Teaching and Teacher Education 29 (2013) 76e85

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Teaching and Teacher Education

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tate

Teacher beliefs and technology integration

ChanMin Kim a, *, Min Kyu Kim a, Chiajung Lee a, J. Michael Spector b, Karen DeMeester c
a
Department of Educational Psychology & Instructional Technology, The University of Georgia, Athens, GA, USA
b
Department of Learning Technologies, The University of North Texas, Denton, TX, USA
c
Program Evaluation Group, The University of Georgia, Athens, GA, USA

h i g h l i g h t s

< Teacher beliefs (i.e., epistemology and conceptions of teaching) were examined.
< The goal was to understand why technology is integrated differently among teachers.
< Such beliefs were related to teachers’ technology integration practice.
< Teacher beliefs need be considered in order to facilitate technology integration.
< Several suggestions for positive changes in teachers’ beliefs are provided.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The purpose of this exploratory mixed methods study was to investigate how teacher beliefs were
Received 7 November 2011 related to technology integration practices. We were interested in how and to what extent teachers’ (a)
Received in revised form beliefs about the nature of knowledge and learning, (b) beliefs about effective ways of teaching, and (c)
13 August 2012
technology integration practices were related to each other. The participants were twenty two teachers
Accepted 14 August 2012
who have participated in a four-year professional development project funded by the U.S. Department of
Education. Specific relations between teachers’ beliefs and technology integration practices are pre-
Keywords:
sented. The implications for professional development and suggestions for teacher belief change and
Technology integration
Teacher education
technology integration are discussed.
Teacher beliefs Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Diffusion of innovation

1. Introduction
As an international phenomenon, technology is an important
part of our everyday lives and efforts to improve teaching and
learning (Sandholtz, Ringstaff, & Dwyer, 1997; Voogt, Tilya, & van
den Akker, 2009; Williams, Linn, Ammon, & Gearhart, 2004).
With the importance of technology in education, technology inte-
gration has been greatly emphasized in teacher training and
professional development (Lawless & Pellegrino, 2007). However, it
has been criticized that teachers have not been provided with
adequate support that goes beyond learning specific technology
skills (e.g., using a particular tool or software program) (Llorens,
Salanova, & Grau, 2002).
In recent years, technological pedagogical content knowledge
(TPACK; changed from TPCK in Thompson & Mishra, 2007) has been
* Corresponding author. 605A Aderhold Hall, Department of Educational
Psychology & Instructional Technology, The University of Georgia, Athens, GA
30602-7144, USA. Tel.: þ1 706 542 3954; fax: þ1 706 542 4240.
E-mail address: chanmin@uga.edu (ChanMin Kim).
studied to understand what knowledge and skills teachers lack and
what professional development ought to target in order to
systemically improve effective use of technology in teaching
(Koehler & Mishra, 2009; Mishra & Koehler, 2006). Many argue that
teachers’ integrative knowledge of technology, pedagogy, and
content that goes beyond specific technology skills should be
emphasized in teacher development (e.g., Niess, 2005; Polly,
McGee, & Sullivan, 2010). Although teachers’ TPACK is a strong
enabler for effective technology integration, still this does not
explain why teachers with sufficient knowledge utilize technology
differently. For example, some use an interactive whiteboard only
to project content while others use the board to support interactive
student inquiry processes (Hall, 2010). Using an interactive white-
board just to present information without any interaction has no
real pedagogical advantages over traditional whiteboards.
However, with the functionality that an interactive whiteboard
allows, immediate, dynamic changes in pedagogical decisions and
actions that are contingent on students’ input are possible
(Kennewell & Beauchamp, 2007). Interactive use of interactive
whiteboards to actively engage students with the subject matter

0742-051X/$ e see front matter Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2012.08.005
 ChanMin Kim et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 29 (2013) 76e85
through the technology would probably justify the additional
expense compared to the cost of a traditional whiteboard, and
schools are already widely equipped with interactive whiteboards
in the U.K., the U.S., Australia, South Korea, and elsewhere.
In an attempt to understand why technology is differently (or not
at all) integrated into teaching among teachers who are equipped
with relevant knowledge, two sets of barriers are often discussed
(Ertmer, 1999, 2005; Hew & Brush, 2007): (a) first-order barriers
concern factors such as environmental readiness (e.g., computers,
the Internet access) and teacher knowledge (e.g., TPACK); (b)
second-order barriers include factors such as teachers’ beliefs
(Ertmer, 1999, 2005; Hew & Brush, 2007). Second-order barriers,
defined as the intrinsic factors that hinder technology integration,
can interfere with teachers’ technology integration even when first-
order barriers are overcome (Ertmer, 1999). It has been well
documented that technology availability creates the possibility of
effective technology integration (e.g., Norris, Sullivan, & Poirot,
2003) but knowledge pertinent to pedagogy and content are
required to realize the full potential of teaching technologies to
improve learning and instruction (e.g., Mishra & Koehler, 2006;
Shulman, 1987). Nonetheless, the acquisition of technology and
knowledge does not always lead to effective technology integration
(Polly, Mims, Shepherd, & Inan, 2010). Teachers’ persistent beliefs
about current practices are recognized as second-order barriers that
delay or inhibit technology integration (Ertmer, 2005). Even when
technology and technical knowledge are in place (i.e., when first
order barriers are overcome), effective technology integration
requires teachers’ beliefs in “new ways of both seeing and doing
things” (Ertmer, 2005, p. 26). Teachers’ beliefs predict, reflect, and
determine their actual teaching practice (Kagan,1992; Pajares, 1992;
Wilkins, 2008). For instance, research has shown that the ways of
teaching can be different depending on teachers’ different beliefs
even when the teachers have similar knowledge and skills (e.g.,
Ernest, 1989). Teacher beliefs are considered even more influential
than teacher knowledge (Pajares, 1992). Understanding of teachers’
beliefs that make technologies differently integrated into teaching
would be helpful in improving technology integration trainings.
In short, to promote teachers’ technology integration practice in
the classroom, it has been suggested that second-order barriers to
technology integration should be identified and overcome; positive
changes in teacher beliefs could help surmount second-order
barriers (Ertmer, 2005; Hew & Brush, 2007). Thus, we examined
how teachers’ beliefs are related to their technology integration
practices. In doing so, first, we reviewed the literature to determine
the teacher beliefs that should be examined. Second, we examined
teachers’ (a) beliefs about the nature of knowledge and learning, as
well as (b) beliefs about effective ways of teaching. Last, we
investigated how such beliefs are related to teachers’ technology
integration practice. Throughout the investigation, it was expected
that information about relationships between teacher beliefs and
technology integration would suggest how to take teacher beliefs
into consideration so as to facilitate technology integration.
2. Theoretical framework
2.1. Teacher beliefs
2.1.1. Defining teacher beliefs in relation to technology integration
Teacher beliefs have been studied to understand teaching
practices (Pajares, 1992) since beliefs influence behaviors (Ajzen &
Madden, 1986). Teacher beliefs are considered an indicator for
certain behaviors in class because of the mediating effects of beliefs
on the ways of teaching via their impact on decision making
(Kagan, 1992; Kane, Sandretto, & Heath, 2002; Ng, Nicholas, &
Williams, 2010; Pajares, 1992). For instance, teachers who believe
77
that learning in collaboration brings about greater benefits than
learning alone would tend to include more group work than
teachers who see little or no learning value in collaboration.
Teacher beliefs are regarded as one of the most valuable
constructs for teacher education (Kagan, 1992; Pajares, 1992).
Teacher beliefs have been studied in the U.K. (e.g., Blay & Ireson,
2009; Florian & Rouse, 2009), Spain (e.g., Cano, 2005), Greece
(e.g., Mattheoudakis, 2007), Portugal (e.g., Fonseca, Costa,
Lencastre, & Tavares, 2012), Israel (e.g., Shechtman & Or, 1996;
Zohar, Degani, & Vaaknin, 2001), the Netherlands (e.g., Meirink,
Meijer, Verloop, & Bergen, 2009; Tillema, 1994; Zantinga,
Verloopa, & Vermunt, 2001), Turkey (e.g., Isikoglu, Basturk, &
Karaca, 2009; Özgün-Koca & Şen, 2006), China (e.g., Correa, Perry,
Sims, Miller, & Fang, 2008), South Korea (e.g., Lee, Baik, &
Charlesworth, 2006), Japan (e.g., Underwoord, 2012), Singapore
(e.g., Lim, 2010), Australia (e.g., Mansfield & Volet, 2010; Ng et al.,
2010), the U.S. (e.g., Brousseau & Freeman, 1988; Sanger &
Osguthorpe, 2011; Stipek, Givvin, Salmon, & MacGyvers, 2001),
Canada (e.g., Jordan, Glenn, & McGhie-Richmond, 2010), and the list
goes on. However, the term ‘teacher beliefs’ has been used incon-
sistently and previous studies focused on a variety of beliefs such as
teacher expectation of learner success (i.e., self-fulfilling prophecy;
e.g., Harber & Jussim, 2005), self-efficacy in their own ability to
teach (i.e., teacher efficacy; e.g., Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy,
2001), beliefs about the value of specific teaching strategies or
materials (e.g., computer use; Park & Ertmer, 2008), content-
specific beliefs (i.e., different views on how to be taught per
content; Kagan, 1992), and so on.
Defining teacher beliefs in relation to technology integration has
no consensus as well. However, in many studies, what beliefs are
about is specified, as Pajares (1992) recommended. Some
researchers regard teacher beliefs as beliefs about the value of
technology for student learning (e.g., Polly et al., 2010); some
regard teacher beliefs as self-efficacy regarding technology use
(e.g., Abbitt, 2011; Wang, Ertmer, & Newby, 2004); and some regard
teacher beliefs as a combination of self-efficacy, beliefs about the
value of technology, and beliefs about teaching and learning with
technology (e.g., Park & Ertmer, 2008).
One difference that we noticed in research on teacher beliefs in
technology integration contexts is that the view on beliefs is nar-
rower than in research on teacher beliefs in general. In other words,
it appears that researchers examined beliefs only associated with
technology although there should be fundamental beliefs that are
associated with teacher beliefs in relation to technology. For
example, a teacher believes that the value of technology for student
learning is high because an interactive whiteboard allows her to
promote active participation of students. In contrast, another
teacher believes that the value of technology for student learning is
high because an interactive whiteboard allows him to deliver
content more efficiently by projecting online resources on the
board. Although both teachers perceive the value of interactive
whiteboard technology to be equally high, their beliefs about the
value of the technology do not explain their different uses of that
technology. In order to understand why technology is integrated
differently among teachers, their fundamental beliefs about what is
important in student learning and thus teaching (regardless of
technology use) should be understood.
We are not arguing that self-efficacy, beliefs about the value of
technology, and beliefs about teaching and learning with tech-
nology should not be studied. We do recognize that if teachers do
not have self-efficacy beliefs in their ability to use their interactive
whiteboard, for example, it is unlikely that they will integrate such
a technology into teaching. We are arguing that fundamental
beliefs (regardless of the technology involved) that teachers bring
into teaching should be studied in order to understand how
78 ChanMin Kim et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 29 (2013) 76e85
differently (or not at all) technology is integrated. For example,
after teachers attended a professional development training
together, acquired necessary knowledge and skills with confidence,
and are convinced to use their interactive whiteboard, why do they
use their interactive whiteboards differently? In this study, our core
interest is in teachers’ fundamental beliefs that may play a critical
role in making a decision on how to use a particular technology to
support learning. Thus, we decided to investigate teacher beliefs
about the nature of knowledge and learning (i.e., epistemology;
e.g., Schommer, 1990) and about effective ways of teaching (i.e.,
conceptions of teaching; e.g., Chan & Elliott, 2004), regardless of
any particular technology. More specific descriptions of teachers’
epistemology and conceptions of teaching are provided in the
following sections as well as the rationale for our choice for these
two beliefs.
2.1.2. Teacher beliefs about the nature of knowledge and learning
(epistemology)
One’s beliefs about the nature of knowledge and learning are
directly or indirectly related to performance mediated by cognitive
processes, motivation, attitudes, behavior, efforts, and so forth
(Schommer, 1990). Most of the research on these beliefs has
focused on epistemological beliefs. Schommer has conceptualized
and refined a framework of epistemological belief research
(Schommer, 1998; Schommer-Aikins, 2002; Schommer-Aikins &
Hutter, 2002). Schommer (1990) argued that one’s epistemolog-
ical beliefs consisted of multidimensional beliefs, which were to
some degree independent of each other (Schommer, 1990). Her five
dimensions of beliefs about knowledge acquisition and learning
consist of: 1) the structure of knowledge, ranging from isolated
pieces to integrated concepts, 2) the source of knowledge, ranging
from authority to reasoning, 3) the stability of knowledge, ranging
from certain knowledge to changing knowledge, 4) the speed of
learning, ranging from quick learning to gradual learning, and 5)
the ability to learn, ranging from fixed at birth to improvable
(Schommer, 1998; Schommer-Aikins, Duell, & Hutter, 2005). She
indicated that “unspoken and sometimes unconscious beliefs about
the nature of knowledge and learning play a critical role” in guiding
a person’s thinking (Schommer-Aikins & Hutter, 2002, p. 13) and
affect reasoning and decision making in learning and teaching
environments. For example, if a teacher believes that the source of
knowledge is authority, that teacher may not use a relatively open-
ended approach such as a WebQuest (Dodge, 1997) that encourages
students to explore a variety of sources (e.g., Google search, library,
etc.) and construct answers to a given problem or complete
a certain task. Instead, that teacher may just show answers on an
interactive whiteboard, which is not so different from showing
content on a traditional blackboard.
2.1.3. Teacher beliefs about effective ways of teaching (conceptions
of teaching)
Teacher beliefs about effective ways of teaching are conceptions
of teaching associated with teacher-centered and student-centered
approaches to instruction (Chan & Elliott, 2004). Teacher-centered
approaches tend to emphasize the activities that a teacher uses to
promote learning. Student-centered approaches tend to emphasize
the activities in which a student is engaged. Associated with these
two approaches is a continuum from structured, directed learning
environments to unstructured, open-ended learning environments.
For example, if a teacher believes that teaching is about letting
students search around for answers rather than explaining the
answers directly, that teacher may use a relatively open-ended
approach such as a WebQuest (Dodge, 1997). Technology integra-
tion goes beyond the use of any particular technology, and it can be
tightly connected with teachers’ beliefs about effective ways of
teaching to support learning and instruction. Student change (e.g.,
surface and deep learning approaches) and achievement are
dependent on teachers’ conceptions of teaching (Cano, 2005).
3. Research questions
The purpose of this study was to examine the relation of
teachers’ beliefs to their technology integration practices. The
context for the study was a four-year professional development
project. The goal of the professional development project was to
increase the technology capacity and competency of teachers in
poorly performing rural schools and to improve the quality of
participating teachers’ integration of technology in their class-
rooms to support specific learning objectives and students’ mastery
of skills and competencies described in the states’ standards.
It was reasonable to consider that first-order barriers to tech-
nology integration were overcome in this group of teachers since
extrinsic factors (e.g., access to resources and sufficient technology
skills and knowledge) were appropriately functioning. We do not
claim that all first-order barriers were overcome because teachers’
integrated knowledge of technology, pedagogy, and content was not
specifically examined in this study. However, it was worth inves-
tigating second-order barriers, especially teacher beliefs, not only
because of environmental readiness but also because of teachers’
technology skills and knowledge that were used in technology
integration combined with their existing knowledge of content and
pedagogy. Consequently our research questions focused on teacher
beliefs. We were specifically interested in how and to what extent
teachers’ (a) beliefs about the nature of knowledge and learning, (b)
beliefs about effective ways of teaching, and (c) technology inte-
gration practices are related to each other. The following research
question was addressed: How do teacher beliefs about the nature of
knowledge and learning as well as effective ways of teaching relate
to their technology integration practices?
4. Context and methodology
4.1. Participants
The participants were among the teachers who have partici-
pated in our four-year Comprehensive School Reform program
funded by the U.S. Department of Education. Among a total of 42
teachers involved in our project over its four-year duration, 22
teachers were selected for this particular research, using these two
criteria: (a) taught in class during the project years (e.g., school
library media specialists were excluded from the data collection),
and (b) participated in the project for at least two consecutive years
from 2007 to 2010. In short, the selection of only 22 of the 42
teachers was to intentionally focus on those teachers who were
actually in classrooms most of the time during the project. Among
the 22 teachers, 5 taught 4th graders, 4 taught 2nd graders, 4 taught
6th graders, 3 taught 5th graders, 2 taught 3rd graders, 2 taught 8th
graders, 1 taught 1st graders, and 1 taught 7th graders.
The primary goal of our project was to improve the use of
technology in poorly performing rural K-8 schools in the Southeast
in the United State by providing (a) new technologies, (b) profes-
sional development workshops, and (c) technical and pedagogical
assistance. The technologies included laptops, interactive white-
boards, digital cameras and recorders, and other technologies
selected in collaboration with participating schools. Professional
development workshops included intensive, week-long summer
training workshops each year as well as workshops on demand
during the school year. Training sessions involved such topics as
integrating Web resources into lessons (e.g., the use of GeoGebra
allowing the dynamic manipulation of equations along with
 ChanMin Kim et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 29 (2013) 76e85
Table 1
Sample questions on the Epistemological Belief Questionnaire (EBQ).
Beliefs about: Sample questions from Epistemological Belief
Questionnaire (EBQ)
Structure of “The best thing about science courses is that
knowledge most problems have only one right answer.”
Source of “Sometimes you just have to accept answers from
knowledge a teacher even though you don’t understand them.”
Stability of “Today’s facts may be tomorrow’s fiction.”
knowledge
Speed of learning “Successful students understand things quickly.”
Ability to learn “Wisdom is not knowing the answers, but knowing
how to find the answers.”
automatic visualization to learn both geometry and algebra;
Hohenwarter, Hohenwarter, and Lavicza (2009)), video recording
and editing, maintaining a Web-based knowledge sharing system,
using video-conferencing, and so on. Technical and pedagogical
assistance was given to teachers face-to-face, by phone, and by
video-conference. The eight participating elementary and middle
schools in Alabama, Florida and Georgia received approximately
40% of the total grant to support technology upgrades and teacher
professional development training. The schools had voice and
choice in selecting which technologies to acquire, although these
technologies had to be consistent with project goals and used by
participating teachers.
4.2. Data collection
4.2.1. Teacher beliefs about the nature of knowledge and learning
(epistemology)
Teacher beliefs about the nature of knowledge and learning
were measured using Schommer’s (1990) Epistemological Belief
Questionnaire (EBQ). The questionnaire consists of 63 questions
with regard to five multidimensional beliefs, which are to some
degree independent of each other, as follows: 1) the structure of
knowledge; 2) the source of knowledge; 3) the stability of knowl-
edge; 4) the speed of learning; and, 5) the ability to learn. Table 1
shows sample questions for each belief. Reliability scores on the
sub-scales of EBQ (its adult version) range from .63 to .85 and
validity has been verified in a variety of settings (Chan & Elliott,
Fig. 1. Sample teacher conception questions.
79
2004; Schommer-Aikins et al., 2005). Scale reliabilities in this
study were .40 for the structure of knowledge, .22 for the source of
knowledge, .36 for the stability of knowledge, .65 for speed of
learning, and .50 for ability to learn.
4.2.2. Teacher beliefs about effective ways of teaching (conceptions
of teaching)
Teacher beliefs about effective ways of teaching were measured
using part of the Teaching, Learning, and Computing (TLC) survey
developed under projects funded by the National Science Foundation
and the U.S. Department of Education (Becker, 2001). We used three
scales from the survey (J1, J2, and J3) to figure out where teachers’
conceptions of teaching are along a teacher-centered and student-
centered continuum. The rationale for our choice was to investigate
teachers’ beliefs about effective ways of teaching regardless of tech-
nology by asking about their beliefs regarding class discussions (J1),
learning process (J2), and teacher role (J3). For example, the items
with regard to class discussions questioned teachers’ perspectives on
how open-ended the class discussions should be (see Fig.1 for sample
questions). Reliability score on the sub-scales of TLC was .83 (Becker,
2001) and validity was verified using interviews and classroom
observations (Ravitz, Becker, & Wong, 2000). Scale reliabilities in this
study were .92 for class discussions (J1), .76 for learning process (J2),
and .33 for teacher role (J3).
4.2.3. Technology integration
Technology integration was measured using (a) classroom
observations and (b) teacher interviews. For classroom observa-
tions, the Classroom Lesson Observation (CLO) survey of CITERA
(Comprehensive Information Technology Education in Rural
Appalachia, funded by the National Science Foundation; http://
www.theedventuregroup.org/citerawv/) was used. We used two
scales from CLO to rate the design and implementation of teachers’
lessons that incorporated technologies, ranged from teacher-
centered (highly structured, directed learning) to student-
centered (mostly unstructured, open-ended learning). CLO has
been utilized in middle and high school contexts to see the impact
of technology integration professional development on classroom
teaching (Darrah & Blake, 2009). For the teacher interview, a semi-
structured interview protocol was used to examine teachers’ levels
of use (LoU) of technology (Hall, Dirksen, & George, 2006). This
80 ChanMin Kim et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 29 (2013) 76e85
interview protocol was constructed based on the Concerns-Based
Adoption Model (CBAM), which is frequently applied to assessing
teachers’ status of technology integration and to providing support
for them (Ellsworth, 2000). CBAM has been utilized in a variety of
studies and is regarded as “a powerful tool for diagnosing the
implementation effort’s progress” (Ellsworth, 2000, p. 43).
Teachers’ responses to the semi-structured interview protocol were
analyzed by the research group following the branching chart of
LoU (see Fig. 2) and one of the eight levels were determined for
each response (see Table 2). The following are some of the ques-
tions included in the interview protocol included questions.
 Can you describe your preparation process for a lesson in which
you used a technology? (How much time did you spend?
Where did you start? How did you pick the technology? Did
you talk to your colleagues about your lesson plan?)
 What concerned you the most when you were planning the
lesson? (Time you spent for the preparation; students’ reac-
tions; technologies failure; etc.)
 Did you feel the class went well? (If so, what aspects were
satisfactory? If not, why did you feel it didn’t go well? Did you
make some changes and try the lesson again?)
 What technologies you think were the most effective? Why?
 Have you felt like you’ve needed to make changes in your ways
of teaching with technologies? How would you like to change
the way of using technologies? If so, what kinds of changes
have you thought of?
Both the classroom observations and teacher interviews were
done by the project team that consisted of four researchers. Before
the classroom observations, the team conducted a pilot test by
observing a couple of classrooms and scored each item of CLO inde-
pendently during each classroom observations. After the observa-
tions, the team discussed similarities and differences in ratings as
well as rationales for each rating in order to synchronize the team’s
understanding of each item and interpretation as much as possible.
For the actual classroom observations, two or three members of the
Fig. 2. Branching chart in (From: Measuring implementation in schools: Levels of Use (Fig. 3.1: Branching Chart, p. 18) by G. E. Hall, D. J. Dirksen, and A. A. George, 2006,
Austin: SEDL. Copyright Ó 2006, SEDL. Reprinted by ChanMin Kim with permission of SEDL).
Table 2
Levels of use (Hall et al., 2006).
0: Nonuse State in which the user has little or no knowledge of the
innovation, no involvement with the innovation, and is
doing nothing toward becoming involved.
1: Orientation State in which the user has recently acquired or is
acquiring information about the innovation and/or has
recently explored or is exploring its value orientation
and its demands upon user and user system.
2: Preparation State in which the user is preparing for the first use of the
innovation.
3: Mechanical use State in which the user focuses most effort on the short-
term, day-today use of the innovation with little time for
reflection. Changes in use are made more to meet user
needs than client needs.
4A: Routine use Use of the innovation is stabilized. Few if any changes are
being made in ongoing use. Little preparation or thought
is being given to improving innovation use or its
consequences.
4B: Refinement State in which the user varies the use of the innovation to
increase the impact on clients within immediate sphere
of influence. Variations are based on knowledge of both
short- and long-term consequences for clients.
5: Integration State in which the user is combining own efforts to use
the innovation with related activities of colleagues to
achieve a collective impact on clients within their
common sphere of influence.
6: Renewal State in which the user re-evaluates the quality of use of
the innovation, seeks major modifications of or
alternatives to present innovation to achieve increased
impact on clients, examines new developments in the
field, and explores new goals for self and the system.
team rated each item independently and then the team debriefed
each observation and reviewed scorings as a group to reach
a consensus on scores, which were used in the data analysis. Inter-
rater reliability was over .70; however, this reliability score is not
statistically interpretable due to the small number of observations.
For the teacher interviews, one of the researchers led all the
interviews but each interview had two other researchers partici-
pating. Each interview was audio-recorded. Two of the research
 ChanMin Kim et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 29 (2013) 76e85 81

Table 3
Descriptive statistics. Technology
Integration
Measures Variables Mean (SD)
Teachers’ beliefs about the Structure of knowledge 3.27 (.25) r = .673 to .882
nature of knowledge and Source of knowledge 3.72 (.27)
learning (epistemology)a Stability of knowledge 3.13 (.39) Teacher Beliefs about
(described in Section 4.2.1) Speed of learning 3.75 (.26)
Effective ways of
Ability to learn 3.65 (.34) teaching
Teachers’ beliefs about Class discussionb 3.30 (1.27) (Conceptions of
effective ways of teaching Learning processc 2.81 (.70) teaching)
(conceptions of teaching) Teacher roleb 2.67 (.55) r = .422 to .447
(described in Section 4.2.1) The nature of
Technology integrationc Lesson designd 2.69 (.56) knowledge and
(described in Section 4.2.3) Lesson implementationd 2.62 (.82) learning
(Epistemology)
Level of technology usee 3.79 (1.43)

Notes: Possible ranges: 1e5 for a, b, d; 1e6 for c; 0e7 for e. Date sources: d was
obtained from observations; e was determined from interview data.
Fig. 3. Correlations among teacher beliefs and technology integration.

team members transcribed the interviews: one of them transcribed

the interviews first and the other reviewed the transcripts while
listening to the interviews and made changes to ensure the accu-
racy. The other two members of the team scored transcripts
collectively; that is, one of the two scored transcripts first and then
the two discussed each scoring line by line to either keep the score
or revise it per discussion. We did not record inter-rater reliability.
5. Results
Table 3 shows the descriptive statistics of the data. Pearson
correlation coefficients were used to examine the relations among
teacher beliefs about the nature of knowledge and learning (epis-
temology), beliefs about effective ways of teaching (conceptions),
technology integration practices (see Table 4).
A summary of significant results is as follows:
(1) Teacher beliefs about the nature of knowledge and learning
(epistemology) were significantly correlated with teacher
beliefs about effective ways of teaching (conceptions):
a) Epistemological beliefs about the structure of knowledge was
significantly correlated with teacher conceptions on
learning process (r ¼ .444) and teacher role (r ¼ .447).
b) Epistemological beliefs about the source of knowledge was
significantly correlated with teacher conceptions on
learning process (r ¼ .422).
(2) Teachers’ beliefs about effective ways of teaching (conceptions)
was significantly correlated with technology integration
practices:
a) Teacher conceptions on class discussions was significantly
correlated with lesson design (r ¼ .692) and levels of tech-
nology use (r ¼ .882).
b) Teacher conceptions on teacher role was significantly
correlated with levels of technology use (r ¼ .673).
(3) Technology integration practices examined through classroom
lesson observations were correlated with technology integra-
tion practices examined through teacher interviews:
a) Lesson design was significantly correlated with levels of
technology use (r ¼ .826).
b) Lesson implementation was significantly correlated with
levels of technology use (r ¼ .849).
These results showed that teachers’ beliefs about the nature of
knowledge and learning (epistemology), beliefs about effective
ways of teaching (conceptions), and technology integration were
positively correlated with one another; that is, the more sophisti-
cated epistemology teachers had, their conceptions were closer to
the student-centered approach end of the teacher-centered/
student-centered continuum (1-a & 1-b) and their status of tech-
nology integration showed a more seamless use of technology,
meaning that the focus and emphasis remained on the learning
rather than on the technology (2-a & 2-b). In addition, there was
consistency between what teachers do in their teaching and what
they say they do (3-a & 3-b). It is noteworthy that what teachers say
they do (levels of technology use) was significantly correlated with
both their beliefs about effective ways of teaching (conceptions on
class discussions and teacher role) and their actual practices with
regard to technology integration (lesson design and lesson imple-
mentation). The relations are illustrated in a simplified diagram (see
Fig. 3) and example scenarios of Teacher X and Teacher Y illus-
trating different technology integration practices according to
teacher beliefs (see Table 5).

Table 4
Correlations among variables.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1.Structure of knowledge e
2.Source of knowledge .477* e
3.Stability of knowledge .486* .189 e
4.Speed of learning .288 .410 .146 e
5.Ability to learn .190 .071 .133 .027 e
6.Class discussion .213 .151 .103 .101 .196 e
7.Learning process .444* .422* .299 .138 .064 .446* e
8.Teacher role .447* .361 .064 .110 .203 .532* .556* e
9.Lessson design .233 .327 .047 .143 .077 .692* .024 .390 e
10.Lesson implementation .235 .157 .154 .233 .065 .549 .016 .372 .752* e
11.Level of technology use .125 .197 .428 .292 .179 .882* .479 .673* .826* .849*

* denotes a correlation that is significant at the .05 level.

82 ChanMin Kim et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 29 (2013) 76e85

Table 5
Example scenarios illustrating different technology integration practices according to epistemological beliefs and teaching philosophy.

Beliefs about the nature of knowledge
and learning (epistemology)
Beliefs about effective ways of
teaching (conceptions)
Technology integration practices
Teacher X
Source of knowledge: authority
Ms. Hill’s class discussion (see Fig. 1) was preferred;
asking questions that the students could answer quickly
based on the reading they had done the day before
Teacher-centered: Highly structured, directed learning
Level of use: 3 (mechanical use)
Teacher’s comments: “My main concern still today .
when I plan a lesson that involved using technology,
the Smartboard or whatever it is, I still make myself
a back-up plan in case it doesn’t work.”
“There are so many resources out there so I can use
without taking my time.”
“Basically I am not here, but the class can go on. just
efficient.”
Teacher Y
Source of knowledge: reasoning
Mr. Jones’ class discussion (see Fig. 1) was preferred;
many of the questions came from the students
themselves. Mr. Jones suggested where the students
could find relevant information
Student-centered: Mostly unstructured, open-ended
learning
Level of use: 4B (refinement)
Teacher’s comments: “They have their own laptops,
which could be sometimes a time issue. But it is worthy
because they love it and want to and can do much more.
For example, there are so many games they can learn
from.”
“I would like to know anything new that could interest
my students and keep them engaged.”

6. Discussion
6.1. Summary of findings
As stated previously, our core interest was in relationships
between teachers’ beliefs and their technology integration prac-
tices. The overall goal of the professional development aspect of the
project was to increase the technology capacity and competency of
teachers in poorly performing rural schools and the goal was ach-
ieved as shown in research on the project (e.g., McKeown, 2008).
However, to find ways of improving professional development and
to contribute to larger communities of teacher education and
technology integration, it was necessary to examine why teachers
differently integrated technology into classrooms (e.g., using an
interactive whiteboard to show content vs. to interact with
students).
As fundamental beliefs, teachers’ beliefs about the nature of
knowledge and learning (epistemology) and beliefs about effective
ways of teaching (conceptions) were examined. We found that
teachers’ beliefs about the nature of knowledge and learning and
beliefs about effective ways of teaching were related to their
technology integration practices. This finding is consistent with
prior research that has shown that teacher beliefs are strongly
connected to teaching practices (Kagan, 1992; Nespor, 1987;
Pajares, 1992). Although technology integration is about how
teaching is practiced, there has not been much research on the
connections between teachers’ epistemology and conceptions and
their technology integration practices.
Our study findings suggest that teacher beliefs should be
considered in order to facilitate technology integration. Especially,
teacher beliefs about the nature of knowledge and learning that
influence their beliefs about effective ways of teaching should be
further studied since those fundamental beliefs can be a starting
point to overcome the second-order barriers to technology inte-
gration. For example, the finding that teachers’ beliefs about the
speed of learning and the source of knowledge are most strongly
related to their conceptions suggests that personal epistemology
determines decision making on how to teach in general as well as
how to teach with technology (Chan & Elliott, 2004).
It is worth noting that we only indicate that teacher beliefs are
related to technology integration. Correlation does not imply
causation. Correlation-coefficients are obtained by standardizing
the covariance between variables, which makes it possible to
compare the relative strength of covariances. There is an empirical
consensus of the magnitude of the value in social sciences (Glass &
Hopkins, 2008). Values in this study indicate either strong or very
strong relationships since they fell into the range either between .4
and .6 or between .6 (strong) and 1.0 (very strong; see Table 4). We
also would like to highlight the practical significance of the corre-
lations in this study. The associations of the beliefs about the nature
of knowledge and learning on technology integration seem implicit
and medicated by more explicit beliefs such as beliefs about
effective ways of teaching. Those findings imply that designing
interventions for changes of the beliefs about effective ways of
teaching could be more effective and efficient to lead changes of
technology integration as well as positively influence the beliefs
about knowledge and learning.
It should be further studied what should be done to make
positive changes to teachers’ beliefs to enact technology integration
that promotes student learning. This is critical in the 21st century
when it is expected that “the teacher is a facilitator or coach for
learning rather than a purveyor of expert knowledge” (Deakin
Crick, 2012, p. 175). To fulfill the expectation, teachers’ beliefs
that students can be a source of their own knowledge, for example,
can be a gateway belief to facilitate changing how technology is
integrated into teaching and learning. The role of teachers as
a facilitator is shown to be important in McCombs, Daniels, and
Perry’s (2008) study; that is, students’ perceptions of their
teachers’ “facilitation of thinking and learning” were positively
correlated with their perceptions of their own competence and
interest in school (p. 29). The following section describes what can
be done to help with positive changes in teachers’ beliefs.
6.2. Suggestions for teacher belief change
Researchers have discussed how and to what extent teacher
beliefs can be altered. Pajares (1992) argued that changes in adults’
beliefs are rare and if changes occur, “a gestalt shift” enabled the
changes (p. 325). Kagan (1992) acknowledged that teacher beliefs
do not change by reading about newer beliefs but change “through
“conceptual change” that requires them to critically recognize their
own beliefs as well as to observe, evaluate, and alternative beliefs
(p. 76). Although many agree that beliefs are resistant to change,
they also agree that the difficulty changing teacher beliefs comes
from experience that teachers bring into their beliefs (Kagan, 1992;
Kane et al., 2002; Pajares, 1992). This suggests that we ought to
allow experience that can be built up to challenge teachers’ current
beliefs but ultimately optimize their beliefs for student learning.
The argument that teacher beliefs ought to be considered to
improve teaching practices is consistent among researchers who
study teacher beliefs in relation to technology integration. Changes
in teacher beliefs are recommended as a critical part for facilitating
teacher change in the contexts of technology use (e.g., Ertmer &
Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010). Some attempt to change teacher
 ChanMin Kim et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 29 (2013) 76e85
beliefs by implementing pedagogical interventions such as
problem-based learning, modeling laboratory experience, etc. (e.g.,
Ma, Lai, Williams, & Prejean, 2008; Park & Ertmer, 2008). However,
beliefs studied in such contexts tend to be only technology-focused
without considering fundamental beliefs (e.g., beliefs about
teaching regardless of technology). Moreover, teacher beliefs about
the nature of knowledge and learning have rarely studied (Chan &
Elliott, 2004), especially in the technology integration contexts (c.f.,
Maor & Taylor, 1995), despite the notion that “epistemological
beliefs play a key role in knowledge interpretation and cognitive
monitoring” (Pajares, 1992, p. 325).
Various strategies have been suggested to promote teacher
belief change such as observation, practice, reflection, and social
cultural support (Ertmer, 2005; Kim & Baylor, 2008; Ma et al., 2008;
Shulman, 1987). These strategies can be done through collaboration
among teachers that could also change school culture (Chen, 2008).
In order to facilitate collaboration, both internal (within the same
school) and external (beyond school boundaries) networking is
recommended. Both are necessary for the teachers to share infor-
mation, discuss difficult situations, and guide and encourage the
implementation of newer beliefs. For instance, if a cultural envi-
ronment of teacher collaboration encourages beliefs that not every
lesson should be teacher-centered, it is possible for teachers to let
students create movie clips to present their understandings of
weather changes in a science class. Through the observations of
other teachers’ lessons, teachers can reflect on and perhaps alter
their roles and responsibilities and change their ways of integrating
technology. Besides, a collaborative environment can give teachers
more opportunities to see successful outcomes of innovative uses of
technology and see different beliefs and technology integration
practices in action (Rogers, 1995). A technological environment that
allows dialog, debate, and collective sense-making such as Cohere
(see De Liddo & Buckingham Shum, 2010) can be used to formulate
collective beliefs that a group of teachers are convinced to act on.
The process of formulating collective beliefs should include
“examining existing beliefs,” “filtering prior beliefs,” and “align-
ment and conflict of ideas”; these were found to be critical in
developing a set of beliefs related to classroom teaching in
a study by Mansfield and Volet’s (2010) with Australian preservice
teachers (p. 1404).
It is less likely that a one-time effort to change teachers’ belief
systems transforms teachers radically. Fundamental changes do not
happen quickly or automatically. In order for the sustained growth
and positive changes in teaching practice to occur, incremental
supports should be provided, and the supports should be ones that
satisfy progressive needs for change. First of all, any incremental
step or change should be sensitive to the current needs of teachers.
For that, both formative and summative evaluations should be
conducted (Schiffman, 1995). For example, during the processes of
designing, developing and implementing a teacher collaboration
program, formative evaluations should be conducted. After
implementing a collaboration program, summative evaluation of its
impact and effects should be undertaken. Appropriate reflection
and support should be followed up only with the understanding of
the needs based on the results of the evaluations. In addition, this
process of evaluations can contribute to building the leadership
that connects policy for professional development to the evidence
of what teachers need to know to improve beliefs and improve
teaching practice (Timperley & Alton-Lee, 2008).
Allowing school voice and choice in selecting appropriate
technologies and teacher leaders was a unique aspect of our project
that contributed to its overall success in terms of teacher and
principal support. However, we also realized that such a unique
effort was not as effective as it could have been in cases where
a school lacked strong principal support and advocacy for
83
technology integration. We concluded that a crucial condition for
change is the active involvement of leadership, consistent with
Ellsworth’s (2000) finding. Not only “the cognitive or rational
impact of leadership” but also “the affective influences of leader-
ship” should be emphasized (Ellsworth, 2000, p. 67). The leader-
ship development effort could be made to help principals play the
roles of not only an official supervisor but also a consultant to
handle teachers’ “fundamental choices, mental models and
cultures” (Sparks, 2004, pp.14e15). The leadership of the principal
can be empowered to make impact on teachers’ implementation
of newer beliefs and provide them with scaffolding for them
overcoming their weaknesses and accelerating their strengths
(Ellsworth, 2000).
6.3. Limitations and suggestions for future research
There are several limitations in our present study worth
mentioning. First, the number of participants is small, which limits
the generalizability of the results of this study. The selection of the
22 teachers was based on the goal of examining the second-order
barriers (i.e., teacher beliefs) to technology integration of teachers
who were actually in classrooms for the three-year project. In
addition, the eight schools cannot be considered representative of
the population of all schools or even all poorly performing rural K-8
schools in the United States. Also considering that reliability scores
for some of the measures were lower in this study than in previous
studies, the findings reported earlier should only be considered
provisional and suggestive.
Second, the chance of Type I error increased due to the several
correlations computed. Bonferroni adjustment could have helped
avoiding Type I errors. However, Bonferroni adjustment is also
known to cause the inflation of Type II errors reducing statistical
power. Researchers question if avoiding Type I errors is more
worthy than ignoring the relationship that is possibly real
(Nakagawa, 2004; Perneger, 1998). For this reason, the Bonferroni
adjustment is often used for corrections as studies of group
differences in post hoc or follow-up pairs tests wherein Type I
errors are likely to be more considerable. We decided not to use
Bonferroni adjustments because making findings insignificant via
Bonferroni adjustment would have been a far more problematic
than single studies with possible Type I errors.
Third, it was not examined if there were differences in tech-
nology integration practices among teachers due to individual
differences other than teacher beliefs. There may have been
differences in teachers’ teacher beliefs and technology integration
practices according to their teaching grades, college majors, prior
teaching experiences, age, gender, and so forth. There were not
sufficient numbers to investigate such differences in this study. A
study with many more participants might well investigate this
possibility, which is likely to have implications for teacher training
and constructing supports to change teacher beliefs to be more
educationally effective with the in-depth knowledge of teachers’
dispositions.
Fourth, some researchers argue that teachers do not always act
on their beliefs when it comes to technology integration (Belland,
2009; Chen, 2008; Windshitl, 2002). Even when teachers have
appropriate beliefs, they may still not integrate technology in
effective, efficient, and engaging ways (Spector & Merrill, 2008).
There have been attempts to explain beliefs that are not activated in
technology integration practices with teachers’ habits (Belland,
2009) and volition (Kim & Keller, 2011). Future studies should
take this aspect into considerations to examining of teachers’
actions that are not grounded in beliefs and to understanding the
interplay of beliefs with technology integration.
84 ChanMin Kim et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 29 (2013) 76e85
Last, teacher beliefs were examined only once. If there were
longitudinal data on beliefs and changes in beliefs over time along
with changes in technology integration practices, we might have
obtained a better understanding of the dynamics of belief and prac-
tice when it comes to technology integration. Future research ought
to consider not only multi-time measurements but also the use of
a multi-method approach including the examination of lesson plan-
ning materials, reflection process, focus-group discussions, and so on
to investigate teacher beliefs both quantitatively and qualitatively.
6.4. Conclusion
The process of the adoption and implementation of an innova-
tion requires substantial and sustained teachers’ professional
development, which to some extent may provoke teachers’
previous knowledge resulting in “dramatic, fundamental change of
their understanding, perception, belief, and attitude” (Merriam &
Caffarella, 1999, p. 318). Even though all the participating teachers
have received technologies, professional development workshops,
and technical and pedagogical assistance, the levels of teachers’
technology integration were not the same. The implication of this
fact is aligned with the notion that the adoption of educational
innovations is the result of multiple motives and attitudes
(Huberman & Miles, 1984), and, in our study, it appears that teacher
beliefs, among other factors, influenced their technology integra-
tion practices. Teachers’ behaviors do not change without changes
in beliefs (Kagan, 1992; Kane et al., 2002; Ng et al., 2010; Pajares,
1992). If proper supports are provided to teachers according to
their beliefs, their levels of technology integration could improve.
Nonetheless, concerns about the ethical basis of the argument
for changes in teacher beliefs still remain, as Raths and McAninch
(2003) pointed out that “there is the question of what beliefs to
teach and who decides” (p. ix). However, we believe that ethical
issues involved in changing teacher beliefs are minimal because the
changes proposed herein are to build on a primary belief shared by
nearly all teachers e namely to improve student learning. The
change in beliefs we propose is to help teachers understand that
beliefs other than those they have acted on in the past (e.g., alter-
native beliefs about the speed of learning and the source of
knowledge) might be more effective in achieving something that
they already want to achieve.
Despite the several limitations mentioned earlier, our research
method and framework connecting teacher beliefs and technology
integration can serve to provide future research directions and initial
guidelines to promote technology integration practices through
systematic efforts to promote positive teacher belief change. This
innovative approach to studying the connections between teacher
beliefs and practices can provide a point of departure for researchers
and practitioners globally. The use of technology for teaching and
learning is of interest in many parts of the world and this study
provides one model for such studies. Moreover, fundamental beliefs
about knowledge and knowledge acquisition exist in every teacher
and learner, and these are critically important for understanding
effective technology integration. Our ultimate goal is to contribute to
teacher education in the area of technology integration to improve
pre- and in-service training and professional development programs
that take into account the interrelationships between teachers’
beliefs and their technology integration practices.
Acknowledgements
This study was funded by U.S. Department of Education, Fund
for the Comprehensive School Reform Quality Initiative Program.
The funded project title is Comprehensive School Reform in Rural
K-8 Schools in the Southeast: Integrative Technologies for Quality
Initiatives.
References
Abbitt, J. T. (2011). An investigation of the relationship between self-efficacy beliefs
about technology integration and technological pedagogical content knowledge
(TPACK) among preservice teachers. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher
Education, 27(4), 134e143.
Ajzen, I., & Madden, T. J. (1986). Prediction of goal-directed behavior: attitudes,
intentions, and perceived behavioral control. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 22, 453e474.
Becker, H. J. (2001, April). How are teachers using computers in instruction?. In
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research,
Retrieved July 10, 2010 from. http://www.crito.uci.edu/tlc/findings/
conferences-pdf/how_are_teachers_using.pdf.
Belland, B. R. (2009). Using the theory of habitus to move beyond the study of
barriers to technology integration. Computers & Education, 52(2), 353e364.
Blay, J. A., & Ireson, J. (2009). Pedagogical beliefs, activity choice and structure, and
adultechild interaction in nursery classrooms. Teaching and Teacher Education,
25, 1105e1116.
Brousseau, B. A., & Freeman, D. J. (1988). How do teacher education faculty members
define desirable teacher beliefs? Teaching and Teacher Education, 4(3), 267e273.
Cano, F. (2005). Epistemological beliefs and approaches to learning: their change
through secondary school and their influence on academic performance. British
Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 203e221.
Chan, K.-W., & Elliott, R. G. (2004). Relational analysis of personal epistemology and
conceptions about teaching and learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20,
817e831.
Chen, C. (2008). Why do teachers not practice what they believe regarding tech-
nology integration? Journal of Educational Research, 102(1), 65e75.
Correa, C. A., Perry, M., Sims, L. M., Miller, K. F., & Fang, G. (2008). Connected and
culturally embedded beliefs: Chinese and US teachers talk about how their
students best learn mathematics. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 140e153.
Darrah, M., & Blake, A. (2009). Providing real world experience for high school
teachers and students. In I. Gibson, et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of society for
information technology & teacher education international conference 2009 (pp.
3390e3394). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
De Liddo, A., & Buckingham Shum, S. (2010). Cohere: a prototype for contested
collective intelligence. In ACM computer supported cooperative work (CSCW
2010) e Workshop: Collective intelligence in organizations e Toward a research
agenda, Savannah, Georgia, USA. Eprint. http://oro.open.ac.uk/19554.
Deakin Crick, R. (2012). Deep engagement as a complex system: identity, learning
power and authentic enquiry. In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.),
Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 675e694). New York: Springer.
Dodge, B. (1997). Some thoughts about WebQuests. Retrieved July 30, 2010, from San
Diego State University, Educational Technology Department. Website. http://
webquest.sdsu.edu/about_webquests.html.
Ellsworth, J. B. (2000). Surviving change: A survey of educational change models. NY:
ERIC Clearing House on Information and Technology.
Ernest, P. (1989). The knowledge, beliefs and attitudes of the mathematics teacher:
a model. Journal of Education for Teaching, 15, 13e34.
Ertmer, P. A. (1999). Addressing first- and second-order barriers to change: strat-
egies for technology integration. Educational Technology Research and Develop-
ment, 47(4), 47e61.
Ertmer, P. A. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: the final frontier in our quest for
technology integration? Educational Technology Research and Development,
53(4), 25e39.
Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. (2010). Teacher technology change: how
knowledge, confidence, beliefs, and culture intersect. Journal of Research on
Technology in Education, 42(3), 255e284.
Florian, L., & Rouse, M. (2009). The inclusive practice project in Scotland: teacher
education for inclusive education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25, 594e601.
Fonseca, M. J., Costa, P., Lencastre, L., & Tavares, F. (2012). Disclosing biology
teachers’ beliefs about biotechnology and biotechnology education. Teaching
and Teacher Education, 28, 368e381.
Glass, G. V., & Hopkins, K. D. (2008). Statistical methods in education and psychology
(3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Hall, G. E. (2010). Technology’s Achilles heel: achieving high-quality implementa-
tion. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(3), 231e253.
Hall, G. E., Dirksen, D. J., & George, A. A. (2006). Measuring implementation in schools:
Levels of use. Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.
Harber, K. D., & Jussim, L. (2005). Teacher expectations and self-fulfilling prophe-
cies: knowns and unknowns, resolved and unresolved controversies. Personality
and Social Psychology Review, 9(2), 131e155.
Hew, K., & 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(3), 223e252.
Hohenwarter, J., Hohenwarter, M., & Lavicza, Z. (2009). Introducing dynamic
mathematics software to secondary school teachers: the case of GeoGebra.
Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 28(2), 135e146.
Huberman, A. M., & Miles, M. B. (1984). Innovation up close: How school improvement
works. NY: Plenum Press.
 ChanMin Kim et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 29 (2013) 76e85
Isikoglu, N., Basturk, R., & Karaca, F. (2009). Assessing in-service teachers’ instruc-
tional beliefs about student-centered education: a Turkish perspective. Teaching
and Teacher Education, 25, 350e356.
Jordan, A., Glenn, C., & McGhie-Richmond, D. (2010). The Supporting Effective
Teaching (SET) project: the relationship of inclusive teaching practices to
teachers’ beliefs about disability and ability, and about their roles as teachers.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, 259e266.
Kagan, D. M. (1992). Implications of research on teacher belief. Educational
Psychologist, 27(1), 65e90.
Kane, R., Sandretto, S., & Heath, C. (2002). Telling half the story: a critical review of
research on the teaching beliefs and practices of university academics. Review of
Educational Research, 72(2), 177e228.
Kennewell, S., & Beauchamp, G. (2007). The features of interactive whiteboards and
their influence on learning. Learning, Media and Technology, 32(3), 227e241.
Kim, C., & Baylor, A. L. (2008). A virtual change agent (VCA) to motivate pre-service
teachers to integrate technology. Journal of Educational Technology and Society,
11(2), 309e321.
Kim, C., & Keller, J. M. (2011). Towards technology integration: the impact of
motivational and volitional email messages. Educational Technology Research
and Development, 59(1), 91e111.
Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowl-
edge? Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 60e70.
Lawless, K. A., & Pellegrino, J. W. (2007). Professional development in integrating
technology into teaching and learning: knowns, unknowns, and ways to pursue
better questions and answers. Review of Educational Research, 77(4), 575.
Lee, Y. S., Baik, J., & Charlesworth, R. (2006). Differential effects of kindergarten
teacher’s beliefs about developmentally appropriate practice on their use of
scaffolding following inservice training. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22,
935e945.
Lim, C. (2010). Understanding Singaporean preschool teachers’ beliefs about literacy
development: four different perspectives. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26,
215e224.
Llorens, S., Sllanova, M., & Grau, R. (2002). Training to technological change. Journal
of Research on Technology in Education, 35(2), 206e212.
Ma, Y., Lai, G., Williams, D. C., & Prejean, L. (2008). Teachers’ belief in a technology-
enhanced pedagogical laboratory. Journal of Educational Technology Develop-
ment and Exchange, 1(1), 13e28.
Mansfield, C. F., & Volet, S. E. (2010). Developing beliefs about classroom
motivation: journeys of preservice teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26,
1404e1415.
Maor, D., & Taylor, P. C. (1995). Teacher epistemology and scientific inquiry in
computerized classroom environments. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
32, 839e854.
Mattheoudakis, M. (2007). Tracking changes in pre-service EFL teacher beliefs in
Greece: a longitudinal study. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23, 1272e1288.
McCombs, B. L., Daniels, D. H., & Perry, K. E. (2008). Children’s and teachers’
perceptions of learner-centered practices, and student motivation: implications
for early schooling. The Elementary School Journal, 109(1), 16e35.
McKeown, J. O. (2008). Using annotated concept map assessments as predictors of
performance and understanding of complex problems for teacher technology
integration. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Florida State University, Talla-
hassee, FL.
Meirink, J. A., Meijer, P. C., Verloop, N., & Bergen, T. C. M. (2009). Understanding
teacher learning in secondary education: the relations of teacher activities to
changed beliefs about teaching and learning. Teaching and Teacher Education,
25, 89e100.
Merriam, S. B., & Caffarella, R. S. (1999). Learning in adulthood: A comprehensive
guide (2nd ed.). CA: Jossey-Basee.
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: a new
framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017e1054.
Nakagawa, S. (2004). A farewell to Bonferroni: the problems of low statistical power
and publication bias. Behavioral Ecology, 15(6), 1044e1045. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1093/beheco/arh107.
Nespor, J. (1987). The role of beliefs in the practice of teaching. Journal of Curriculum
Studies, 19(4), 317e328.
Ng, W., Nicholas, H., & Williams, A. (2010). School experience influences on pre-
service teachers’ evolving beliefs about effective teaching. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 26, 278e289.
Niess, M. L. (2005). Preparing teachers to teach science and mathematics with
technology: developing a technology pedagogical content knowledge. Teaching
and Teacher Education, 21, 509e523.
Norris, C., Sullivan, T., & Poirot, J. (2003). No access, no use, no impact: snapshot
surveys of educational technology in K-12. Journal of Research on Technology in
Education, 36(1), 15e27.
Özgün-Koca, S. A., & Şen, A.I. _ (2006). The beliefs and perceptions of pre-service
teachers enrolled in a subject-area dominant teacher education program
about “Effective Education”. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22, 946e960.
Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: cleaning up
a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307e332.
Park, S. H., & Ertmer, P. A. (2008). Impact of problem-based learning (PBL) on
teachers’ beliefs regarding technology use. Journal of Research on Technology in
Education, 40(2), 247e267.
Perneger, T. V. (1998). What’s wrong with Bonferroni adjustments. British Medical
Journal, 316(7139), 1236e1238. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.316.7139.1236.
85
Polly, D., McGee, J. R., & Sullivan, C. (2010). Employing technology-rich mathe-
matical tasks to develop teachers’ technological, pedagogical, and content
knowledge (TPACK). Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching,
29(4), 455e472.
Polly, D., Mims, C., Shepherd, C. E., & Inan, F. (2010). Evidence of impact: trans-
forming teacher education with preparing tomorrow’s teachers to teach with
technology. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, 863e870.
Raths, J., & McAninch, A. C. (2003). Teacher beliefs and classroom performance: The
impact of teacher education. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
Ravitz, J. L., Becker, H. J., & Wong, J. (2000). Constructivist-compatible beliefs and
practices among U.S. teachers. Retrieved July 29, 2012 from. http://www.crito.
uci.edu/TLC/FINDINGS/REPORT4/REPORT4.PDF.
Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations (4th ed.). New York: Free Press.
Sandholtz, J. H., Ringstaff, C., & Dwyer, D. C. (1997). Teaching with technology:
Creating student-centered classrooms. New York: Teachers College Press.
Sanger, M. N., & Osguthorpe, R. D. (2011). Teacher education, preservice teacher
beliefs, and the moral work of teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27,
569e578.
Schiffman, S. (1995). Instructional systems design: five views of the field. In
Gary Anglin (Ed.), Instructional technology: Past, present, and future (pp. 131e
144). Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited.
Schommer, M. (1990). Effects’ of beliefs about the nature of knowledge on
comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(3), 498e504.
Schommer, M. (1998). The role of adults’ beliefs about knowledge in school, work, and
everyday life. In M. C. Smith, & T. Pourchot (Eds.), Adult learning and development:
Perspectives from educational psychology (pp. 127e143). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Schommer-Aikins, M. (2002). An evolving theoretical framework for an episte-
mological belief system. In B. K. Hofer, & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal
epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing.
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Schommer-Aikins, M., Duell, O. K., & Hutter, R. (2005). Epistemological beliefs,
mathematical problem-solving beliefs, and academic performance of middle
school students. The Elementary School Journal, 105(3), 289e304.
Schommer-Aikins, M., & Hutter, R. (2002). Epistemological beliefs and thinking
about everyday controversial issues. The Journal of Psychology, 136(1), 5e20.
Shechtman, Z., & Or, A. (1996). Applying counselling methods to challenge teacher
beliefs with regard to classroom diversity and mainstreaming: an empirical
study. Teaching and Teacher Education, 12(2), 137e147.
Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: foundations of the new reform.
Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1e22.
Sparks, D. (2004). A call to creativity: it’s time for us to take the lead in creating
change. National Staff Development Council, 25(1), 54e61.
Spector, J. M., & Merrill, M. D. (2008). Special issue: effective, efficient and engaging
(E3) learning in the digital age. Distance Education, 29(2).
Stipek, D. J., Givvin, K. B., Salmon, J. M., & MacGyvers, V. L. (2001). Teachers’ beliefs
and practices related to mathematics instruction. Teaching and Teacher Educa-
tion, 17, 213e226.
Thompson, A. D., & Mishra, P. (2007). Breaking news: TPCK becomes TPACK! Journal
of Computing in Teacher Education, 24(2), 38 & 64.
Tillema, H. H. (1994). Training and professional expertise: bridging the gap between
new information and pre-existing beliefs of teachers. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 10(6), 601e615.
Timperley, H., & Alton-Lee, A. (2008). Reframing teacher professional learning: an
alternative policy approach to strengthening valued outcomes for diverse
learners. In G. Kelly, A. Luke, & J. Green (Eds.). Review of research in education,
Vol. 32 (pp. 328e369). Washington, DC: American Educational Research
Association.
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2001). Teacher efficacy: capturing and
elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 783e805.
Underwoord, P. R. (2012). Teacher beliefs and intentions regarding the instruction
of English grammar under national curriculum reforms: a theory of planned
behaviour perspective. Teaching and Teacher Education, . http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.tate.2012.04.004.
Voogt, J., Tilya, F., & van den Akker, J. (2009). Science teacher learning for
MBL-supported student-centered science education in the context of
secondary education in Tanzania. Journal of Science and Education and Technology,
18, 429e428.
Wang, L., Ertmer, P. A., & Newby, T. J. (2004). Increasing preservice teachers’ self-
efficacy beliefs for technology integration. Journal of Research on Technology in
Education, 36(3), 231e252.
Wilkins, J. L. M. (2008). The relationship among elementary teachers’ content
knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, and practices. Journal of Mathematics Teacher
Education, 11(2), 139e164.
Williams, M., Linn, M. C., Ammon, P., & Gearhart, M. (2004). Learning to teach
inquiry science in a technology-based environment: a case study. Journal of
Science Education and Technology, 13(2), 189e206.
Windschitl, M. (2002). Framing constructivism in practice as the negotiation of
dilemmas: an analysis of the conceptual, pedagogical, cultural, and political
challenges facing teachers. Review of Educational Research, 72(2), 131e175.
Zantinga, A., Verloopa, N., & Vermunt, J. D. (2001). Student teachers eliciting
mentors’ practical knowledge and comparing it to their own beliefs. Teaching
and Teacher Education, 17, 725e740.
Zohar, A., Degani, A., & Vaaknin, E. (2001). Teachers’ beliefs about low-achieving
students and higher order thinking. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 469e485.