and district characteristics associated with elementary teachers' use of technology: a multilevel perspective. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 12, 48, 1-33. Retrieved December 1, 2010, from
25. O'Dwyer, L., Russell, M., &, Bebell, D., (2005). Identifying teacher, school, and district characteristics associated with middle and high school teachers' use of technology: a multilevel perspective. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 33, 4, 369-393. Retrieved July 2, 2010, from
26. Paris, C., (1993). Teacher agency and curriculum making in classrooms. New York: Teachers College Press.
27. Rogers, E., (1995). Diffusions of innovations (4th ed.). New York: Free Press.
28. Russell, M., Bebell, D., O'Dwyer, L., &, Miranda, H. P., (2003a). The use, support, and effect of instructional technology study: technical report. Boston, MA: Technology and Assessment Study Collaborative. Retrieved December 1, 2010, from
29. Russell, M., Bebell, D., O'Dwyer, L., &, O'Connor, K., (2003b). Examining teacher technology use: implications for preservice and inservice teacher preparation. Journal of Teacher Education, 54, 297-310; doi: 10.1177/0022987103255985.
30. Russell, M., O'Dwyer, L., Bebell, D., &, Tao, W., (2007). How teachers' uses of technology vary by tenure and longevity. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 37, 293-417; doi: 10.2190/EC.37.4.d.
31. Surry, D. W., &, Farquhar, J. D., (1997). Diffusion theory and instructional technology. Journal of Instructional Science and Technology, 2, 1. Retrieved December 1, 2010, from
32. Valentine, J. C., &, Cooper, H., (2003). Effect size substantive interpretation guidelines: issues in the interpretation of effect sizes. Washington, DC: What Works Clearinghouse. Retrieved December 1, 2010, from
33. Wells, J., &, Lewis, L., (2006). Internet access in U.S. public schools and classrooms: 1994-2005. (NCES 2007-020). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved December 1, 2010, from