Understanding Factors Influencing Teachers' Use of
Technologies in Teaching STEM
Georgia L. Bracey and Mary L. Stephen
Center for STEM Research, Education & Outreach, Southern Illinois University Edwardsville,
Edwardsville, Illinois, U.S.A.
Keywords: Technology, Teachers, STEM, Secondary Education, Teacher Learning Preferences, Teacher Perceptions of
Technology, Teacher Beliefs, Autonomy.
Abstract: Teachers’ adoption of technology continues to be challenging; yet, this is a critical process in the effective
teaching of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). Although more schools are
providing technology-rich classrooms, teachers are not always incorporating the new technologies into their
teaching practice in a meaningful way. In this three-year case study, we used a grounded theory approach to
examine the experiences of two high school teachers working in a depressed urban setting as they began
using a newly designed, innovative, high-tech STEM classroom. Data sources included semi-structured
interviews and direct observation. We identified three themes related to technology use: personal learning
preference, teaching philosophy, and perception of technology. We discuss these themes, highlighting
examples from participants’ experiences and beliefs, as well as other factors impacting technology use that
emerged during the study. These results will be of value to those supporting teachers’ integration of
technology into their teaching practice.
1 INTRODUCTION
The successful introduction of technology into a
teaching setting is influenced by a series of factors
(Afshari, et al., 2009; Angers and Machtmes, 2005;
Buabeng-Andoh, 2012; Mumtaz, 2000). The
interaction of these factors is complex, and plays an
important role in determining the extent and ways
that technologies are used within a setting. Teachers
bring their own unique experiences and
backgrounds, skills, and attitudes about technologies
and education into the teaching environment
(Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development [OECD], 2009), and these elements
have the potential to impact the teacher’s
understanding of the affordances and constraints for
using technologies in teaching. In this paper, we
report the findings from a three-year study which
documented two teachers’ experiences teaching in
an innovative, technology-rich Science, Technology,
Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) classroom in
an attempt to identify and understand factors
influencing the teachers’ decisions on whether and
how to use the new technologies in their teaching.
The adoption of technology by STEM teachers is
seen as critical to student success in STEM, as
technology use has been linked to increased interest
in and engagement in STEM activities, leading to
improvements in STEM teaching and learning
(Nugent, et al., 2010). Technology-based lessons are
viewed as more authentic, giving students the
opportunity to engage in real-world STEM activities
and to use equipment similar to that which real
STEM professionals would use (Hanson and
Carlson, 2005). Unfortunately, there is disparity in
the availability of and access to technologies needed
to teach STEM, as schools in low-income
communities do not always have the materials,
laboratories, and equipment to teach these subjects
effectively (Flores, 2007; Margolis, et al., 2008). In
a recent Pew Research Center report (2013), 56
percent of teachers of the lowest income students
indicated that a lack of resources among students to
access digital technologies is a “major challenge” to
incorporating more technology into their teaching.
However, even when sufficient technology is
available, teachers’ adoption of technology
continues to be a serious issue. While having
sufficient and up-to-date resources available is
important for STEM teaching and learning,
resources alone do not guarantee improved student
127
L. Bracey G. and L. Stephen M..
Understanding Factors Influencing Teachers’ Use of Technologies in Teaching STEM.
DOI: 10.5220/0005493101270138
In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Computer Supported Education (CSEDU-2015), pages 127-138
ISBN: 978-989-758-108-3
Copyright
c
2015 SCITEPRESS (Science and Technology Publications, Lda.)
outcomes. Even when technology is used in
instruction, it is often not truly transformative or
innovative and merely mimics what has always been
done in the traditional classroom. In a study
involving over 1,000 students, Wang et al. (2014)
found that the majority of students reported using
computers in a school setting primarily for word
processing and Internet searches, not for problem
solving or creative activities. Although several
research studies have identified possible reasons for
this ineffective use of technology by teachers (e.g.,
lack of time, insufficient training, lack of
confidence, technical issues, etc.) (Bingimlas, 2009;
Buabeng-Andoh, 2012; Byrom and Bingham, 2001;
Wang, et al., 2014; Zhao and Frank, 2003), there
appears to be no significant improvement in the
situation (Pew Research Center, 2013).
For successful technology adoption to occur,
Ertmer and Ottenbreit-Leftwich (2010) believe
teachers need to change their mindsets to accept the
idea that “effective teaching requires effective
technology use” (p. 256). However, change, whether
in mindset or practice, is not easy. The experiences
and beliefs that teachers bring to the classroom have
a major impact on instructional practices and
willingness to change those practices (OECD, 2009;
Roehrig, et al., 2007). Thus, when innovations are
introduced into an educational setting, teachers
require time and support before the innovations can
be adopted and implemented to any substantial
degree (Hall and Hord, 2011). The study described
in this paper is an attempt to understand how and to
what extent change occurs in a particular classroom
setting given an influx of innovative technologies for
teaching and learning STEM. We were guided by
two broad questions: What factors influence the
ways and the extent that a teacher uses the newly
available technologies when teaching in a high-tech
STEM classroom? How does the availability and use
of the new technologies change teaching practices?
2 METHOD
In seeking to understand the complex interplay of
factors involved in teacher and technology use, we
used a qualitative case-study design. This design
enabled us to acquire and interpret data from
multiple perspectives within the natural setting
(Patton, 2002; Yin, 2009) and to "describe the unit
of study in depth and detail, in context and
holistically” (Patton, p. 54). The variety and detail of
data allowed us to create a rich story of the
participants and their experiences over the course of
the study.
2.1 Setting
McCloud High School (pseudonym), the setting for
this study, is an underperforming public secondary
school located in a U.S. city in a large metropolitan
area. According to 2013 data, 97 percent of the
residents of the city are African American with 41
percent of households classified as being below the
poverty level. In June 2014, the unemployment rate
in the city was 13 percent.
McCloud High School has been in existence for
approximately 17 years. During the three years of
the study, the school averaged 110 students all of
whom were African American and between the ages
of 13 and 19 years. The school employs three full-
time STEM teachers and offers a range of STEM
courses, requiring students to successfully complete
three years of mathematics and three years of
science in order to graduate. In 2012, the school
began to introduce courses from a pre-engineering
program, Project Lead the Way (PLTW), into the
curriculum.
In 2011, the school received a major gift for
construction of a classroom containing a variety of
innovative technologies, including 3D printer, video
wall, robotics kits, humanoid robot, graphing
calculators, iPads, and high-definition video
conferencing. This STEM classroom was designed
with teacher and student input, along with guidance
from the director of a nearby university’s STEM
Center, to be a flexible, high-tech learning space that
fosters collaboration and creativity. The classroom
and its technologies represented an educational
innovation with the potential to catalyze major
changes in teaching practice. Prior to construction of
the STEM classroom, the school had access to two
outdated computer labs that often were not fully
operational. Most of the school’s traditional
classrooms have a projector and teacher laptop, and
a few of the classrooms have been equipped with
SMART boards.
The study began with the initial planning for the
STEM classroom in late spring of 2011 and ended in
the summer of 2014. Both of us who served as
researchers for this study are researchers affiliated
with the university’s STEM Center. We conducted
all data gathering and analysis. In our role as
researchers, we attended meetings and other events
associated with the school and the new classroom
(e.g., visits to high-tech schools, STEM classroom
open house, monthly STEM staff meetings) in order
CSEDU2015-7thInternationalConferenceonComputerSupportedEducation
128
to better understand the environment. We also
supported logistical aspects of the classroom's
implementation, often helping to coordinate events
between the high school and the university or other
external groups, and so had regular opportunities to
interact with the participants.
2.2 Participants
We chose our two participants purposefully in order
to obtain the most meaningful, relevant, and detailed
information possible. Both Ms. Beech and Mr.
Aspen (pseudonyms) were full-time STEM teachers
employed at McCloud throughout the entire time of
the study and have been closely involved with the
STEM classroom from its early design through its
final implementation. Additionally, both teachers
attended project planning meetings for the new
classroom, providing valuable input to the design
team on the room's layout, furniture, and technology.
They also made several visits to high-tech schools
and participated in technology-focused professional
development. They began teaching in the room as
soon as its construction was complete and continue
to teach in the room as of this writing, giving
feedback on their experience to the project partners
at regular monthly meetings. Their continuous,
close involvement with almost all aspects of the
STEM classroom made them ideal sources of
information regarding its impact on teaching
practice at the school.
Ms. Beech is an African-American female in her
sixties. At the time the research study was initiated,
she had been teaching science and math at McCloud
High School for four years. She had previously
taught science for two years immediately after
graduating from college in the late 1960s, but then
entered the business world as an IT professional. She
reported having a very satisfying career, saying “I
really, really enjoyed IT in my day. There was such
a joy in designing and building systems and making
them work.” She retired from this work after 37
years, during which time she filled many roles from
programmer to analyst to manager and also earned a
master’s degree in business administration (MBA).
After retirement from her IT position, she returned
to school to earn a master’s degree in teaching
science. She continues to increase her knowledge
and skills as a teacher by participating in a local
university’s professional development program
designed to improve science teaching and student
learning. During the time of this study, she taught a
variety of courses including biology, chemistry,
physics, pre-calculus and anatomy. She also
participated in summer workshops to prepare her to
teach an introductory PLTW course. Ms. Beech
believes it is her responsibility to share with her
students what she has learned: “I took all those
courses … and so it would be a sin not to give them
everything I got.” Her teaching style involves a lot
of interaction with the students and checking
individual students’ understanding of concepts: "[I
want] to know what each individual is doing as
opposed to one or two people...I talk to them all the
time. I’m living and breathing example of ‘this is
what you do in life.’” She believes that in addition to
helping students get “a better, deeper understanding
of the concepts,” she has an important responsibility
to help students learn to use what they already know,
to think creatively, and to acquire “habits that will
help them get through” life.
Mr. Aspen is a Caucasian male in his twenties.
When the research study began, Mr. Aspen was in
his first year of teaching after having completed a
bachelor’s degree in biology and a master’s degree
in teaching science. He became familiar with
McCloud High School through his time as a student
teacher there. His teaching responsibilities included
algebra, geometry, general science, and introduction
to engineering. In addition, he assisted with the
school’s robotics team and a university-sponsored
game design club. Mr. Aspen is very comfortable
with a range of technologies. As he approached his
fourth year teaching, he decided to enroll in an
online master’s program in computer science
because of his interest in technology and the
flexibility such a program offers. Mr. Aspen
described mastering more “problem solving skills”
as one of the main goals he has for his students. He
added: “[I want them] to be able to do a lot of
different things pretty well or come up with different
answers rather than be able to do [one thing] like
integrals or quotients really well.”
2.3 Data Collection & Analysis
Primary data sources included a series of semi-
structured interviews and direct observations in both
the traditional and STEM classrooms. Interviewing
began during the design of the room so as to get an
understanding of each teacher's background and
their experience teaching in their regular classroom.
Over the course of the study, we conducted three
hour-long interviews with each participant as well as
a final ‘participant check’ interview. The initial
interview protocol included questions on the
participants’ education and teaching history, use of
technology, and classroom environment.
UnderstandingFactorsInfluencingTeachers'UseofTechnologiesinTeachingSTEM
129
Subsequent interviews were more open, allowing for
the flexibility to pursue emerging themes and issues.
Observations began early in the project, again to
get a sense of the teachers' experiences in the context
of their regular classroom. Later, after completion of
the classroom, participants were observed in both
the STEM classroom and a regular classroom. When
possible, we observed the same class taught in both
a traditional and the STEM classrooms. Together,
we observed each teacher numerous times, giving us
direct experience with the school setting plus the
opportunity to notice things that might otherwise
seem routine (and therefore go unmentioned) by the
participants (Patton, 2002).
As with any qualitative study, data analysis
began and overlapped with data collection. We used
NVivo software to facilitate the analysis, but also
coded much of the data manually. Field notes were
taken by hand. Interviews were audio recorded, then
transcribed by one of us or by a graduate student
assistant. Although we always interviewed and
observed our participants together, we coded the
transcribed data independently, using a constant
comparative process as described by Corbin and
Strauss (1990). We began with open coding--reading
through transcripts and looking for meaningful units
of data. These units of data were then grouped into
categories. The development of these categories--or
themes--was guided by our research questions as
well as by patterns that emerged. As categories
arose, they were constantly refined as more data was
collected and analyzed. Then, for each category, we
developed and defined its properties and dimensions,
allowing us to "differentiate a category from other
categories and give it precision" (Strauss and
Corbin, 1998, p. 117). Properties are particular
attributes of a category; dimensions delineate a
continuum along which a property can be located.
For example, participants discussed aspects of their
personal learning preference (category), which had
an attribute of control of learning or locus of control
(property). However, this property can vary from
completely self-directed or internal to completely
other-directed or external. This Grounded-Theory
approach to analysis kept us focused on the data,
helping us to form well-developed categories while
keeping a lookout for newly emerging ideas.
To increase the credibility of our findings, we
used several types of triangulation--multiple
methods, multiple sources of data, and multiple
investigators (Merriam, 2009). Interview and
observational data supported and were used to check
each other. Additionally, member checking helped
to ensure credibility. Each interview was an
opportunity to clarify and expand upon the
developing themes; and during the final interview,
we asked each participant specifically to comment
on our interpretation of their previous interview
responses and their classroom activities. Our aim
was to build in triangulation throughout the study,
weaving together data collection, analysis, and
verification (Miles and Huberman, 1994).
3 RESULTS
We found that the teachers' use of technology
reflected an interweaving of their beliefs about
teaching and technology with their accumulated life
experiences. In this section, we present three
categories (or themes) that emerged from the data
analysis and represent aspects of this relationship
between teacher and technology use. For each
theme, we briefly define it and then discuss it in
terms of its framework of properties and dimensions
(Table 1), using participants' quotes as further
illustration.
Table 1: Categories (factors) and their properties and dimensions.
Category Property Dimension
Personal Learning Preference
Locus of control External - Internal
Locus of responsibility External - Internal
Organization Freeform - Structured
Atmosphere Calm - Chaotic
Teaching Philosophy
Role of teacher Lecturer - Facilitator
Role of student Passive - Active
Perception of Technology
Personal value Practical - Entertaining
Educational value Narrowing - Expanding
Impact on teaching Restricting - Enhancing
CSEDU2015-7thInternationalConferenceonComputerSupportedEducation
130
3.1 Personal Learning Preference
One theme that emerged was personal learning
preference. We defined personal learning preference
as the teacher’s self-described way that she or he
learns best, both in and out of formal settings.
Outside formal settings, learning may be pursued
because of personal interest or belief that what is
learned might be of use personally or professionally.
The learner determines the pace and setting as well
as what and how learning occurs. In contrast,
formal settings involve planned learning in which
someone other than the learner structures the
learning goals, environment, content and process.
Each teacher gave various examples of how they
learned in both types of settings, with both teachers
speaking of learning independently. For example,
Mr. Aspen described how he would learn to use new
software: "I would just look online until I found
something that would be a nice tutorial." Ms. Beech
was similarly independent: "I spread out at my
kitchen table, I take a book, and I go at it." The
teachers also emphasized the personal nature of
learning and the need to “own” one’s learning. Ms.
Beech explained, “In my mind, it seems to me that
learning is a personal thing. People can guide you as
best they can but individually you have to make it
your own.” Mr. Aspen also felt that individuals
needed to personalize their own learning: “I think
it’s really important that they learn what works for
them.” Both teachers saw
the control of and
responsibility for learning residing internally, within
the learner, allowing individuals to make choices
about when and how they learned.
However, despite agreeing on the importance of
learner responsibility and independence, there were
some basic differences in their personal methods for
learning. Mr. Aspen described a technology-oriented
and multi-method process:
My hierarchy is written tutorial, picture-
based tutorial, video tutorial. So I would
probably start working my way down until I
found what I wanted. I’ve never been able to
sit though a lecture and take notes and then
understand what’s going on by those notes. I
have to do multiple things.
In contrast, Ms. Beech described her preference for
traditional, written materials and a more focused
approach: "I used to love reading IBM manuals, God
in heaven, I longed for it, I did, because you could
read it and you could understand." She also shared
her dislike of online tutorials and "help" options
with “snippets of this and snippets of that,”
describing them as “appalling.” For both teachers,
the ability to choose how they organized their
learning (internal locus of control) was important,
but the actual organization varied significantly, with
one being more structured and the other being more
freeform.
There were also differences in the physical
learning environment preferred by each teacher. Ms.
Beech described needing quiet, more controlled
surroundings: "Sometimes things will pop off the
page, and so you need to stop and ponder it. I don’t
learn in chaos." In contrast, Mr. Aspen described a
more chaotic learning environment: "I do all my
work sitting on the couch at the coffee table with a
dog running between my legs and [the] TV on." So,
again, the teachers acknowledged the importance of
having internal control over their learning
environment, choosing the atmosphere that suited
them best. One teacher preferred a very calm and
structured atmosphere, while the other was
comfortable studying in a more disordered setting.
Finally, we noted that the teachers’ learning
preferences also showed up in their opinions of
professional training. Neither teacher is a fan of
traditional professional development, particularly for
learning about technologies. Mr. Aspen preferred to
‘tinker’ rather than participate in formal training on
how to use technology tools. Ms. Beech described
her frustration with the rapid pace of professional
development on technologies:
You’ve got some of the worst training, in
my opinion, because people who run the
seminar will say ‘do this, do this, do this’
and you want to say ‘for real?’ And then
you’re supposed to be expert in that.
The traditional professional development format,
with its tendency to have a more external locus of
control, didn’t meet their desire to be in control of
their own learning (i.e., to choose when and how to
learn). They had a need for autonomy and to learn in
an environment with which they were comfortable.
3.2 Teaching Philosophy
A second theme concerned each teacher’s personal
teaching philosophy. We defined this as the
teacher’s personal beliefs about how teaching and
learning occur combined with examples of how the
teacher puts these beliefs into practice when
teaching. Both teachers spoke at length about what
should happen in the classroom and what they did to
optimize teaching and learning. Both valued direct
interaction between teacher and students, usually in
the form of meaningful discussion or dialogue
surrounding questions or problems. Ms. Beech
UnderstandingFactorsInfluencingTeachers'UseofTechnologiesinTeachingSTEM
131
acknowledged that she did a lot of talking when
teaching, but not as lecture: “My teaching style is
probably to talk, but talk with the students. I like
interacting with them, I just do. You’ve got to stop,
pause, and discuss.” Mr. Aspen saw interaction as an
opportunity for questions: "I want some dialogue
with students along the way, allowing students to
ask more questions.”
Often, the purpose of this dialogue was to assess
a student's level of understanding and to elicit a
student's thinking processes, making them visible to
both teacher and student. Ms. Beech's approach to
teaching very much emphasized this:
You’ve got to talk about what got written so
that the teacher can be assured that the
students are getting where they need to be. I
need to know what they know. We could be
going on and on, and I’m thinking that things
have been communicated and are well
understood. Then you start talking to ‘em
and you realize that that whole boat was
missed! So those are opportunities that you
get to find out where they are. For me, it
takes interaction because the room is full and
you got people at different levels of interest
and different levels of preparedness.
Although more teacher-centered in appearance, her
role in the class discussion was very purposeful, and
she did not see herself as a lecturer.
When observing teaching sessions, whether in
the STEM classroom or the traditional classroom,
we saw Ms. Beech continually using questioning to
engage with students (teacher asking students,
students asking teacher) with lots of give and take
occurring between the teacher and the students.
Through her interactive style, she made sure all
students were included and accountable for what
was being taught. Similarly, Mr. Aspen stated:
"Asking more questions to figure out where we need
to go is a lot of how I am.” Both teachers felt that
students should be actively engaged in the classroom
activities and in their learning.
Additionally, each teacher saw their role as one
of facilitator or guide, providing critical structure
and direction to the students' learning experiences.
Ms. Beech referred to one of her classes as "more of
a seminar type thing," with her guiding class
discussion to elicit student thinking and assess
student understanding. Mr. Aspen specifically
referred to himself as a facilitator and coach:
I want to be engaged with them, have them
be the primary speakers and me be a
facilitator of education rather than an expert
of education. What’s been helping me
through a lot of things and helping a lot of
the students through is providing set and
clear, established expectations for what they
need to do. Today I wrote what you need to
do to get every bit of points right on that
board (points to board in front of classroom)
at the beginning of class, showing them,
okay, this is what we are going to be doing,
more of a learning coach than a knowledge
giver.
For both teachers, meaningful classroom interaction
was the key to successful teaching and learning.
Interestingly, Mr. Aspen's philosophy evolved
somewhat during the period of the study, changing
from unsure and idealistic to more confident and
realistic. During our final interview, he described
this shift in his teaching:
I am teaching differently than I used to
because it used to be a very binary system. I
was really way too far on the progressive
side, or I was way too far on the traditional
side. I tried to do something, and if it didn’t
work out like I wanted it to, I would fall back
to this ‘lecture and do problems from a
worksheet’ sort of thing.
As an early-career teacher, Mr. Aspen was still
finding the best way to meld the ideals of his
teaching philosophy with the realities of the
classroom.
During the time of the study, we saw changes in
the way Mr. Aspen taught, which he attributed to
moving from being a novice teacher to a more
experienced teacher. Early in his first year of
teaching, he stressed: “I am very much not a
traditional style teacher. I have found it a lot easier
to put the work on students rather than me.”
However, following his third year of teaching, he
admitted that his philosophy had changed:
I am no longer under the assumption that I
can change education for kids overnight...
I’ve actually gotten more traditional. I
wouldn’t say that I am a traditional teacher,
though. I think I lecture more and introduce
concepts more at the beginning of class than
I used to because I found that kids are more
familiar with that [approach] and receptive to
it and so I try to pick out specific concepts
that, if I know they’re going to run into this
problem within the first five to ten minutes
of them working with something, then I try
to address it up front.
As Mr. Aspen gained teaching experience, he began
to think differently about what works best in the
classroom and made small modifications to his
teaching practice in both classrooms.
CSEDU2015-7thInternationalConferenceonComputerSupportedEducation
132
3.3 Perception of Technology
A third theme concerned each teacher’s perception
of technology. We defined this as the way a teacher
views and uses technology, both personally and
professionally. Both teachers viewed technology as
a tool, something that could be potentially useful in
and out of the classroom. Each teacher spoke of the
many practical advantages to using technology. Mr.
Aspen believed that knowing how to use technology
is essential in today’s world. He considered himself
tech-savvy, regularly using the Internet and
technology gadgets in his daily life, and is a self-
proclaimed ‘geek.’ Ms. Beech also valued
technology, but emphasized its more practical uses:
I really do appreciate cell phones because
there are a lot of needs in an emergency. I
used to have to write things by hand, and
when I started [working] it was punch cards.
Then it evolved... so technology, in that
sense, is a good thing, and it really has
helped the countries of the world. I think
you get so much productivity with
technology.
For Ms. Beech, technology’s value resided more in
its impact on safety and efficiency and less in its
potential for entertainment and education.
In addition to personal entertainment, Mr. Aspen
described how technology helped him to be more
productive, adaptable, and flexible in his classroom:
I was going to have an end of year survey for
my students and get feedback from them, and
I was actually able to just say, ‘Okay,
everyone go get an iPad.' I was able to make
a Google form in the time that it took them to
go get that and come back, and I just did it
that way. It’s nice to have that adaptability.
A lot about it [technology] is the flexibility
that you have. If I need some kids to just
swing over and start working on something
online, or on a computer, or a quick self-
check quiz, or a Kahn Academy lesson or
something like that, it’s really nice to have
the flexibility to do that.
Technology expanded his options in the classroom
and enhanced his teaching.
While Mr. Aspen embraced the use of
technology in teaching, Ms. Beech questioned its
role in teaching and stressed that she will not use it
“just for the sake of using it.” She worried that
technology has been too widely and too quickly
accepted:
I get the sense that there’s a lot of looking
outside of current resources to access a lot of
stuff that apparently is effective. I think
technology is a good thing. I have not
bought into technology being a replacement
for [the] teacher; I just haven’t bought into
that it replaces interaction with students. I
really don’t want to imply that that’s a
general perspective on technology, but with
the constant hype about using technology, I
think that you’re left with the impression that
if you’re not using technology, then there’s
definitely something wrong with you. I think
that if the teachers work at it, and if the
technology can facilitate more learning in
some way, then it’ll be a good thing.
While Ms. Beech questioned the use of technology
in teaching, she was aware that, with effort, it could
be used effectively. The main drawback in learning
to use technology effectively in the classroom,
according to Ms. Beech, was the time it required to
find good resources that could be integrated in a way
that promoted student learning. She recognized
technology's limitations:
What happens, I think, is that when you rely
too much on technology, kids will learn a
pattern and they will not understand the
pattern; they cannot transfer it. So what I
need to know is how much technology do we
get that actually focuses on the ability to
transfer?
She perceived technology as potentially narrowing
students' learning experiences, but sensed that
teachers could make the difference and ensure that
technology facilitated learning instead.
4 DISCUSSION
The results of this study highlight the impact that
teachers’ experiences, beliefs, and perceptions have
on their use of technology. Both teachers in this
study were presented with a new and very unusual
teaching environment: a high-tech STEM classroom
designed for flexibility. In addition to this new
room, the teachers were provided with a technology
support specialist, customized professional
development, and the support of the school's
administration, as a lack of these items has been
identified as a major factor influencing teacher's
adoption of technology (Bingimlas, 2009; Buabeng-
Andoh, 2012; Hew and Brush, 2007). Both teachers
made use of this environment, bringing their
students into the STEM classroom on a regular basis
and using its new technologies. Over the course of
three years, as the teachers became familiar with the
UnderstandingFactorsInfluencingTeachers'UseofTechnologiesinTeachingSTEM
133
innovations, we noticed small changes in how they
used technology in their classroom teaching. For
example, Ms. Beech had students teach the class
about using graphing calculators, incorporating
some peer instruction into her normally teacher-
centered classroom. Mr. Aspen, initially using as
much technology as often as possible, incorporated
more direct instruction into his class by the end of
the study, stating that technology needed to serve
him and not the other way around. However, in spite
of these changes, we did not observe any significant
changes in the way technology was used by either
teacher or in the way that they taught. Each
remained true to their own core beliefs and
viewpoints—beliefs and viewpoints that drove their
use of technology and that appeared to be largely
shaped by their life experience and personal learning
experiences. This contrasts with findings reported by
Becker and Ravitz (1999) that found a strong
relationship between technology use and
pedagogical change among secondary science
teachers. On the other hand, research by Ertmer et
al. (2012) supports this alignment between personal
beliefs and technology integration.
Several other researchers have studied the effect
that teachers' beliefs have on their teaching
behaviors and their adoption of innovations (Ertmer,
2005; Hew & Brush, 2007; Ricardson-Kemp & Yan,
2003; Wozney, Venkatesh & Abrami, 2006). For
example, in a study of factors influencing adoption
of inquiry learning curriculum in science, Roehrig,
Kruse, and Kern (2007) reported that teachers’
beliefs combined with school support played an
important role in how a new science curriculum was
implemented. Furthermore, teachers’ practices and
beliefs are formed based on aspects of the teacher’s
background, including professional background,
content and pedagogical knowledge, knowledge of
technology, beliefs about teaching, classroom
activities, classroom and school level environments,
teacher’s technology self-efficacy, and professional
activities (Holden and Rada, 2011; Mishra and
Koehler, 2006; OECD, 2009). Our findings are
consistent with results of these studies and
contribute to the international literature on factors
influencing teachers’ use of technologies (Afshari et
al., 2009; Baek, et al., 2008; Buabeng-Andoh, 2012;
OECD, 2009).
The three themes that emerged from the data
create an interrelated set of factors influencing the
teachers' use of technologies (Figure 1). The first
theme, the teachers' personal learning preferences,
guided their teaching both with and without the use
of technology, influencing both teaching philosophy
and perception of technology. As self-described
independent learners, the teachers also encouraged
their students to be the same, to ask and pursue their
own questions and take responsibility for their own
learning. Often, as in the case of Mr. Aspen, this
independence showed up in the differentiation that
was built into the lessons, allowing students to work
at their own pace and on their own projects using the
technology of their choosing when possible. It also
came out in the strong belief by both of the teachers
that students have to "make learning their own." No
matter what happens in the classroom, the
responsibility and control of learning resides within
each student. In many ways, both teachers teach
with technology in the way they preferred to learn.
The second theme, teaching philosophy, is
strongly tied to what teachers believe to be best in
education. We observed elements of each teacher's
teaching philosophy directly impacting their use of
technology in both the traditional and STEM
classrooms. For example, each teacher believed in
the importance of verbally interacting with students-
-not lecturing them, but talking with them. Neither
teacher saw him or herself as a traditional lecturer;
talking was used very purposefully to elicit student
thinking and to gauge student understanding. Mr.
Aspen regularly took advantage of the numerous
projection options in the new classroom to project
individual student work on computers and engage
students in discussion about that work. Even Ms.
Beech, who considered herself more of a knowledge
giver than facilitator, expected her students to take
an active role in their learning. When she began
using PowerPoint slides in classes, she used them as
a basis for class discussion. Both teachers
encouraged students to ask questions, listen
carefully, and thoughtfully discuss the material.
They valued student-student interaction as well as
student-teacher interaction, and both teachers
expected their students to become critical thinkers
and independent learners. Even though the teaching
environment changed and technologies were
introduced into it, the philosophy of teaching still
guided teaching practice.
The new STEM classroom was equipped with a
variety of new technologies, and so it is not
surprising that the teachers' perception of technology
emerged as a prominent theme in our analysis,
directly influencing the classroom use of
technologies and, at the same time, being influenced
by both personal learning preference and teaching
philosophy. Previous researchers have identified the
influence of teachers’ beliefs about technology on
their decisions on when and how to use technology
CSEDU2015-7thInternationalConferenceonComputerSupportedEducation
134
Figure 1: Relationships among factors influencing teachers' use of technologies.
in teaching (Ertmer, 2005; Teo, 2011). Although
both teachers saw value in technology (e.g.,
increased productivity, efficiency, flexibility), Mr.
Aspen's all-out embracing of technology--even the
playful aspects--contrasted strongly with Ms.
Beech's more skeptical view. This wide difference
in viewpoint is in line with their very different
background experiences. Ms. Beech's years of
working "behind the scenes" with large computer
systems gave her a very particular lens through
which to view education's current emphasis on
bringing new technologies into the classroom. She
believed that “technology dictates behaviour." She
explained, "If you use technology, you’re going to
use the technology the way that a designer’s built it."
At one point, she referred to today’s technologies as
“toys.” On the other hand, Mr. Aspen comes to
technology with more of a consumer viewpoint,
perhaps better able to appreciate the entertainment
aspects of technology.
Although the teachers were expected to utilize
the technologies in the new classroom, the school
administration gave them the freedom to decide how
they would use the technologies and how quickly
they would adopt each technology. The teachers
were given the chance to assimilate the innovations
into their own teaching practices according to their
own teaching philosophy, learning preferences, and
perceptions of technology. Professional
development occurred in progressive stages, with
the teachers deciding on the format, when it would
occur, and what technologies it would address. It has
been suggested that this type of autonomy not only
plays a critical role in motivation and creativity, but
is actually a basic human need (Pink, 2009). Jones
and Dexter (2014) found that formal professional
development activities organized at an
administrative level often ignores the experiences
and knowledge of teachers and stifles their creativity
in using technology in teaching.
Regarding the perception of technology, we
noted a generational difference in the participants.
Mr. Aspen showed much more confidence towards
and willingness to embrace technology than Ms.
Beech. While research conducted by Wang et al.
(2014) did not find this difference, this observation
is supported by a recent Pew survey (2013) that saw
differences in teachers responses to technology
based on age group. According to the survey,
teachers under the age of 35 were more likely than
teachers age 55 and older to say they were “very
confident” about using new digital technologies (64
percent vs. 44 percent). However, although this
same survey reported that the oldest teachers (age 55
Personal Learning
Preference
Teaching
Philosophy
Perception of
Technology
Use of
Technologies in
Teachin
g
UnderstandingFactorsInfluencingTeachers'UseofTechnologiesinTeachingSTEM
135
and older) were more than twice as likely as their
colleagues under age 35 to say their students know
more than they do about using the newest digital
tools (59 percent vs. 23 percent), our participants
both believed that their students were much more
tech-savvy than they were.
5 IMPLICATIONS
The results of this study have implications for those
seeking to maximize teachers’ adoption of
technologies into the learning environment. First,
teachers’ beliefs—formed and solidified over years
of life experience—direct much of what happens in
the classroom. These beliefs are deeply tied to
teaching philosophy and perception of technology,
making them a core factor in classroom technology
adoption. Professional development activities that
recognize and acknowledge the role such beliefs
play by including strategies that help teachers
expand their existing teaching philosophy to include
technology use and that help teachers extend their
perception of technology are more likely to be
successful than activities that do not. However, it is
important to realize that modifying beliefs and
perceptions take time, and thus, so do change and
the adoption of innovations.
In addition to beliefs, teacher autonomy may
play an important role in the successful adoption of
innovations. Both teachers in this study valued being
in control of their own learning and having the
opportunity to determine what they would learn,
when they would learn it, and at what rate. It seems
that their personal learning preferences along with a
strong internal sense of “what is best” for teaching
and learning influenced their classroom practices.
Therefore, strategies that acknowledge and work
with teachers' different learning preferences,
combined with allowing teachers to decide their best
learning path, may promote the best outcomes
during any type of change process. Successful
adoption of technology requires attention to teacher
differences and plenty of options for teacher choice.
6 LIMITATIONS & FUTURE
RESEARCH
Although one should always be cautious in
generalizing findings, our results are consistent with
several other studies concerning teachers' adoption
of technology and reaction to change (Ertmer, 2005;
Ertmer and Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010; Hew and
Brush, 2007; OECD, 2009; Reid, 2014; Richardson-
Kemp and Yan, 2003; Teo, 2011). Furthermore, the
case study design provides enough detail to allow
other researchers to decide upon its transferability.
While our study focused on only two teachers, our
participants were very different in almost every
respect: demographics, personal and professional
experience, and in most personal beliefs about
technology and pedagogy. This maximum
participant variability provided us with rich data and
allowed us to capture a wide range of ideas and
themes while reducing the chance of missing an
important concept.
Since we studied a complex, active environment
for over three years, it's not surprising that a variety
of outside events impacted what we observed in
these classrooms. Over the course of the study,
many changes took place in the school and in the
district. For example, a new director was hired early
in the study and initiated the PLTW program as well
as other initiatives. New after-school programs were
implemented, many of them STEM-related. Mr.
Aspen gained two years of valuable teaching
experience, significant for a beginning teacher and
most likely accounting for the evolution of his
teaching practices over the course of the study. A
longitudinal project is subject to these issues, but
since the process of change can be lengthy, it was
critical for us to spend enough time with our
participants.
Finally, further research could address the role
autonomy plays in the adoption of technology and
the modification of teaching practices. Although
some authors have discussed autonomy in relation to
teacher job satisfaction and professionalism
(Common, 1983; Pearson and Moomaw, 2005),
there have been relatively few studies that examine
its role in the change process specifically when the
change involves technology. While Ernest (1994)
discussed teacher beliefs and their role in autonomy
and the enacting of a new mathematics curriculum,
additional research focusing on the impact of teacher
autonomy in the adoption of innovations and on the
modification of teaching practices is still needed.
REFERENCES
Afshari, M., Bakar, K. A., Luan, W. S., Samah, B. A., and
Fooi, F. S., 2009. Factors affecting teachers’ use of
information and communication technology.
International Journal of Instruction, 2(1), pp. 77-104.
Angers, J., and Machtmes, K., 2005. An ethnographic-
CSEDU2015-7thInternationalConferenceonComputerSupportedEducation
136
case study of beliefs, context factors, and practices of
teachers integrating technology. The Qualitative
Report, 10(4), pp. 771-794.
Baek, Y., Jung, J., and Kim, B., 2008. What makes
teachers use technology in the classroom? Exploring
the factors affecting facilitation of technology with a
Korean sample. Computers & Education, 50, pp. 224-
234.
Becker, H. J., and Ravitz, J., 1999. The influence of
computers and internet use on teachers’ pedagogical
practices and perceptions. Journal of Research on
Computing in Education, 31(4), pp. 356-384.
Bingimlas, K. A., 2009. Barriers to the successful
integration of ICT in teaching and learning
environments: A review of the literature. Eurasia
Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology
Education. 5(3), pp. 235-245.
Buabeng-Andoh, C., 2012. Factors influencing teachers’
adoption and integration of information and
communication technology into teaching: A review of
the literature. International Journal of Education and
Development using Information and Communication
Technology. 8(1), pp. 136-155.
Byrom, E., and Bingham, M., 2001. Factors influencing
the effective use of technology for teaching and
learning: Lessons learned from the SEIR_TEC
Intensive Site Schools, 2
nd
Ed. (2001). SouthEast
Initiatives Regional Technology in Education
Consortium (SEIR_TEC).
Common, D. L., 1983. Power: The missing concept in the
dominant model of school change. Theory into
Practice, 22(3), pp. 203-210.
Corbin, J. M., and Strauss, A., 1990. Grounded theory
research: Procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria.
Qualitative Sociology, 13(1), pp. 3-21.
Ernest, P., 1989. The impact of beliefs on the teaching of
mathematics. In P. Ernest. ed. 1989. Mathematics
teaching: The state of the art. London: Falmer Press.
pp. 249-254.
Ertmer, P.A., 2005. Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final
frontier in our quest for technology integration?
Educational Technology Research and Development,
53(4), pp. 25-39.
Ertmer, P. A., and Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T., 2010.
Teacher technology change: How knowledge,
confidence, beliefs, and culture intersect. Journal of
Research in Technology Education, 42(3), pp. 255-
284.
Ertmer, P.A., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T., Sadik, O.,
Sendurur, E., and Sendurur, P., 2012. Teacher beliefs
and technology integration practices: A critical
relationship. Computers and Education, 59(2), pp.
423-425.
Flores, A., 2007. Examining disparities in mathematics
education: Achievement gap or opportunity gap? The
High School Journal, 91(1), pp. 29-42.
Hall, G.E., and Hord, S. M., 2011. Implementing change:
Patterns, principles and potholes. (3
rd
ed.). Boston,
MA: Pearson Education.
Hanson, K., and Carlson, B., 2005. Effective access:
Teachers use of digital resources in STEM teaching.
Available:
<http://www2.edc.org/GDI/publications_SR/Effective
AccessReport.pdf>.
Hew, K. F., and Brush, T., 2007. Integrating technology
into K-12 teaching and learning: Current knowledge
gaps and recommendations for future research.
Educational Technology Research and Development,
55, pp. 223-252.
Holden, H., and Rada, R., 2011. Understanding the
influence of perceived usability and technology self-
efficacy on teachers’ technology acceptance. Journal
of Research on Technology in Education, 43(4), pp.
343-367.
Jones, H. M., and Dexter, S., 2014. How teachers learn:
the roles of formal, informal, and independent
learning. Educational Technology Research and
Development, 62, pp. 367-384.
Margolis, J., Estrella, R., Goode, J., Holme, J.J., and Nao,
K., 2008. Stuck in the shallow end: Education, race
and computing. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Merriam, S. B., 2009. Qualitative research: A guide to
design and implementation. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Miles, M. B., and Huberman, A. M., 1994. Qualitative
data analysis (2
nd
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publishers.
Mishra, P., and Koehler, P. A., 2006. Technological,
pedagogical, content knowledge: A new framework
for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record,
108(6), pp. 1017-1054.
Mumtaz, S., 2000. Factors affecting teachers’ use of
information and communications technology: A
review of the Literature. Journal of Information
Technology for Teacher Education, 9(3), 319-342.
Nugent, G., Barker, B., Grandgenett, N., and Adamchuck,
V., 2010. Impact of robotics and geospatial technology
interventions on youth STEM learning and attitudes.
Journal of Research on Technology in Education,
42(4), pp. 391-408.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
(OECD), 2009. Creating effective teaching and
learning environments: First results from teaching and
learning international survey. Available:
http://www.oecd.org/edu/school/creatingeffectiveteach
ingandlearningenvironmentsfirstresultsfromtalis.htm.
Patton, M. Q., 2002. Qualitative evaluation and research
methods (3
rd
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publishers.
Pearson, L. C., and Moomaw, W., 2005. The relationship
between teacher autonomy and stress, work
satisfaction, empowerment and professionalism.
Educational Research Quarterly, 29(1), pp. 38-54.
Pew Research Center, 2013. How teachers are using
technology at home and in their classroom.
Washington, DC: Author. Available:
<http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2013/Teachers-and-
technology.>
UnderstandingFactorsInfluencingTeachers'UseofTechnologiesinTeachingSTEM
137
Pink, D., 2009. Drive: The surprising truth about what
motivates us. New York: Riverhead Books.
Reid, P., 2014. Categories for barriers to adoption of
instructional technologies. Education and Information
Technologies, 19, pp. 838-407.
Richardson-Kemp, and Yan, W., 2003. Urban school
teachers’ self-efficacy, beliefs and practices,
innovation practices and related factors in integrating
technology. Society for Information Technology and
Teacher Education International Conference
Proceedings, Vol. 2003, No. 1, pp. 1073-1076.
Roehrig, G. H., Kruse, R. A., and Kane, A., 2007. Teacher
and school characteristics and their influence on
curriculum implementation. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 44, p. 883-907.
Stephen, M. L., 1997. A study of the effects of differences
among students’ and teachers’ perceptions of
computers and experiences in a computer-supported
classroom. PhD dissertation. Saint Louis University,
St. Louis, MO.
Strauss, A., and Corbin, J. M., 1998. Basics of qualitative
research: Techniques and procedures for developing
grounded theory (2
nd
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Teo, T. (2011). Factors influencing teachers’ intention to
use technology: Model development and test.
Computers & Education, 57(2011), pp. 2432-2440.
Wang, S. K., Hsu, H.Y., Campbell, T., Coster, D. C., and
Longhurst, M., 2014. An investigation of middle
school science teachers and students use of technology
inside and outside of classrooms: Considering whether
digital natives are move technology savvy than their
teachers. Educational Technology Research &
Development, 62(6), pp. 637-662.
Wozney, L., Venkatesh, V., and Abrami, P. C., 2006.
Implementing computer technologies: Teachers’
perceptions and practices. Journal of Technology and
Teacher Education, 14(1), pp. 173-207.
Yin, R. K., 2009. Case study research: Design and
methods. (4
th
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publishers.
Zhao, Y., and Frank, K.A., 2003. Factors affecting
technology uses in schools. An ecological perspective.
American Educational Research Journal, 40(4), pp.
807-840.
CSEDU2015-7thInternationalConferenceonComputerSupportedEducation
138
