DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 384 595 SP 036 093

AUTHOR Larner, David K.; Timberlake, Laura M.

TITLE Teachers 'with Limited Computer Knowledge: Variables
Affecting Use and Hints To Increase Use.
PUB DATE May 95
NOTE 65p.
PUB TYPE Reports Research/Technical (143)
Tests /Evaluation Instruments (160)

EDRS PRICE MF01/PC03 Plus Postage.

DESCRIPTORS Classroom Research; *Computer Anxiety; *Computer
Attitudes; *Computer Literacy; *Computer Uses in
Education; Elementary Education; Elementary School
Teachers; *Knowledge Base for Teaching; *Teacher
Competencies; Teaching Methods

ABSTRACT
One of the most relevant issues in classrooms today
is the incorporation of technology, specifically computers, into
classroom instruction. A review of the literature reveals that six of
the most important variables in determining the degree to which
teachers integrate computers into their instruction and planning are
knowledge, anxiety, personal attitudes, professional attitudes,
school support, and school resources/set-up; with knowledge being the
most critical. This study conssted of a survey, with questions
pertaining to these variables, given to 74 elementary school
teachers. Based on their answers to 8 knowledge-based questions, 48
teachers were coded as possessing limited computer knowledge. Of the
five remaining variables, level of anxiety proved to have the
strongest correlation with computer use for these limited knowledge
teachers. The report includes specific suggestions for limited
knowledge teachers to integrate computers into their instruction. The
complete text of the survey is included. (Contains 22 references.)
(Author/ND)

***********************************************************************
Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made
from the original document.
***********************************************************************
 Computer Use of Limited Computer Knowledge Teachers
1

Teachers with Limited Computer Knowledge:

Variables Affecting Use and Hints to Increase Use
David K. Lamer
Laura M. Timberlake
The Curry School of Education
University of Virginia

COMPUTER USE OF LIMITED COMPUTER KNOWLEDGE TEACHERS

11 I; III f'AHTME NI (..)/I F I/I./CATION

f HUI;011TICES INFORMATION
tEfill;; PERMIS';;ION To REPRODUCE THIS
r
1
I ,0,0,1 /Or, roplodtfr Pri MA VENIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED HY
!lire ,)r rm1,1,1/,111,,

)
how Itrron rtl,lrlr 1r,

rir r r1,141$,r,,ro
TO THE E DUCA IONAI HE SOL;RLE
INF ORMATION (.,ENTE P EfliCf

BEST COPYAVAILABLE
 Computer Use of Limited Computer Knowledge Teachers
2
Abstract
One of the most relevant issues in classrooms today is the incorporation
of technology, specifically computers, into classroom instruction. The
literature reveals that six cf the most important variables in determining
the degree to which teachers integrate computers into their instruction
and planning are knowledge, anxiety, personal attitudes, professional
attitudes, school support and school resources/set-up; with knowledge
being the most critical. This study consists of a survey, with questions
pertaining to these variables, given to 78 elementary school teachers.
Based on their answers to 8 knowledge based question, certain
teachers were coded as possessing limited computer knowledge. Of the
five remaining variables, level of anxiety proved to have the strongest
correlation with computer use for these limited knowledge teachers.
 Computer Use of Limited Computer Knowledge Teachers
3
Teachers with Limited Computer Knowledge:
Variables Affecting Use and Hints to Increase Use

PROBLEM STATEMENT

One of the most relevant issues in classrooms today is the

incorporation of technology, specifically computers, into classroom
instruction. In the US, approximately 98% of all preK-12 schools have at
least one computer and nine out of tJn teachers understand that
computers in the classroom is not anothar passing fad. Clear ly,
computers are firmly planted in our schools. However, their
pervasiveness in schools does not necessarily correlate with classroom
use. Research shows that there is a wide variation in the amount
different teachers use computers in their classrooms (Wirthlin Group,
1989).
Beyond this variation in computer usage, there is also a marked
difference in the amount of knowledge about integrating computers in the
classroom possessed by teachers (Becker, 1992). The scholarly
literature written about this subject either discusses the entire range of
knowledge or focuses upon teachers with exemplary knowledge.
Therefore, we have chosen to concentrate on only those teachers with
near average to below average computer knowledge. For the purpose
of our research, we will call these teachers limited knowledge teachers.

4
 Computer Use of Limited Computer Knowledge Teachers
4
By no means do we intend to imply that this categorization reflects upon
their overall teaching ability.
Teachers whose knowledge of computers is superior will be
instrumental in implementing future computer use, but if the use is to be
widespread we must also focus on those teachers whose computer
knowledge is significantly less (Cory, 1991). The purpose of our
research is to study these limited knowledge teachers and offer some
insight into what variables lead them to incorporate technology into their
instruction to the extent that they do. Hopefully, this study will give future
researthers a degree of understanding into this sector of the teaching
population.
By looking only at limited knowledge teachers, we hypothesize
that the following five variables will correlate with the amount of
computer use by these teachers: level of anxiety, personal and
professional attitudes, technical and administrative support, and the set-
up/resources of the technology at the school. Furthermore, we
hypothesize that of these five variables, level of anxiety will have the
strongest and personal attitudes will have the weakest correlation with
computer use. Second, had we not controlled for knowledge, computer
knowledge would have been the strongest correlating variable to
computer use, for the general teaching population.
The remainder of this paper will be divided into four sections. In
the first, we will synthesize the body of literature pertaining to the
 Computer Use of Limited Computer Knowledge Teachers
5
variables identified above and how they influence the amount and the
effectiveness of computer use in the classroom. Next, we will offer an
overview of the design of our specific study. In this section we will
discuss the quantitative study we used to pursue our hypotheses. Third,
we will analyze the results and determine which variables were of the
greatest significance in determining level of computer use among
teachers with limited computer knowledge. Finally, we will highlight our
conclusions and offer suggestions for limited knowledge teachers in
various situations. These hints will allow them to be able to more fully
integrate computer technology into their planning and instruction.
 Computer Use of Limited Computer Knowledge Teachers
6
REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Introduction
Too often, the teachers who do not have a great deal of computer
training or knowledge are nut focused upon when it comes to planning
for the future of instructional technology. Research seems to either look
at all teachers, no matter how much knowledge they possess (Wirth lin
Group, 1989, Davidson & Ritchie, 1994, and Cobbs, 1990), or it
concentrates on those teachers who have exemplary computer
knowledge (Becker, 1992). The four citations listed above are all
surveys that were conducted to assess different aspects of computer use
in the classroom.
Of the four, the most comprehensive survey on this subject was
commissioned by International Business Machines (IBM) and conducted
by the Wirth lin Group. For this, thousands of teachers across the nation
were polled about factors that influenced technology use in their
classrooms, while others were interviewed about their opinions on the
same subject.
Conversely, the surveys conducted by Davidson & Ritchie
(1994) and Cobbs (1990) were more limited in their range. Davidson
and Ritchie investigated the change in teacher attitudes and anxieties in
a single K-5 elementary school in an urban Texas school district over
the course of two years. Cobbs' survey field consisted of the elementary

7
 Computer Use of Limited Computer Knowledge Teachers
7
classrooms of the Atlanta Public School System. He wanted to "measure
second, third and fourth grade teachers' perceptions of computing
practices and potentials in [their schools]" (Cobbs, p. 7-8).
One of the most thorough examinations of the important topic of
effective computer use among teachers was conducted by Becker
(1992). He used survey data collected from personnel in 1,400 U.S.
schools. The respondents to the questionnaire were not selected at
random, but rather were the principals, the school-level computer
coordinator and a sample of teachers in which regular computer users
were disproportionately represented. With this respondent pool, the
results focused on teachers with high computer knowledge.
Through their answers to the surveys, Becker was able to identify
five percent of teachers as exemplary when it came to using the
computer. Exemplary teachers were those who passed at least 51% of
the criteria set to identify "a classroom environment in which computers
were both prominent in the experience of students and employed in
order that students accomplish intellectual growth and not merely
development of isolated skills" (Becker, p. 6). Unlike the others, he was
intereste in finding the differences between the teaching environments
of these exemplary teachers and other computer users.
The findings of these surveys as well as other qualitative and
quantitative research have demonstrated that knowledge, attitudes,
anxiety, set-up/resources and support are critical factors in determining
 Computer Use of Limited Computer Knowledge Teachers
8
the amount that classroom computers are utilized. As was stated earlier,
this research has not focused solely on limited knowledge teachers.
Controlling for knowledge then, we hypothesize that these same
variables will be of great importance among limited knowledge teachers.
We will review the literature pertaining to the importance of each of these
five variables. We will begin with knowledge, which in many ways is the
most important of the five.
Knowledge
As is the case with almost anything, there must be some level of
knowledge before any computer use can occur. On the most basic
level, if a teacher does not know how to turn the computer on, (s)he is
not going to be able to effectively integrate it into his/her classroom!
There are clearly many ways to gain computer knowledge (practice,
training, and studying just to name a few). Research has shown that
training is a highly effective method to increase knowledge. Courses in
computer literacy significantly improve teacher's knowledge about
computers (Madsen & Sebastiani, 1987, Thompson, 1985)
Furthermore, 38% of teachers cited a lack of training as the greatest
obstacle to more effective computer use (Wirth lin Group, 1989).
Additional research has shown that any training can be useful, but the
types of training teachers received is also relevant.
The two most common types of training are preservice and
inservice. The literature clearly states that there are similar ways to

9
 Computer Use of Limited Computer Knowledge Teachers
9
make both types of training more effective. First, hands-on training has
proved to be the most adequate means of increasing knowledge for
teachers (Madsen & Sebastiani, 1987; Thompson, 1985). Second, the
training needs to be relevant to the type of teaching and situations that
the teacher will/does find (Novak & Knowles, 1991; Oliver, 1994). For
example, teachers need "specific curricular skills and classroom
implementation strategies" to maximize computer use in actual situations
(Oliver, p. 87).
The acquisition of knowledge plays a vital role in the increase of
computer use. Since training has been linked so strongly to a rise in
knowledge, it is not surprising to find that training tends to increase use
(Dupagne & Krendl, 1992). Phillips, Nachtigal and Hobbs (1986)
concluded that a significant increase in the number of teachers using
computers in the classroom could be directly attributed to training.
Attitudes
Research has been conducted on teachers' attitudes toward
computers in the classroom (Becker, 1992; Chh & Hortin, 1993; Cobbs,
1990; Davidson & Ritchie, 1994; Delcourt & Kinzie, 1993; Hickey, 1993;
Novak & Knowles, 1991; Piña & Harris, 1993; Wirth lin Group, 1989).
As expected, the more positive the teachers' attitudes toward computers,
both personal and professional, the more likely they are to use
computers to their advantage in the classroom. Unfortunately, although
computers are common, many teachers are still skeptical of the value

1(1
 Computer Use of Limited Computer Knowledge Teachers
10
computers have in education (Chin & Hortin, 1993). "The level of
feelings teachers have toward computer usage range from uncertainty to
hostility, to fear, to euphoria" (Chin & Hortin, p. 84).
On the more positive end of this range, Davidson and Ritchie
(1994) found that an overwhelming percentage of teachers felt that
computer use is of value to students and concluded that positive
attitudes are directly related to the successful integration of computers in
the classroom. In addition, teachers who use or have their own
computers are more likely to show more positive attitudes toward using
computers in the classroom (Bass ler, Almeida & Van Voorst, 1984) and
some concentrated experience with computers is a critical area in
formation of positive attitudes (Delcourt & Kinzie, 1993). One of the
major factors promoting computer use among first year teachers was
their "strong personal beliefs in the importance of developing computer
skills in their students" (Novak & Knowles, p. 49). These findings all lead
to the same conclusion: the better teachers feel about computers the
more likely they are to use them.

Anxiety
Computer anxiety among teachers is another factor that affects the
use of computers in the classroom. The research clearly demonstrates
that teachers who have high levels of anxiety are less likely to integrate
computer technology into their curricula (Barker, 1994; Pine & Harris,

11
 Computer Use of Limited Computer Knowledge Teachers
11

1993; Chin & Hortin, 1993; Savenye, et. al., 1992). Much of the anxiety
stems from teachers who feel they need to be proficient at programming
in order to use computers. Some teachers went so far as to report that
they were "afraid of looking foolish, getting lost or pushing the wrong
button and damaging the computer" (Pifia & Harris, p. 3). While teachers
with less computer experience tend to be less enthusiastic about
integrating computers into their classrooms, one of the more
encouraging findings is that a majority of teachers are becoming more
comfortable with computers and are overcoming their feelings of fear and
anxiety (Dupagne & Krendl, 1992). One way to further this trend toward
reducing computer anxiety among teachers is to insure that all teachers
-e technologically informed (Barker, 1994; Saveyne, 1992).
Support
For the purposes of this study, support will be defined as the
administrative leadership and technical assistance offered at the
individual schools. It is how the administrators, exemplary computer
knowledge teachers, and other support personnel at the school
encourage the rest of the teachers to utilize the equipment they have at
their disposal that is, in essence, support. Turning first to the school
administration, positive Isadership from the principal and/or assistant
principal(s) promotes teachers' professional growth in all areas
(Armstrong & Trueblood, 1985), and specifically computer technology
(Chin & Hortin, 1993). In addition, a principal who defines training as a

1"
 Compute,' Use of Limited Computer Knowledge Teachers
12
encourage the rest of the teachers to utilize the equipment they have at
their disposal that is, in essence, support. Turning first to the school
administration, positive leadership from the principal and/or assistant
principal(s) promotes teachers' professional growth in all areas
(Armstrong & Trueblood, 1985), and specifically computer technology
(Chin & Hortin, 1993). In addition, a principal who defines training as a
top priority will instill in teachers the desire to be committed and
successful (Anderson & Odden, 1986). To put it simply, "principals play
a key role in the implementation of microcomputers in school" (Dupagne
and Krendl p. 422).
Beyond the principal, Weaver (1987) concluded that the school's
computer facilitator or other computer support personnel are a crucial
resource to be utilized. He went on to say that effective support
personnel will make teachers feel comfortable about asking for help and
will possess enough knowledge to provide immediate assistance in
problem solving situations. They need to be knowledgeable and be able
to impart this knowledge to teachers when it is requested.
The overall philosophy of the school also plays an important role.
McMahon (1990) concluded that the general school mentality may be
the most prominent factor in determining the implementation of computers
in schools. For instance, schools which tended to be more progressive
in their instruction and favored discovery learning were more likely to
integrate problem solving software into their curriculum. On the other

13
 Computer Use of Limited Computer Knowledge Teachers
13
increase the use of instructional technology because they search out
opportunity for change and derive great satisfaction from taking risks
(McMahon, 1990). Schools need innovative teachers to help the
technology take hold.
In the Becker (1992) survey, three of the five factors that most
directly correlated with exemplary computer use were in the area of
support. The first was camaraderie among computer users at the school.
This included the number of teachers who use computers, those who
were thought to be expert users and those who started using computers
through system wide coordination. The second such variable was
school support for maximizing the amount of computer time allotted for
purposeful applications (e.g. creating a school newsletter or a student
created multimedia project). The final factor was principals' concern for
equity of access to different categories of students (i.e. sex, ability and
ethnic groups). These findings punctuate the importance of school
support in increasing the the application of technology in the classroom.
Set-up/Resources
At a very basic level, all the positive attitudes, decreases in
anxiety, and support do almost no good if the resources to implement the
technology are not available. An expert computer user without a
computer in his/her classroom is not going to be very effective. It is
crucial for teachers to be able to use the knowledge they possess and
without proper hardware or software this is impossible. "It is essential for

14
 Computer Use of Limited Computer Knowledge Teachers
14
teachers to practice what they have learned" (Chin & Hortin, 1993).
In the Wirth lin (1989) survey, teachers identified the amount of
resources a school had as one of the most importaot variables impacting
use. Resources include money, computers, software, and space. In
fact, 68% of teachers felt that a lack of resources kept them from using
computers more often than they did. Furthermore, a statewide survey of
California public schools in 1989 determined that three of the six major
roadblocks to increasing the use of instructional technology were the
lack of funds, limited or inadequate facilities and lack of equipment (the
other three were a lack of training opportunities, teachers' negative
attitudes and high levels of computer anxiety) (Main & Roberts, 1990).
Finally, the fourth and fifth correlating factors cited by Becker (1992)
related to school set-up and resources. The fourth involved the amount
of resources allocated to staff development and computer coordination,
including spending money on hardware, software and staff development
to support effective computer use. Finally, smaller class size and a
better ratio of students to computers proved to lead to more effective
computer use. Beyond these survey findings there is other research to
support the importance of resources in computer use. Novak and
Knowles (1991), through interviews and observations, concluded that
teachers felt constrained by limited computer equipment when they were
in a classroom with only one computer. Similar results were also found
in other research (Chin & Hortin, 1993; Dupagne & Krendl, 1992).

15
 Computer Use of Limited Computer Knowledge Teachers
15
Summary
As we have attempted to demonstrate through this review of the
literatui.e, five of the most important variables influencing computer use
among teachers are knowledge, attitudes, anxiety, support and set-
up/resources. Accepting this to be fact, we now turn to our study in
which we examine computer use among elementary school teachers.
We plan to identify certain teachers as being limited in their computer
knowledge and we expect to find that the same variables which affect all
teachers will be particularly relevant to these limited knowledge
elementary school teachers.

16
 Computer Use of Limited Computer Knowledge Teachers
16
STUDY DESIGN

Sample
The study was conducted during the spring of 1995 using 74
elementary school teachers. The majority of these teachers work in one
of four public elementary schools (grades K-6), representing two school
districts, located within a 30 mile radius of a large university in central
Virginia. The remainder of the teachers surveyed taught in various
schools which were up to a 75 mile radius from this same university. We
gathered information from no more than 3 teachers from each of these
other schools. The four main schools were not selected at random;
rather, they were schools with which we had working relationships.
These schools serve a relatively diverse population in terms of
socioeconomic and racial backgrounds. Three of the schools are
situated in a more rural setting, while the fourth school is more suburban.
Measures
We created a questionnaire that contained 86 questions
pertaining to attitudes, computer use and school computer set-
up/resources (Appendix A). These questions were based, in part, on
items from a computer attitude survey developed by Davidson and
Ritchie (1994). In 79 of the questions, teachers were asked to agree or
disagree with a statement using a five-pent Likert-type scale. The
remaining seven questions were in a multiple choice format,

1.7
 Computer Use of Limited Computer Knowledge Teachers
17
For purposes of data analysis, we coded the items into seven
categories: knowledge, personal attitudes, professional attitudes,
anxiety/comfort level, school support, school computer set-
up/resources, and usage. The items from each category were
interspersed throughout the questionnaire. We chose these categories
after hypothesizing that they would be the most important variables
affecting the amount limited knowledge teachers integrate computer
technology into academic curricula.
Design
Our study design consists of three layers. In the first, we will
identify the limited knowledge teachers as determined by their responses
to the knowledge questions on our survey. Second, focusing on these
teachers, we will examine the degree of correlation between the amount
of time a teacher uses the computer and the variables identified above
(personal attitudes, professional attitudes, anxiety/comfort level, school
support, and school computer set-up/resources). Third, returning to the
responses of all the teachers, the correlation between knowledge and
use will be determined.
Analysis
Each of the parts of the design call for a different method of
analysis. For determining limited knowledge teachers, we ascertained
each teacher's "knowledge score", based on their answers to the eight
questions in the survey that were coded as knowledge questions (see

lb
 Computer Use of Limited Computer Knowledge Teachers
18
Table 1). Seven of these questions were on the 5 point Likert-type scale
with a 5 indicating the most knowledge and a 1 indicating the least
knowledge. The eighth question was a multiple choice question with five

Table 1
Knowledge Questions

Item Mean SD

1-5. I know enough about computers to 3.43 1.11

integrate them into my instruction.
1-7. I see myself as one of the more 2.78 1.28
knowledgeable computer users in my
school.
1-is. Other school personnel see me as one of 2.55 1.15
the more knowledgeable computer users in
my school.
1-9. I feel comfortable sharing my knowledge 3.14 1.30
about computers with other faculty.
1.10. I feel comfortable sharing my knowledge 3.72 1.03
about computers with my students.
1-33. I have taken courses in instructional 3.39 1.33
technology.
1-34. I have attended in-services that focus on 3.70 1.19
instructional technology.
-7. In the past 4 years, the number of formal 2.84 1.78
hours of computer training I have had is
(total hours not credit hours):
1. Less than 4
2. 4-7
3. 8 -11
4. 12 - 15
5. over 15

otals 25.57 7.21

Scale for all section 1 questions: 1 2 3 4 5

Str, Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Str. Agree
 Computer Use of Limited Computer Knowledge Teachers
19
choices numbered 1 to 5. Again, 5 suggested the most knowledge and 1
suggested the least knowledge.
The highest score on each question was 5 ("strongly agree") and
the lowest was 1 ("strongly disagree"). Therefore, a "perfect knowledge
score" was 40, the lowest possible score was 8 and an average
response of 3 on each item yielded a 24. Our aim was to identify the
teachers who were not exemplary. With this in mind, we determined that
a respondent who's average response to each question was 3.5 or
below (or a total of 28 or below) was not exemplary in their computc r
knowledge, hence we categorized them as having limited knowledge.
The logic for this decision was based upon the fact that an
average score of 3.5 or below would mean that the respondent would
have chosen an equal or greater number of "neutral", "disagree" and
"strongly disagree" answers, than "agree" or "strongly agree".
Basically, to be categorized as iimited knowledge, a respondent would
have had to either disagree or be neutral on at least half of the questions.
In our sample, scores ranged from 40 to 10 with a mean of 25.57 and a
standard deviation of 7.21. 48 of the 74 teachers who were surveyed, or
64.9°A, fit the criteria for being limited knowledge computer users.
To examine the degree of correlation between each of the five
dependent variables and use, five separate Pearson product-moment
correlation tests were conducted. The correlation between each of the
five aforementioned variables to the amount of school related computer
 Computer Use of Limited Computer Knowledge Teachers
20
use was tested and a correlation coefficient, ranging from 1.00 to -1.00,
was determined. Since survey items were worded both positively and
negatively the scales for some of the items needed to be reversed prior
to correlation analysis. Scales for the negatively worded items were
reversed so that a score of 1 was the most negative and a score of 5 was
the most positive. (This was not a concern for the determination of limited
knowledge teachers since all of those questions were worded
positively.)
In the next section of the paper, we will return to our original two
hypotheses. Through analysis of our results, as was described above,
we will show the degree to which these hypotheses were proven to be
true. This analysis will demonstrate which of the five isolated variables
was the most closely correlated to computer use.

21
 Computer Use of Limited Computer Knowledge Teachers
21
ANALYSIS OF RESULTS

Hypothesis 1: By looking only at limited knowledge teachers, we

hypothesize that of the five identified variables, level of anxiety will
have the strongest and personal attitudes will have the weakest
correlation with computer use.
Turning now to these 48 teachers, on whom this part of the
statistical analysis will focus, the knowledge scores ranged from a high
of 28 to a low of 10. The me an was 20.39 and the standard deviation
was 4.80. None of these scores ranged beyond two standard deviations
above the mean and only one score ranged beyond two standard
deviations below the mean. We will now examine the questions that
determined the amount these respondents used the computers at their
disposals.
Nine questions in the survey were coded as use questions (see
table 2). The first seven of these questions went to the integration of
computers into the instruction of different disciplines, the eighth to
integration of computers into curriculum development, and the ninth to
amount of time a typical student used a computer during a given week.
The first eight questions were all scored on a five point Likert-type scale
while the fifth was a multiple choice question with five possible
responses. A score of one was given for the lowest of the responses up
to a score of five for the highest of the responses. Therefore, all nine

IGrI
 Computer Use of Limited Computer Knowledge Teachers
22
Table 2
Use Questions

Item Mean SD

I integrate computers into my:

1. reading instruction 2.90 1.22
2. writing instruction 3.02 1.26
3. science/health instruction 1.98 1.08
4. math instruction 2.94 1.33
5. social studies instruction 2.08 1.09
6. art instruction 1.60 0.92
7. music instruction 1.33 0.63
8. curriculum development (determining 2.23 1.37
and developing the materials I use in my
teaching)

3-5. The amount of time the average 1.19 0.76

student in my class spends on a computer per
week is:
a. 0 1 hours
b. 1 - 2 hours
c. 2 3 hours
d. 3 - 4 hours
e. more than 4 hours

Totals 19.23 5.82

Scale for all section 1 questions: 1 2 3 4 5

Str. Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Str. Agree

questions were scored on a scale from one to five. The highest possible
use score was a 45 and the lowest possible was a 9.
For the limited knowledge teachers, the use scores ranged from a
high 35 of to a low of 9 with a mean of 19.23 and a standard deviation of
5.82. There were three respondents who scored more than two standard
deviations above the mean and no respondents who scored more than
two standard deviations below the mean. The correlations between
 Computer Use of Limited Computer Knowledge Teachers
23
these use scores and the scores of the other five variables for these 48
teachers will now be examined.
Anxiety
Five questions in the survey were coded as anxiety questions
(see Table 3). All five of these questions were on the 5 point Likert-type
scale. Questions 1-12, 1-15 and 1-17 were worded negatively so the
scores for these three questions were reversed prior to totaling of the
anxiety score and correlation analysis. Therefore, the higher a
respondent's score on the anxiety questions, the less anxiety that
teacher showed toward the computer.
Table 3
Anxiety Questions

Item Mean SD

1-2. I feel comfortable using the computers in 3.36 0.92

my classroom.
1-3. I feel comfortable using the other 2.88 1.00
computers in my school.
1-12. I feel tense when people start talking 2.65 0.91
about computers.
2.56 0.82
1-15. I feel intimidated by people who know
something about computers. 1.88 0.76
1-17. I fear that computers may take over
some parts of a job I enjoy.
17.08* 2.79
Totals
" The scores for questions 1-12, 1-15 and 1-17
were reversed prior to determining totals.

Scale for all section 1 questions: 1 2 3 4 5

Str. Disagree Disa ree Neutral A ree Str. A ree

24
 Computer Use of Limited Computer Knowledge Teachers
24
The highest possible score (which would have showed the least
possible anxiety) was 25 and the lowest possible score (which would
have shown the highest possible anxiety) was five. For the teachers
identified as limited knowledge computer users, the anxiety scores
ranged from a high of 24 to a low of 11. The mean score was 16.80 with
a standard deviation of 2.91. One teacher was more than two standard
deviations above the mean and one teacher vias more than two standard
deviations below the mean.
The results of a Pearson product-moment correlation test between
the amount of computer use and the level of non-anxiety gave a result of
r=.333. This correlation coefficient is significant at a confidence level of
.02 where n=48.
Professional Attitudes
Nine questions in the survey were coded as professional attitude
questions (see Table 4). All nine of these questions were on the 5 point
Likert-type scale. Questions 1-11 and 1-14 were worded negatively so
the scores for these questions were reversed prior to totaling of the
professional attitudes score and subsequent correlation analysis.
The highest possible score was 45 and the lowest possible score
was nine. The professional attitudes scores ranged from a high of 36 to a
low of 18 for the limited knowledge computer user teachers. The mean
score was 29.10 with a standard deviation of 3.06. One score was more
than two standard deviations above the mean and one score was more

25
 Computer Use of Limited Computer Knowledge Teachers
25
Table 4
Professional Attitudes

Item Mean SD

1-1. Ilike to teach with computer technology. 3.45 0.77

1-4. I think quality instruction using technology 4.02 0.56
will only enhance my teaching.
1-6. I enjoy learning about new technology. 3.77 0.86
1-11. I wish I could find a way to have my 4.08 1.01
students use computers more than they do
now.
1-13. I enjoy reading about new computer 2.46 1.01
software and hardware.
1-14. I rely on others to inform me about new 3.81 0.94
software.
1-20. I think that using computer technology for 3.75 0.73
instruction will help improve students'
performance.
1-21. When utilizing computers, the teacher 3.88 0.82
becomes guide/facilitator.
1-23. When utilizing computers, the teacher is 3.'75 0.73
further able to individualize instruction.

Totals 29.10* 3.06

" The scores for questions 1-11 and 1-14 were

reversed prior to determining totals.

Scale for all section 1 questions: 1 2 3 4 5

Str. Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Str. Agree

than two standard deviations below the mean.

The results of a Pearson correlation test between the amount of
computer use and the strength of professional attitudes gave a result of
r=.203. This corre:ation coefficient is not significant where n=48.
 Computer Use of Limited Computer Knowledge Teachers
26
Support
Five of the survey questions were identified as being related to
the support offered by the school in the integration of computer
technology (see Table 5). All five of these questions were on the 5 point
Likert-type scale and none of them were worded negatively.
The highest possible score on the school set-up/resources
questions was 25 and the lowest possible score was five. Three of the
respondents left the question 1-29 blank. The other answers of these
three respondents were included for calculations of means and standard
deviations for the other four questions. However, they were neither

Tabie 5
School Support

Item Mean SD

1-27. I know which faculty member is the 4.56 0.80

technology coordinator at my school.
1-28. When I have a question about 4.35 0.86
computers I feel comfortable asking my
school's technology coordinator.
1-29. When I have asked my school's 4.42 0.84
technology coordinator a question,
(s)he has been helpful.
1-35. My school has helpful in-services for 3.31 1.07
integrating computers into the
curriculum.
1-36. The principal at my school makes good 4.25 0.79
use of the computer(s) at his/her
disposal.

Totals 21.18 2.86

Scale for all section 1 questions: 1 2 3 4 5

Str. Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Str, Agree
 Computer Use of Limited Computer Knowledge Teachers
27
included in the determination of the group mean and standard deviation
nor the correlation coefficient for this section.
This set of scores ranged from of 25 to 13. The mean was 21.18
and the standard deviation was 2.86. No scores were more than two
standard deviations above the mean and only one score was more than
two standard deviations below the mean.
The results of a Pearson correlation test between the amount of
computer use and the degree of support offered by the school gave a
result of r=.024. This correlation coefficient is not significant with a
sample size of 45.
Personal Attitudes
Five of the survey questions were identified as personal attitude
questions (see Table 6). All five of these questions were on the 5 point
Likert-type scale. Questions 1-16, 1-19 and 1-24 were worded
negatively. Therefore, the respondents' scores for these questions were
reversed prior to totaling of the overall personal attitudes score and
subsequent correlation analysis.
The highest possible score was 25 and the lowest possible score
was five. The scores on the personal attitudes section ranged from a
high of 25 to a low of 13. The mean was 18.88 and the standard
deviation was 2.12. One score was more than two standard deviations
above the mean while two scores were more than two standard
deviations below the mean.

28
 Computer Use of Limited Computer Knowledge Teachers
28

Table 6
Personal Attitudes

Item Mean SD

1-16. I think computers are dehumanizing. 2.23 0.93

1-18. I think students are more motivated when 3.85 0.71
they can learn using computer technology.
1-19. I think instruction by computer technology 1.83 0.69
is just another fad.
1-22. When utilizing computers, the teacher's role 3.15 0.87
becomes more complex.
1-24. When utilizing computers, the teacher's role 2.06 0.70
is diminished.

Totals 18.88* 2.12

* The scores for questions 1-16,1-19 and 1-24

were reversed prior to determining totals.

Scale for all section 1 questions: 1 2 3 4 5

Str. Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Str. Agree

The results of a Pearson correlation test between the amount of

computer use and the strength of personal attitudes gave a result of
r=.097. This correlation coefficient is not significant with a sample size of
48.
School Set-up/Resources
Six questions on the survey were identified as being related to the
computer set-up and/or resources at the individual schools. Four of
those questions were on a 5 point scale (See Table 7). Question 1-32
was worded negatively and the respondents' scores for this question
were reversed prior to determining the totals and subsequent correlation

29
 Computer Use of Limited Computer Knowledge Teachers
29
Table 7
School Set-up/Resources

Item Mean SD

1-25. The number of students in my class affects 3.90 1.19

my ability to integrate computers in the
curriculum.
1-30. ! feel that all teachers have relatively similar 3.60 1.07
access to computers in my school.
1-31. In terms of instructional technology, I feel 3.45 1.27
that my school is relatively well-equipped in
relation to others in the area.
1-32. The computer equipment at my school is 2.69 1.21
outdated.

Totals 14.19* 3.30

* The scores for question 1-32 was reversed prior

to oetermining totals.

Scale for all section 1 questions: 1 2 3 4 5

Str. Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Str. Agree

analysis. The other two questions were in a multiple choicq format (See
Table 8) and a separate analysis was carried out for them.
For the Likert-type questions, the highest possible score was 20,
while the lowest possible score was four. The highest score on this
section was a 20 while the lowest was an 8. The mean was 14.19 and
the standard deviation was 3.30. No scores were either two standard
deviati1/4 ns above or below the mean.
The results of a Pearson correlation test between the amount of

30
 Computer Use of Limited Computer Knowledge Teachers
30
Table 8
Other School Set-up/Resources questions

3-2. In my classroom, I have (Circle all that apply):

a. Apple II series
b. Macintosh
c. IBM compatible
d. No computers in my classroom.

3-6. The number of students in my classroom is:

a. less than 15
b. 15 - 18
c. 19 - 22
d. 23 - 26
e. more than 26

computer use and the computer set-up/resources at the school gave a

result of r=.105. This correlation coefficient is not significant with a
sample size of 48.
Examining the two multiple choice questions, question 3-2 gave
information about the type of computers the teachers had in their
classrooms. Of the 48 limited knowledge computer users, 44 (92%) had
at least one computer in their classroom while the other four had no
classroom computer but had access to a computer laboratory. 23 or the
48 (48%) had a Macintosh computer while the other 25 (52%) had either
an IBM or compatible, an apple II series computer, or no computer at all.
As Table 9 illustrates, the mean use score for the teachers who
had Macintoshes in their classrooms was 20.52 and the standard
deviation was 7.05 while the mean for teachers who had no Macintosh
was 18.04 and the standard deviation was 4.21. An independent ttest

31
 Computer Use of Limited Computer Knowledge Teachers
31

Table 9

Mean Use Scores (Macintosh v No Macintosh)

30.00 IMMacintosh in Classroom n = 23

M El No Macintosh in Classroom n = 25
e
a 20.00
n

10.00
0

0.00
t =1.61

was conducted to determine if there was a statistical significance

between these two means. The result was t=1.61 which was not
statistically significant with 22 degrees of freedom.
The responses to the second multiple choice question gave
information regarding class sizes. 15 of the 48 limited knowledge
teachers (31%) reported that their classes had 18 or fewer students. The
other 33 (69%) had classes containing 19 or more students. The mean
use score for the limited knowledge teachers with 18 or fewer students
was 18.94 with a standard deviation of 6.91. The mean use score for
teachers with 19 or more students was 19.38 and the standard deviation
was 5.31 (Table 10). An independent t test gave a result of t=0.79.
Once again, this result is not statistically significant with 14 degrees of

3
 Computer Use of Limited Computer Knowledge Teachers
32
Table 10

Mean Use Scores (18 and under v. 19 and Over Students)

20.00 Teachers with 18 or fewer students n=15

18.94 19.38
M
II Teachers with 19 or more students n=33
e
a
n

10.00
S

0.00
t=0.79

freedom.
Table 11 shows a summary of the correlation coefficients for each
of the five variables when compared to amount of computer use. As can

Table 11
Summary of Pearson Correlation Coefficients

Variable Correlation with use

anxiety .333*
professional .203
support .024
personal .097
set-up/resources .105

* Significant at .02

33
 Computer Use of Limited Computer Knowledge Teachers
33
be seen in the table, the first part of this hypothesis was correct. Anxiety
did show the strongest correlation with use among the limited knowledge
teachers. However, the second part of this hypothesis was incorrect,
school support, not personal attitudes as we had hypothesized, had the
weakest correlation with classroom computer use.
Hypothesis 2: Had it not been controlled, computer knowledge
would have been the strongest correlating variable to computer
use.
To test this final hypothesis, the degree of correlation between
knowledge and use for all 74 teachers surveyed had to be determined.
Before reporting these findings, a few notes of comparison on the
differences between the use scores for all the teachers and just the
limited knowledge teachers. The mean use score for all teachers was
21.24 with a standard deviation of 6.62, while the mean for the limited
knowledge was 19.23 and the standard deviation was 5.82. Clearly the
26 non-limited knowledge teachers boosted this mean. To see if, in fact,
there was a strong correlation between knowledge and use, a Pearson
coefficient was determined. This was r=.471. This correlation coefficient
is significant at a confidence level of .001. Furthermore, it is a stronger
correlation than any other found, proving this hypothesis correct.
To summarize the analysis of results our first hypothesis that we
would be able to identify certain teachers as possessing limited
computer knowledge proved to be correct. Our second hypothesis,

34
 Computer Use of Limited Computer Knowledge Teachers
34
anxiety would have the strongest correlation and personal attitudes
would have the weakest correlation with computer use was only partially
correct. Anxiety did have the strongest correlation, but school support
and not personal attitudes was the weakest. Finally, our third hypothesis
was true; had knowledge not been controlled, it would have shown the
strongest correlation with conputer use of all variables identified.

35
 Computer Use of Limited Computer Knowledge Teachers
35
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The purpose of this study was to identify teachers with limited

computer knowledge and offer some insight into what variables lead
them to incorporate technology into their instruction to the extent that
they do. To reach this goal, we surveyed 74 elementary school
teachers about their feelings toward, and knowledge and use of the
computers in their schools. From our review of relevant literature we
identified six variables that have been shown to influence computer use
among teachers. These were knowledge, anxiety, professional
attitudes, school support, personal attitudes, and set-up/resources. We
developed two hypotheses. First, after identifying certain teachers as
having limited computer knowledge, anxiety would have the strongest
and personal attitudes would have the weakest correlation with
computer use of the five identified variables. Sacond, had we not
controlled for knowledge, it would have had a stronger correlation with
use than any of the of the variables.
Since most of the results stem from our definition of limited
knowledge teachers, it is logical to begin the discussion at that point.
There is no question that the choice of a cut off score for determining
limited knowledge was somewhat arbitrary. However, we neither
encountered nor were able to devise a set formula to aid us with this
decision. It may be argued that a teacher who scored a 28 on the

3 f;
 Computer Use of Limited Computer Knowledge Teachers
36
knowledge section of the survey is not really a limited knowledge
computer user, and in many areas of the country this might be the case.
We believe the fact that this survey was conducted entirely within
a relatively small radius of a large university which offers technical
support both in terms of personnel and hardware to local schools is
crucial. In terms of computer technology, this survey was not conducted
in an area which contains an accurate representation of the average
American school. Therefore, the limited knowledge teacher in this area
may not be the same as elsewhere. This does not detract from the
degree of arbitrariness, but we believe it does justify the level at which
the standard was placed.
Focusing now on the first hypothesis, the strength of the
correlation analyses, there were surprising and interesting findings.
One of the surprising findings was that four of the five variables; personal
attitudes, professional attitudes, school set-up/ resources, and school
support, showed very weak correlations to computer use. We believe
there are two important reasons for this.
First, the sample we used was relatively small and homogeneous.
Since a large majority of the teachers taught at one of four schools, the
philosophies of these schools may have dominated the results. In fact,
three of these schools have shown a strong commitment to increasing
technology use. If our sample had included a larger percentage of
teachers from other schools, these four would have not had such a

37
 Computer Use of Limited Computer Knowledge Teachers
37
strong impact on the results.
A second, and very positive, reason for the low correlations was
the general strength of support, resources and attitudes. For example,
the mean score on the question "When I have asked the technology
coordinator at my school a question, (s)he has been helpful" was 4.42
and all the schools from which we received responses had a technology
coordinator. Furthermore, all but four of the limited knowledge teachers
had computers in their classrooms and these four had access to a
computer lab. In the schools sampled, the days'of no access to the
technology are in the past. Finally, the scores on the questions "I think
quality instruction using technology will only enhance my teaching."
and "I wish I could find a way to have my students use computers more
than they do now" were both between 4 and 4.15. Clearly there is a
strong desire among these teachers to increase use of computers as a
teaching tool. As was stated earlier, this is in large part due to the
support and the resources of the university.
After analyzing these results, it is not entirely surprising that we
were incorrect in part of our first hypothesis. Of all the variables we
predicted that personal attitudes would have the weakest correlation
with use. However, our analysis showed that school support earned this
distinction. One reason for this was that of all the variables that had
correlations which were not statistically significant, personal attitudes
was the one that showed the least positive results. For example the

3S
 Computer Use of Limited Computer Knowledge Teachers
38
mean score for the question "I think computers are dehumanizing" was
2.23. This is not extremely disappointing, but it is only between
"disagree" and "neutral". Fu! thermore, the mean score for the question
"I think students are more motivated when they can learn using computer
technology" was only 3.85. This was not as strong as many of the
responses on the set-/ Op, support, and professional attitudes questions.
The results on the two multiple choice set-up/ resources
questions also offered surprisingly insignificant results. For the answers
to the first of these two questions, we divided the respondents into two
groups, those with Macintoshes in their classrooms and those without
Macintoshes in their classroom. We chose this division because of our
observations when we were in the elementary schools. Of the four
schools that were highly represented, two had a majority of equipment
purchases within the previous two years while the other two had a
majority of older equipment. Both the schools with the newer equipment
had chosen Macintoshes, while neither of the two schools with the older
computers had a majority of Macs. When questioned as to why they had
chosen to introduce Macs as the new computers, the principals
explained that they believed that Macintoshes were most compatible to
classroom use.
With this in mind, we decided to investigate whether the limited
knowledge teachers surveyed who had Macs were more likely to use
the computers in their classrooms than those without a Mac. There was

39
 Computer Use of Limited Computer Knowledge Teachers
39
a slight difference, about 2.5 points, in the mean use scores of the two
groups. However, it was not statistically significant. The teachers with
the Macs used their computers more, but not very much more. This was
a result we had not expected. We had received comments from the
teachers with the new computers about how they felt better able to
incorporate computers into their teaching now that they had this new
equipment. Whereas this might be the case, it did not translate into a
significant difference over the other group of teachers.
The answers to the second multiple choice question were also
divided into two groups, classes with 18 or fewer students and classes
with 19 or greater students. The reason for this placement of the break
was twofold. First, we felt this was the most appropriate under the
circumstances. Due to the wording of the question, our realistic options
were either to place the division at 18 or 22 students. We chose 18
because we wanted to focus on whether or not a small class size helps
limited knowledge teachers integrate cociputer technology. Since 22 of
the 48 limited knowledge teachers, 46%, placed their class in the 19 to
22 student range, we hypothesized that this was the range of the
average size classroom for the teachers surveyed. Therefore, to see if a
small class size helped these teachers integrate computers, we placed
the division in between choices b and c, 18 or less and 19 or greater
students. Looking back on our selection of possible responses for this
question, we might have been better served if, instead of having choices

I (1
 Computer Use of Limited Computer Knowledge Teachers
40
end at 14, 18, 22 and 26, we had divided it such that one choice would
have ended at 20. A break at 20 would most likely have given us more
information about the 46% of teachers who had between 19 and 22
students. The second reason was a division placed there gave us two
groups with the most even numbers.
The results for this question were completely unexpected. Not
only did the teachers with smaller classes not use the computer
significantly more than those teachers with larger classes, they used it
less. By a slim margin, a difference in means of just below .5, the
teachers with the larger classes used their computers more often. We
believe that the results of this as well as the other multiple choice
question fit with our findings on the Likert-type set-up/resources
questions. With the limited knowledge teachers surveyed, it was not an
important variable in determining computer use.
One of the only expected results was the statistically significant
correlation between anxiety and use. With an r score of .333, anxiety
proved to be the only variable tested that had a significant correlation
with computer use. The teachers who felt some combination of being
uncomfortable using computers at school, tense when computer were
discussed, intimidated by high-knowledge computer users and worried
that the technology may eventually take away part of their job, were less
willing and/or able to use the computers at their disposal than teachers
who did not share these feelings.

41
 Computer Use of Limited Computer Knowledge Teachers
41
More than anything else, a lack of computer anxiety proved to be
the strongest predictor of computer use among limited knowledge
teachers. However, it is extremely important to point out that correlation
does not mean causality. Just because a lack of anxiety had a
statistically significant correlation with computer use, it does not
necessarily follow that a lack of anxiety causes an increase in computer
use. There are a myriad of other uncontrolled variables that could have
influenced these results.
Finally, in the second hypothesis we stated that had we not
controlled for knowledge, it would have had the strongest correlation
with computer use. Our analysis of knowledge scores for all
respondents demonstrated that this was the case. Table 12 shows the
distribution of knowledge versus use scores for all respondents on an X-
Y scatter plot and Table 13 shows the distribution of anxiety versus use
scores for limited knowledge respondents on an X-Y scatter plot. A
cursory glance at these two scatter plots clearly shows the relative
strength of knowledge in determining use. While anxiety was the
strongest correlator to use for limited knowledge teachers, it was not
nearly as direct as the correlation of knowledge to use for all teachers.
With a sample size of 74 , the correlation coefficient of r=.471 was
significant to a confidence level of .001. This r is almost .15 larger than
the correlation for anxiety and it is even more powerful due to the larger
sample size.

42
 Computer Use of Limited Computer Knowledge Teachers
42

Table 12

Scatter Plot of Knowledge v. Use for All Respondents I

40
U
4,
s 30 **
e

S 20
c
"4
.4.$
: etit4
No .
41 ofr

0
10 4
e
0
0 10 20 30 40
Knowledge Score

Table 13

IScatter Plot of Anxiety v. Use for Limited Knowledge Respondents I

35

30
U
s 25
20
*4*
A_
V.
44
c 15 Sts
r 10
e
5

0
0 10 20 30
Anxiety Score

43
 Computer Use of Limited Computer Knowledge Teachers
43
This study was not without limitations that need to be discussed.
First, some of the questions were written such that there was unintended
room for interpretation. For example, question 3-7 asked "in the past 4
years, the number of formal hours of computer training I have had is (total
hours not credit hours)" a number of respondents underlined the term
"formal hours" and put a question mark next to it. A choice of a different
term or more explanation might have cleared up their confusion about
this term. Furthermore, question 3-1 asked the respondents to identify
the number of computers in their classroom and whether or not they had
access to a computer lab. The definition of a computer lab was
confusing 1,J some respondents. This point is made clear by the fact that
of teachers from the same school with access to the same equipment
some responded they had a lab while others did not. A clearer definition
of what constitutes a lab would have helped in this example. When
questions are intended to be answered with facts, leaving room for the
respondent to interpret what the question is asking is not advisable.
A second limitation of our study was the number of variables for
which we did not account. More demographic data about each
respondent, such as their age, grade they taught and their access to
computers outside of school are three examples of variables that might
have had an impact on the computers use of limited knowledge teachers.
A final important limitation of this study was the narrow range from
which the sample originated. As was stated earlier, in terms of access to

44
 Computer Use of Limited Computer Knowledge Teachers
44
and support for computer technology, the sample population is not
typical. Furthermore, a large majority of teachers (92%) taught at one
of four schools which may have skewed the results toward unaccounted
for variables that are unique to one or more of these schools.
Clearly, future research in the area of computer use by limited
knowledge teachers is necessary. One aspect that this research should
include is a wider range of schools from a more diverse area. Clearly,
generalizations made about the results of a survey encompassing a
larger and more heterogeneous sample would be useful.
The fact that anxiety had the largest impact on determining the
computer use of the limited knowledge teachers in this survey has its
own implications. Future research needs to be conducted on ways to
decrease computer anxiety among the limited knowl, ige population.
More than offering better support. putting more money into resources
and trying to change personal and professional attitudes, the results of
this study point out that lowering computer anxiety must be a priority.
Teachers who are afraid of touching the computer for fear they will break
it are not likely to make progress until this fear is overcome.
A final area which we did not examine is a comparison between
how limited knowledge teachers and non-limited knowledge teachers
use the technology available to them. As the software available
increases and improves, just using computers in the classroom is
becoming less important and the way it is being used is becoming more

45
 Computer Use of Limited Computer Knowledge Teachers
45
important. Application programs that are no more than computerized
worksheets offer fewer opportunities for students to partake in higher
level thinking than do learner based tools that require the student to
create. Future researchers may want to investigate the ways limited
knowledge teachers incorporate computers. Beyond just increasing
use, increasing creative use may also be an issue.

Hints
Since we have found that teachers' anxiety is the most important
variable affecting the degree to which limited knowledge teachers
integrate computers into their instruction, we would like to provide those
teachers with high anxiety with some useful ways to use the computer
that are easy to do. To begin, there are some tips regarding computers
in general that can be a starting point for the limited knowledge teacher.
The best way to begin using the computer is to practice, and
explore what different keys and programs can do. It is hard to "break the
computer." Pushing the wrong button will do nothing to harm the
computer. Computers have made great advances in recent years, and
are very hard to break. Another good way to begin using the computer
is to ask questions of knowledgeable staff at school. Often, it only takes
a few questions to get one started in the right direction.
Once the decision is made to sit down at the computer for some
practice, a teacher who has limited knowledge should remember to start

46
 Computer Use of Limited Computer Knowledge Teachers
46
small. Just feeling competent in one area on the computer is a good
start. A good way to begin would be to focus on one curriculum area
and explore different ways to integrate the computer into instruction for
that area. After one feels comfortable with that area, then it is time to
move on to another area, and practice more. Teachers must remember
that the computer is a great motivational tool for most students and it
would be a shame to have computers available and then not use them.
With basic word processing and graphics software, teachers with
limited computer knowledge and their students can successfully utilize
computers. We hope these simple activities will decrease some of the
anxiety that hinders teachers from using computers.
Teacher Applications
The most basic use of the computer for a teacher is the word
processing program. Teachers can begin by writing letters to parents on
the computer. Teachers can also use word processing programs to
create schedules and report cards, or create their own worksheets and
tests. Graphics programs can be used to create banners for the
classroom, decorative certificates for students, or calendars.
Spreadsheet software allows a teacher to organize information about
his/her students in a way that is meaningful for different purposes.
Student Applications
Just as there are teacher applications for computers that do not
require a lot of knowledge on the part of teachers, there are also many

47
 Computer Use of Limited Computer Knowledge Teachers
47
student applications that do not inolve a great amount of computer
knowledge on the part of the teacher. Following are some of these
activities.
Word Processing
Word processing programs can be a wonderful tool for integrating
computers into language arts instruction. Whether there is only one
computer in the classroom, or a lab full of computers, teachers can have
their student authors type their stories on the computer. If there is only
one computer, time needs to be scheduled for each child to use the
computer, or for pairs or groups of students to write a story together. If
time is a problem, students could dictate to a an instructional aide or a
parent volunteer. With a lab, obviously, students can each work on their
own story. If students are able to do their drafts on the computer
(probably only possible in a lab situation), revision seems much less
threatening and will be a lot less work, since the whole piece will not
have to be rewritten.
Students could create their own picture books by deciding how
much text to put on each page, and then illustrate their stories after they
are printed. An attractive cover and title page can also be created with
a basic word processing program. Students should be encouraged to
make use of the spell checkers in most word processing programs.
Another word processing activity, and one that works particularly
well in a classroom with only one computer, is to write mystery pen pal

48
 Computer Use of Limited Computer Knowledge Teachers
48
letters. Each student should be given a mystery pen pal (this can be
done by pulling names out of a hat). Then each child should have a time
scheduled when (s)he can write a personal message to the mystery pen
pal. The message should be saved on the computer's hard drive using
the pen pal's name as the file name. After all the messages have been
written, each student should be given a chance to bring up the file under
his/her name to read and answer the message. After everyone has read
and responded to their own personal message, they should then have a
time scheduled when they can write a new message to their mystery pen
pal. Each child is actually corresponding with two classmates. To help
children come up with ideas for their messages, topics or themes can be
designated by the teacher that relate to topics being studied in class.
This project can last as long as it holds the students' interest. It can also
be done throughout the year with different subgroups of the class
working on the project at a time (Platt, 1993).
Desktop Publishing
With desktop publishing software, more creative pieces can be
produced than with a plain word processing program. With a desktop
publishing program, students can combine art and writing, and can use
a non-traditional format. For example, newsletters for a classroom can
be created. These can contain columns and artwork done by the
students on the computer.
Graphics

49
 Computer Use of Limited Computer Knowledge Teachers
49
Graphics programs further increase the capabilities of the
computer. Computer-originated artwork can be created to enhance a
story or stand on its own. Many of these programs have pictures or
stamps already made from which the students can choose, or the
students can draw their own pictures using the tools of the program.
Virtually all areas of the curriculum can benefit from a graphics program.
Again, for language arts, picture books can be created using a
graphics program, so that students would not illustrate their stories by
hand. The graphics program would also be a good tool for making an
alphabet book for younger students. With one computer in the
classroom, each student could be assigned a letter, and then they could
create a picture to correspond with that letter.
For math, students could create stamp books of word problems.
Each student could write their own word problem. They would then type
that problem on the computer and illustrate it using the various stamps
the program offers. Again, all the problems could be put together in a
book format for each student to use. Another math activity involves
creating geometric robots, in which students have to use various
geometric shapes to create a robot. Once students know the shapes
they must include on their robot, they can find different ways to use the
shapes to create their own individual robot.
Other Programs
Various other programs exist that require a little knowledge to use,

50
 Computer Use of Limited Computer Knowledge Teachers
50
but can be easy once the basics are known. With a database, students
can categorize information about almost any subject, from classmates'
favorites to state facts. With a spreadsheet program, students can create
graphs for any information they have collected, integrating other
subjects with math.
Conclusion
The incorporation of technology, specifically computers, into
classroom use is one of the most relevant issues facing schools today.
The literature suggests that six of the most important variables in
determining the degree to which teachers integrate computers into their
teaching are knowledge, anxiety, personal attitudes, professional
attitudes, school support and school resources/set-up; with knowledge
being the most critical. Bearing this in mind, we focused on teachers
with limited computer knowledge and sought to determine the relative
strength of the correlations of the other five variables with use. Of the
five, only anxiety proved to be statistically significant. Two major
reasons for this were the general strength of the other four variables and
the relative homogeneity of the sample. Furthermore, when all the
teachers were examined, the correlation between knowledge and use
was significantly greater than it was between anxiety and use for the
limited knowledge teachers.
Since anxiety was found to be the strongest correlating variable
for limited knowledge teachers, future research should concentrate on

51
 Computer Use of Limited Computer Knowledge Teachers
51
methods to decrease computer anxiety for this population. Another
possible direction for future research is the examination of the ways in
which limited knowledge teachers use the available technology in
comparison to non-limited knowledge teachers.
Computer Use of Limited Computer Knowledge Teachers
52

Appendix A
 Computer Use of Limited Computer Knowledge Teachers
53
FOR ALL QUESTIONS CIRCLE THE MOST
APPROPRIATE ANSWER
1 2 3 4 5

Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly

Disagree Agree

Attitudes
1. I like to teach with computer technology. 1 2 3 4 5

2. I feel comfortable using the computers in my 1 2 3 4 5

classroom.

3. I feel comfortable using the other computers 1 2 3 4 5

in my school.

4. I think quality instruction using technology 1 2 3 4 5

will only enhance my teaching.

5. I know enough about computers to integrate 1 2 3 4 5

them into my instruction.

6. I enjoy learning about new technologies. 1 2 3 4 5

7. I see myself as one of the more 1 2 3 4 5

knowledgeable computer users in my
school.

8. Other school personnel see me as one of 1 2 3 4 5

the more knowledgeable computer users in
my school.

9. I feel comfortable sharing my knowledge 1 2 3 4 5

about computers with other faculty.

10. I feel comfortable sharing my knowledge 1 2 3 4 5

about computers with my students.

4
 Computer Use of Limited Computer Knowledge Teachers
54

1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
Disagree Agree
11. I wish I could find a way to have my students 1 2 3 4 5
use computers more than they do now.

12. I feel tense when people start talking about 1 2 3 4 5

computers.

13. I enjoy reading about new computer 1 2 3 4 5

software and hardware.

14. I rely on others to inform me about new 1 2 3 4 5

software.

15. I feel intimidated by people who know 1 2 3 4 5

something about computers.

16. I think computers are dehumanizing. 1 2 3 4 5

17. I fear that computers may take over some 1 2 3 4 5

parts of a job I enjoy.

18. I think students are more motivated when 1 2 3 4 5

they can learn using computer technology.

19. I think instruction by computer technology is 1 2 3 4 5

just another fad.

20. I think that using computer technology for 1 2 3 4 5

instruction will help improve students'
performance.

21. When utilizing computers the teacher 1 2 3 4 5

becomes guide/facilitator.

22. When utilizing computers, the teacher's role 1 2 3 4 5

becomes more complex.

55
 Computer Use of Limited Computer Knowledge Teachers
55
1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
Disagree Agrer
1111111111111111

23. When utilizing computers, the teacher is 1 2 3 4 5

able to further individualize instruction.

24. When utilizing computers, the teacher's role 1 2 3 4 5

is diminished.

25. The number of students in my class affects 1 2 3 4 5

my ability to integrate computers in the
curriculum.

26. I am the technology coordinator at my 1 2 3 4 5

school.

27. I know which faculty member is the 1 2 3 4 5

technology coordinator at my school.

28. When I have a question about computers I 1 2 3 4 5

feel comfortable asking my school's
technology coordinator.

29. When I have asked my school's technology 1 2 3 4 5

coordinator a question, (s)he has been
helpful (Please leave question blank if this
does not apply to you).

30. I feel that all teachers have relatively similar 1 2 3 4 5

access to computers in my school.

31. In terms of instructional technology, I feel 1 2 3 4 5

that my school is relatively well-equipped in
relation to others in the area.

32. The computer equipment at my school is 1 2 3 4 5

outdated.

56
 Computer Use of Limited Computer Knowledge Teachers
56

1 2 3 4 5

Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly

Disagree Agree

33. I have taken courses in instructional 1 2 3 4 5

technology.

34. I have attended in-services that focus on 1 2 3 4 5

instructional technology.

35. My school has helpful in-services for 1 2 3 4 5

integrating computers into the curriculum.

36. The principal at my school makes good use 1 2 3 4 5

of the computer(s) at his/her disposal.

1 2 3 4 5

Never Infrequently Sometimes Often Always

(1 or 2 times (2 or 3 times (Usually when I (Whenever I
a year) a semester) have access have access
to technology) to technology)

Computer Use
I integrate computers into my:
1. reading instruction 1 2 3 4 5
2. writing instruction 1 2 3 4 5
3. science/health instruction 1 2 3 4 5
4. math instruction 1 2 3 4 5
5. social studies instruction 1 2 3 4 5
6. art instruction 1 2 3 4 5
7. music instruction 1 2 3 4 5
8. curriculum development (determining and 1 2 3 4 5
developing the materials I use)

57
 Computer Use of Limited Computer Knowledge Teachers
57

1 2 3 4 5
Never Infrequently Sometimes Often Always
(1 or 2 times (2 or 3 times (Usually when I (Whenever I
a year) a semester) have access have access
to technology) to technology)

I utilize the following programs for classroom

use:

Macintosh:
1. Claris Works 1 2 3 4 5
2. Microsoft Word 1 2 3 4 5
3. The Writing Center 1 2 3 4 5
4. Other word processing/publishing program 1 2 3 4 5
5. HyperCard 1 2 3 4 5
6. KidPix 1 2 3 4 5
7. KidWorks 1 2 3 4 5
8. Super Paint 1 2 3 4 5
9. Other drawing/painting program 1 2 3 4 5
10. Micro Worlds 1 2 3 4 5
11. LOGO 1 2 3 4 5
12. Other mathematical applications 1 2 3 4 5
13. Drill and practice games (Number Munchers 1 2 3 4 5
etc.)
14. Oregon Trail 1 2 3 4 5
15. Carmen San Diego 1 2 3 4 5
16. Other simulations 1 2 3 4 5
17. Keyboarding 1 2 3 4 5

Apple Ii series:
1. Drill and practice games (Number Munchers 1 2 3 4 5
etc.)
2. Oregon Trail 1 2 3 4 5
3. Other simulations 1 2 3 4 5
4. Word Processing program 1 2 3 4 5
5. Keyboarding 1 2 3 4 5
6. Other 1 2 3 4 5

58
 Computer Use of Limited Computer Knowledge Teachers
58

1 2 3 4 5
Never Infrequently Sometimes Often Always
(1 or 2 times (2 or 3 times (Usually when I (Whenever I
a year) a semester) have access have access
to technology) to technology)

IBM:
1. WordPerfect 1 2 3 4 5
2. Microsoft Works 1 2 3 4 5
3. Other word processing/publishing program 1 2 3 4 5
3. Toolbook 1 2 3 4 5
4. Micro Worlds 1 2 3 4 5
5. Other mathematical applications 1 2 3 4 5
6. CoreIDRAW 1 2 3 4 5
7. Other drawing/painting program 1 2 3 4 5
8. Drill and practice games (Number Munchers 1 2 3 4 5
etc.)
9. Oregon Trail 1 2 3 4 5
10. Carmen San Diego 1 2 3 4 5
11, Other simulations 1 2 3 4 5
12. Keyboarding 1 2 3 4 5

School Computer Set-Up

1. Please circle the choice: that best describes your situation.
a. 1 or 2 computers in the classroom and no computer lab.
b. 1 or 2 computers in the classy oom and a computer lab
c. No computers in the classroom and no computer lab
d. No computers in the classroom and a computer lab
e. More than 2 computers in the classroom and no computer lab
f, More than 2 computers in the classroom and a computer lab

59
 Computer Use of Limited Computer Knowledge Teachers
59

2. In my classroom, I have: (Circle all that apply)

a. Apple II series
b. Macintosh
c. IBM compatible
d. No computers in my classroom

3. In my school's lab, we have: (Circle all that apply)

a. Apple II series
b. Macintosh
c. IBM compatible
d. No computer lab

4. In my school's computer lab,

a. there are enough computers for each student to work on
his/her own computer.
b. students must share computers.
c. N/A

5. The amount of time the average student in my class spends on a

computer per week is:
a. 0 - 1 hours
b. 1 - 2 hours

c. 2 - 3 hours
d. 3 - 4 hours
e. more than 4 hours

60
 Computer Use of Limited Computer Knowledge Teachers
60

6. The number of students in my classroom is:

a. less than 15
b. 15 - 18
c. 19 - 22
d. 23 - 26
e. more than 26

7. In the past 4 years, the number of formal hours of computer training I

have had is (total hours not credit hours):
a. less than 4
b. 4-7
c. 8 -11
d. 12 - 15
e. over 15
 Computer Use of Limited Computer Knowledge Teachers
61

REFERENCES

Anderson, B, & Odden, A. (1986). State initiatives can foster school

improvement. Phi Delta Kappan, 67:8, 578-581.
Armstrong, M. H., & Trueblood, C. (1985). The importance of principals'
and their relationship to the promotion of teachers' professional
growth. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED 263 668).
Bassler, 0., Almeida, M., & Van Voorst, C. (1984). Computer education
- A survey of seventh and eighth grade teachers. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 238 696).
Barker, F.G. (1994). Integrating computer usage in the classroom
curriculum through teacher training. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 372 751).
Becker, H. J. (1992). How our best computer-using teachers differ from
other teachers: Implications for realizing the potential of computers
in schools. Irvine, CA: Department of Education University of
California, Irvine.
Chin, S., & Hortin, J. (1994). Teachers' perceptions of instructional
technology and staff development. Journal of Educational
Technology Systems, 22, 83-98.
 Computer Use of Limited Computer Knowledge Teachers
62

Cobbs, H.L., & Wilmoth, J.N. (1990). Report Number 2: Computing

Potential Assessment in Atlanta Public Schools Education (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED 352 372).
Cory, S. (1991). Technology in schools: Who'll provide the leadership?
Computers in the Schools, 8, 27-43.
Davidson, G. V., & Ritchie, S. D. (1994). Attitudes toward integrating
computers into the classroom: What parents, teachers and
students report. Journal of Computing in Childhood Education,
5:1, 3-27.
Delcourt, M. B., & Kinzie, M. B. (1993). Computer tecihnologies ir,
teacher education: The measurement of attitudes and self-
efficacy. Journal of Research and Development in Education,
27:1, 35-41.
Dupagne, M., & Krendl, K. A. (1992). Teachers' attitudes toward
computers: A review of the literature. Journal of Research on
Computing in Education, 24, 420-29.
Hickey, M. G. (1993). Computer use in elementary classrooms: An
ethnographic study. Journal of Computing in Childhood
Education, 4:3, 219-228.
Madsen, J.M., & Sebastiani, L.A. (1987). The effect of computer
literacy instruction on teachers' knowledge of and attitudes

63
 Computer Use of Limited Computer Knowledge Teachers
63

toward microcomputers. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction,

14, 68-72.
Main, R. G., & Roberts, L. (1990). Educational Technology in the
California Public Schools: A Statewide Survey, Educational
Technology, 312, 7-19.
McMahon, H. (1990). Collaborating with computers. Journal of
Computer Assisted Learning, 6, 149-87.
Novak, D. I., & Knowles, J. G. (1991). Beginning elementary teachers'
use of computers in classroom instruction. Action in Teacher
Education, 13, 43-51.
Oliver, R. (1994). Factors influencing beginning teachers' uptake of
computers. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 2, 71-
89.
Phillips, R., Nachtigal, P., & Hobbs, D. (1986). The mid-Missouri small
school computer consortium: Training teachers on their own turf,
Las Cruces, New Mexico: ERIC Clearinghouse on Rural
Education and Small Schools, (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED 266 908).
Pifia, A.A., & Harris, B.R. (1993) Increasing Teachers' Confidence in
Using Computers for Education, paper presented at the Annual
Meeting of the Arizona Educational Research Organization,

64
 Computer Use of Limited Computer Knowledge Teachers
64

Tucson, AZ, (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 365

648).
Platt, C. W. (1993). Mystery Pen Pals. Learning, 222.
Savenye, W. C., & others. (1992). Effects of an educational computing
course of preservice teachers' attitudes and anxiety toward
computers. Journal of Computing in Childhood Education, 3:1,
31-41.
Wirth lin Group (1989). cited in The computer report card: How teachers
grade computers in the classroom. Tech Trends, 34, 30-35.

65