Towards a Typology of Computer Use In Primary Education

JCA 205 Original article F Towards a typology of computer use in primary education J. Tondeur, J. van Braak & M. Valcke In the present study, we reject the view that computer use can be studied as an isolated variable in a learning environment. Our main objective is to develop an instrumental tool to measure different types of educational computer use in the classroom. This builds on a comprehensive review of the literature about computer use in education. This review helped to construct a questionnaire to identify a typology of computer use in primary education. In addition, the questionnaire was enriched by input of experts in this field. The questionnaire was presented to a sample of 352 primary school teachers. The input from a first subsample was used to carry out an exploratory factor analysis; the second subsample was used to verify the identified factor structure via confirmatory factor analysis. A three-factor structure of computer use in primary education was identified: ‘the use of computers as an information tool’, ‘the use of computers as a learning tool,’ and ‘learning basic computer skills’. The three-factor structure was confirmed in the confirmatory factor analysis. The results underpin a number of meaningful differences in the current practice of computer use in primary education. Keywords Introduction UN CO RR EC TE DP Abstract RO O Department of Education, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium computer use, evaluation methodologies, primary education, questionnaire. The use of computers in education is steadily increasing. In this context, it is essential for educational researchers to investigate the extent of computer integration and the factors influencing computer implementation. The actual use of computers in education can be defined and determined in different ways. Many researchers measure computer use by reporting the percentage of teachers who use computers in their classroom, or the amount of technology used in the classroom, or the time teachers and pupils spend working with computers, etc. Although these indicators are valuable, they hardly help to understand the educational use of computers in the classroom. Accepted: 11 September 2006 Correspondence: Jo Tondeur, Department of Education, Ghent University, H. Dunantlaan 2, B9000 Ghent, Belgium. Email: jo.tondeur@ ugent.be © 2007 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd This introduces the question of how to identify different types of educational computer use in the classroom. In an earlier study (van Braak et al. 2004), two different types of computer use by teachers could be identified: ‘class use of computers’ (e.g. computer as tool for presentation, encouraging pupils to train skills, instructing pupils in the possibilities of computers) and ‘supportive use of computers’ (e.g. administration, preparing worksheets for the pupils, looking for information on the Internet for lesson preparation). Further research pointed out that supportive and class use of computers were influenced by computer experience and teacher attitudes. Computer experience affected both types of computer use. Supportive computer use was influenced by ‘general computer attitudes’, whereas class use of computers was rather influenced by ‘technological innovativeness’ and ‘attitudes towards computers in education’. This illustrates that different types of computer use refer to different sets of characteristics. The main objective of the present study is to develop an Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 23, pp••–•• 1 11 JCA 205 2 J. Tondeur et al. DP RO O F on its educational uses as defined by society. In this context, an analysis of national and international computer curricula (e.g. Qualification and Curriculum Authority/Department for Education and Employment 1999; Commission of the European Communities 2002; Ministry of the Flemish Community. Department of Education 2004) reveals two main aims. A first aim builds on the rationale that all children must be digitally literate in order to be prepared for a knowledge-based society. A second aim is related to the assumption that computer use can improve student learning. The first aim legitimates the study of computers as a separate school subject in view of developing a number of operational skills. The second aim states that computers should be embedded in the curriculum and should take its point of departure in pedagogy. Despite the growing convergence between the socio-economic and the pedagogical rationale (OECD/CERI 2001), the distinction implies two types of computer use: computers as a subject and computers as an educational tool. In Flanders (Belgium), these two types of computer use are reflected in the official information and communication technology (ICT) attainment targets (Ministry of the Flemish Community. Department of Education 2004). The core of this non-compulsory curriculum, formulated as ICT competencies, focuses on supporting the learning process, e.g. ‘pupils exercise autonomously with computers.’ A second cluster encompasses technical competencies, such as ‘pupils are able to use the computer, peripheral equipment, the technical system, and software.’According to the Ministry of the Flemish government (2004), it is preferable to develop these competencies while embedding computer use into subject-related learning activities. A third cluster of competencies contains the social and ethical dimension of the application of ICT (e.g. ‘to be able to cope in a responsible manner with the new technology’). Tondeur et al. (2006) point out that currently teachers in Flemish primary education principally stress the acquisition of technical ICT skills. ICT competencies focusing on the learning process and social and ethical components reflect lower priority levels. UN CO RR EC TE instrument to determine types of educational use of computers in the classroom. This aim goes beyond studying percentages of time that teachers or pupils spend on computers, but focuses on the question of how computers are used in view of supporting learning and instructional processes. The available instruments in the research literature suggest that computer use in classrooms is a complex phenomenon and represents multiple interrelated factors. Any research on computer use in education involves selecting specific facets. This includes making choices about what aspects of computer use are important and how these should be measured. In prevalent empirical research, the arguments behind these choices have rarely been described. In this study, we will pursue transparency in this process by describing step by step the instrument design and development. A particular difficulty in this context is that much of the research on computer use in education is value-laden in an additional sense; it adopts, implicitly or explicitly, a philosophical stance (Twining 2002). The question is how to avoid bias in the process of instrument development. Before describing the empirical study, we first examine recent approaches of computer integration research. This review of the literature was set up in order to gather a comprehensive set of different applications of classroom-related computer use. This set will be the starting point to develop questionnaire items in the context of our instrument development. In the next section, the development approach is described, building on a survey conducted among 352 primary school teachers. The paper concludes with a discussion of the results and the implications for future research. Types of computer use in education A range of sources of information has been analysed with respect to educational computer use: government agency reports, theoretical frameworks, and empirical studies from peer-reviewed journals. Examination of these sources has resulted in a wider conceptual understanding of the various applications of classroom use of computers. This paper emphasizes the (limited number of) empirically based literature. 33 44 55 66 77 88 Theoretical frameworks Government agency reports 2 2 From the point of view of Baron and Bruillard 2003), any evaluation of computer usage in education depends A large number of theoretical frameworks are available in the literature about educational computer use. Squires and McDougall (1994, cited in Twining 2002) © 2007 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd 99 JCA 205 Typology of computer use DP RO O F of recent studies that aim at obtaining a more in-depth understanding of classroom use of computers. In the study of Baylor and Ritchie (2002), computer use was delineated according to nine subcomponents, including ‘subject-matter content’. Other subcomponents refer to the use of computers as an educational tool, such as ‘the use of computers for collaboration’ and ‘the use of computers for higher order skills’. Computers as an educational tool may fit into a spectrum of instructional approaches, varying from traditional to innovative. Niederhauser and Stoddart (2001) differentiate between two main types of educational computer use: ‘skillbased transmission use’ and ‘open-ended constructivist use’. ‘Skill-based computer use’ aims at enhancing pupils’ basic knowledge and skills by supporting drill and practice exercises and embraces two subtypes of traditional software: ‘drill and practice’and ‘keyboarding’. ‘Open-ended computer use’presents computers as a tool for helping learners to construct their own knowledge. Three subtypes of open-ended constructivist software are identified: ‘educational games’, ‘exploratory programs’ (e.g. LOGO), and ‘tool programs’ (e.g. Word). The results of Niederhauser and Stoddart’s (2001) evaluation study indicate that the majority of teachers centre on skill-based educational computer use. Typologies of computer use are required to construct research instruments in view of empirical studies. Few studies published in the literature report in an explicit way how the research instruments have been designed. The IEA’s SITES Module 2 (Kozma 2003) study is an exception because its research methodology is clearly described. Based on 174 case studies from across 28 countries, both qualitative and quantitative methods were used to identify seven clusters of innovative pedagogical practices building on computers use. Also, in the study of Hogarty et al. (2003), the development and validation of the instrument is transparent. Factor analytic and correlation methods were used to identify two factors delineating types of software use by teachers. The first factor represents the use of ‘instructional software’, including the use of educational software, drill and practice, and educational games. The second factor encompasses ‘application software use’. Typical examples of the latter are the use of word processors, web browsers, and presentation programs. Similarly, two fac tors were identified regarding student use of software. ‘Application’ of software is explored in many studies, but these studies hardly help to clarify the educational UN CO RR EC TE differentiate between three types of frameworks: (1) frameworks that are based on categories of software use; (2) frameworks that focus on the instructional role of the software; and (3) frameworks that relate software to educational rationales. The authors criticize the narrow and isolated focus in these frameworks on software use. They stress ‘the perspectives interactions paradigm’, because they want to stress educational issues, such as classroom practices and teacher roles. In the same way, Lim (2002) also rejects an isolated view of computers in education. He stresses the integrated nature of computer use in the learning environment. He adopts an activity theory when defining a ‘concentric’ model to demonstrate the mechanisms that link computer use to learning, and the sociocultural setting. Similarly, the framework of the Second Technology in Education Study (SITES) Module 2 specifies a set of factors and interrelations between factors that contextualize computer use fostering innovative pedagogical practices (Kozma 2003). Pedagogical practices are determined by sets of goals, materials, activities, and people engaged in classroom teaching and learning activities. These practices are to be observed at the classroom level (micro level), the school and/or the local community level (meso level), and at national level and international entities (macro level). At each level, actors and factors can be distinguished which mediate pedagogical practices involving computers use. This alternative approach results in a more complex picture of educational computer use that even goes beyond the scope of the present study. School characteristics are yet not considered. A future study should examine how different types of computer use are related to contextual school variables. The theoretical frameworks just presented help to achieve a better understanding of the relationship between computer use and educational practices. As already stated, they provide us with a more holistic approach towards the study of educational computer use. However, there is little empirical evidence available to ground the conceptual frameworks regularly presented in the literature. This is the main focus of the present paper. 3 Empirical studies The distinction between ‘computers as a subject’ and ‘computers as an educational tool’is the focus in a series © 2007 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd 10 10 11 11 JCA 205 4 J. Tondeur et al. Research design Purpose RO O F phases, involving specific groups of respondents. In the first phase, the analysis of the literature helped to define questionnaire items that reflect types of computer use in primary education. Second, exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was carried out to identify clusters in the variety of educational computer use. In a third phase, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted to examine the stability of the exploratory factor structure. Finally, the psychometric quality of the final version of the instrument was determined. Procedure DP A first version of a research instrument, based on types of computer use identified through a review of the literature, was evaluated by 25 stakeholders (e.g. teachers, computer coordinators, and policy makers). The review focused on the identification of relevant applications of ‘class use of computers’ in the context of Flemish primary education, to direct the wording of the test items and to reduce item complexity. This resulted in the refinement of the instrument and the removal of some irrelevant items (e.g. pupils’ use of the computer to make graphics). The review process resulted in a pool of 29 items reflecting classroom use of computers in primary education. The item set is presented in Table 1. This new version of the instrument was presented to a sample of 352 primary school teachers. The results of a first subsample (n = 176) were used to carry out an EFA. The responses of the second subsample (n = 176) were included in a CFA. UN CO RR EC TE use of the software. The questionnaire designed by Kent and Facer (2004) reflects a range of computer activities (e.g. e-mailing, gaming, writing, and drawing) in order to compare pupils’ home and school use of computers. In Pelgrum (2001), a list of seven items of computer use is presented in order to identify the main obstacles regarding computer integration in education: operating a computer, writing documents, making illustrations, calculating, etc. In only a few studies, the focus is on the instructional objectives that are pursued by adopting types of computer use. For example, Ainley et al. (2002) identified four broad categories, based on a proposal by Rubin (1996): ‘computers as information resource tools’ (to provide access to an information base), ‘computers as authoring tools’ (to work with and present information), ‘computers as knowledge construction tools’ (to explore knowledge), and ‘computers as knowledge reinforcement tools’ (to engage in drill and practice activities). In Becker (2000), both an instructional and a software application approach can be found when he studied the relationship between types of computer use and teachers’ educational beliefs. The survey asked teachers to select three instructional objectives out of a list of 10, such as ‘communicate electronically’, ‘improve computer skills’, and ‘learn to collaborate’. The survey also asked teachers to name the software that is considered most valuable in their teaching. The data suggest that teachers with a strong constructivist orientation are eager to adopt types of computer use that foster constructivist learning approaches, e.g. Internet browsers. Similarly, Waite (2004) reported teachers’ responses about the aims and uses of computers for literacy in primary schools. To summarize, most available studies reflect particular views on the educational use of computers. Although each study enriches the picture, a comprehensive view is lacking: some studies focus on software applications, other studies only define broad categories of computer use; in some studies the focus is on the teacher, in others on the pupils. Only a few studies centre on the educational assets of computer use. The purpose of the present study is to develop an instrument that integrates types of actual computer use in the classroom. The research was set up along four distinct Measure The 352 teachers were contacted through their principals. A paper version of the questionnaire was completed anonymously by these teachers. Each item in the questionnaire was presented as a statement about the adoption of a particular type of computer use. Respondents were asked to rate each statement on a five-point scale: 0 = ‘never’, 1 = ‘every term’, 2 = ‘monthly’, 3 = ‘weekly’, and 4 = ‘daily’. The questionnaire also included information about a number of background characteristics (age, gender, teaching grade) and computer experience profile (computer experience and level of class use of computers). © 2007 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd 12 12 JCA 205 Typology of computer use 5 Table 1. Descriptive statistics for the 29 applications of computer use in primary education (n = 352). Item 12 Item 13 Item 14 Item 15 Item 16 Item 17 Item 18 Item 19 Item 20 Item 21 Item 22 Item 23 Item 24 Item 25 Item 26 Item 27 Item 28 Item 29 RO O Item 07 Item 08 Item 09 Item 10 Item 11 DP Item 06 The pupils use the computer to practise knowledge or skills I teach the pupils how to make good use of the keyboard and mouse I teach pupils to use computer terms correctly The pupils use the computer to elaborate learning content The pupils use the computer to ‘catch up’ if they have fallen behind with their work The pupils use the computer to do further research on specific subject matter I teach pupils the basics of the operating systems used at school The pupils use the computer to select and retrieve information I teach pupils the basic operations of generic programs The pupils use the computer for writing text The pupils use computer for direct instruction, i.e. to learn something new I teach the pupils how to print a document I use the computer as a demonstration tool The pupils use the computer as an encyclopaedia I teach pupils how to use specific peripherals and facilities The pupils use the computer to store information The pupils use the computer for problem solving I give the pupils computer-based tests The pupils use the computer to organize information The pupils use the computer to present information I use time in class to teach pupils keyboard skills The pupils use the computer to exchange information with others The pupils use the computer for looking up the meaning of a word The pupils use the computer to compare information from different sources The pupils use the computer to make drawings The pupils use the computer to organize their thinking, e.g. mind mapping The pupils use the computer to undertake calculations I use the computer to simulate events the pupils cannot otherwise experience The pupils use the computer to make diagrams or tables UN CO RR EC TE Item 01 Item 02 Item 03 Item 04 Item 05 F Weekly or more regular use (% of teachers) Demographics and computer profile Questionnaire data were collected from a sample of 352 primary school teachers in 70 primary schools in Flanders (Belgium). All participants teach in grades 1–6. The sample included 72.6% females. The age ranges from 22 to 59 years, with an average age of 38. The sample was randomly divided into two equal subsamples. Both samples were matched based on gender, grade, and age. All teachers in the sample reported to be at least somehow familiar with computers. Only 2.0% of the © 2007 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd 61.3 48.3 47.2 39.4 39.2 38.1 32.6 27.9 27.1 23.2 20.9 20.2 19.0 17.2 15.4 15.2 14.0 13.1 11.9 10.5 9.8 8.5 8.0 7.0 6.3 4.9 4.3 4.3 0.9 sample reported not using a computer. The average computer experience was 9.48 years (sd = 4.22). On average, teachers use the computer 4.70 h (sd = 4.08) a week for professional support and 2.94 h a week for leisure activities (sd = 3.49). Results Item analysis Descriptive item statistics are presented in Table 1. Based on the results, 13 items are deleted from the list because of a low degree of reported application in JCA 205 6 J. Tondeur et al. CFA Flemish classrooms (⬍15% of the teachers using the application weekly or more). These items were excluded from further analyses (items 17–29 in Table 1). EFA DP Confirmatory factor analysis was conducted to examine the stability of the exploratory factor structure. Several fit indices were calculated: Goodness-ofFit Index (GFI), the Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index (AGFI) (Jöreskog & Sörbom 1993), the Normed Fit Index (NFI), and the Comparative Fit Index (CFI) (Bentler 1990). A critical value of 0.90 was put forward to draw conclusions about the adequacy of the model fit. The results of the CFA, including the individual item coefficients, are presented in Fig 2. The results show a good fit between the structure based on the analysis of the data from the first teacher sample and the data structure drawn from the second sample: c2 = 104.3 (d.f. = 27), GFI = 0.91, AGFI = 0.87, CFI = 0.95, and NFI = 0.90. The results point at significant loading of all items on the three latent factors (all pattern coefficients between 0.43 and 0.95 and statistically different from zero at the 0.001 level). No error terms were allowed to be correlated. Correlations between the latent factors are significant (r = 0.20 for IT and LT; r = 0.49 for IT and BS; 0.49 for IT and BS). Therefore, a one-factor CFAwas carried out. A test of this model revealed poor model fit results [c2 = 562.4 (d.f. = 54), GFI = 0.61, AGFI = 0.43, CFI = 0.48, and NFI = 0.46]. These results help to conclude that it is not possible to consider the three types of computer use – identified earlier – as a one-dimensional construct. UN CO RR EC TE Fig 1 Scree plot and parallel analysis evidence for the 15 perceived attributes of class use of computer. RO O F All items in Table 2 represent a significant loading (⬎0.50) on one of the three factors. The three factors can be labelled as ‘computers as an information tool’ (IT), ‘computers as a learning tool’ (LT), and ‘basic computer skills’ (BS). Together, the three factors can be regarded as comprising the types of computer application in primary education. Exploratory factor analysis helped to identify a number of factors to cluster types of educational computer use. A maximum likelihood analysis (orthogonal rotation) was adopted. As a first solution, a three-factor structure was apparent, by building both on the K1 criterion (Kaiser 1960) and the parallel analysis method (O’Connor 2000). Three items were deleted because of loadings across factors (item 9, 12, and 15 in Table 1). An additional item was removed because of a low communality value (item 11). A second analysis resulted again in a three-factor model, representing three types of educational computer use: ‘basic skills’, ‘information tool’, and ‘learning tool’. Figure 1 represents the eigenvalues in the scree plot (Cattell 1966), in combination with the results of the parallel analysis. The eigenvalues of the three factors are 4.08, 2.41, and 1.42. Table 2 summarizes the results of the EFA. Scale characteristics In the next step, the psychometric quality of the newly designed instrument was determined. Internal consistency was measured with Cronbach’s a coefficient. Alpha coefficients for both samples are presented in Table 3; these point at high internal consistency levels (a ⬎ 0.70). © 2007 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd 13 13 JCA 205 Typology of computer use 7 Table 2. Results of the exploratory factor analysis (sample 1, n = 176). Item 01 Item 03 Item 02 Item 07 Factor 3 0.83 0.78 0.69 0.56 0.53 0.08 0.05 0.06 -0.06 0.09 0.09 0.93 0.07 0.13 0.09 0.27 0.10 0.12 0.06 0.02 0.88 0.53 0.09 0.16 0.04 0.17 0.13 0.21 0.52 0.20 0.26 0.14 0.23 0.82 0.76 0.63 F Factor 2 RO O Item 04 Item 05 The pupils use the computer as an encyclopaedia The pupils use the computer to select and retrieve information The pupils use the computer to store information I use the computer as a demonstration tool The pupils use the computer for writing text The pupils use the computer to do further research on specific subject matter The pupils use the computer to elaborate learning content The pupils use the computer to ‘catch up’ if fallen behind with school work The pupils use the computer to practise knowledge or skills I teach pupils to use computer terms correctly I teach the pupils how to make good use of the keyboard and mouse I teach pupils learning basics of the operating systems used at school Table 3. Cronbach’s a and correlation coefficients for sample 1 and 2. (1) UN CO RR EC TE Cronbach’s a DP Item 14 Item 08 Item 16 Item 13 Item 10 Item 06 Factor 1 (1) Information tool (2) Learning tool (3) Basic skills (2) (3) S1 S2 S1 S2 S1 S2 S1 S2 0.82 0.84 0.82 0.84 0.83 0.78 1.00 0.18* 0.36** 1.00 0.20* 0.49*** 1.00 0.37** 1.00 0.42** 1.00 1.00 *P ⬍ 0.05; **P ⬍ 0.01; ***P ⬍ 0.001. e14 Item 14 e08 Item 08 Item 06 * 9* .8 e16 Item 16 .8 8 ** .77* * .65** e13 .20 .49 Item 10 Learning Tool Basic Computer Skills e04 Item 05 e05 Item 01 e01 ** ** © 2007 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd .51 Item 04 e06 . 66 Table 3 also includes the correlations between the three sum scales. The results suggest that there is a reasonable positive association between ‘basic skills’ and both ‘information tool’ [r = 0.36 (S1), r = 0.49 (S2)] .51** .56 .77** 24 Fig 2 Results of the confirmatory factor analysis: structure coefficients for the information tool, learning tool, and basic computer skills items. * .93* Information Tool ** . 43 .76 ** e10 Item 13 ** .95 Item 03 Item 02 Item 07 e03 e02 e07 and ‘learning tool’ [r = 0.37 (S1), r = 0.42 (S2)]. Figure 3 relates the frequency of the adoption of the three types of computer use to primary education grade level. JCA 205 8 J. Tondeur et al. 60,00 30,00 20,00 Computer as an information tool Computer as a learning tool Basic computer skills 10,00 First Second Third Fourth Fifth Sixth Grade UN CO RR EC TE Fig 3 Frequency of use of computers as an information tool, computers as a learning tool, and basic computers skills in relation to primary education grades. DP Mean 40,00 RO O F 50,00 developed to measure different types of computer use in the classroom. Three types of educational use could be identified: ‘basic computer skills’, ‘computers as an information tool’, and ‘computers as a learning tool’. The first type, ‘basic computer skills’, identifies the use of computers as a (separate) school subject to teach pupils technical computer skills, such as ‘making good use of the keyboard and mouse’ and ‘learning basics of operating systems’. This type is regularly found in the literature, although it is conceptualized in a variety of ways. The second and third types represent educational uses of computers. According to these two categories, computer use is considered a general support tool, not restricted to its use in view of a particular school subject. This distinction can be linked to main categories found in certain national curricula (e.g. Qualification and Curriculum Authority/Department for Education and Employment 1999; Ministry of the Flemish Community. Department of Education 2004): computers as a subject versus computers as an educational tool. The ‘computers as an information tool’ dimension encompasses the following aspects: ‘using computers to select and retrieve information’, ‘using the computer for demonstration’, etc. The emphasis is on the interaction between pupils and the subject-domain content: researching and processing information and communication. These items cover the four broad categories of computer application classified by Ainley et al. (2002). ‘Computers as learning tools’ include items such as ‘using the computer to do future research on specific subject-matter’ and ‘using computers to practise knowledge or skills’. According to Hogarty et al. (2003), this factor is defined as ‘instructional software’ and represents similar items (e.g. drill and practice). In educational practice, it is often less easy to differentiate in a straightforward way between the three types of computer use. This complicates the problem of evaluating computer use in education (Baron & Bruilllard 2003). For example, the distinction between basic computer skills and educational computer use can be marred by the fact that technical use of computers involves nevertheless some knowledge construction. In the present study, analysis results suggest that when teachers stress the use of computers as an information and learning tool, they are also likely to stress the development of basic computer skills. From Fig 3 it is clear that the use of ‘computers as a learning tool’ (M = 48.9; sd = 25.0) and ‘basic computer skills’ (M = 46.0; sd = 26.4) receive the highest priority in primary education as compared to the use of ‘computers as an information tool’ (M = 30.5; sd = 24.0). The use of computers as an information tool seems to be related with grade; higher grade levels reflect higher levels of computer use as an information tool. Univariate analysis of variance was used to test the differences in frequency of computer use as ‘information tool’ between grade levels statistically. The primary education grade levels were included as dependent variables; the adoption of computer use as ‘information tool’ was included as the independent variable. The results reveal a significant upward trend in the use of computers as ‘information tool’ throughout primary grade levels (F = 35.3; d.f. = 5; P = 0.00). Discussion Within the context of educational use of computers, a range of definitions, classifications, and typologies can be found. In the present paper, we rejected a unidimensional approach. As a result, an instrument has been © 2007 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd 14 14 15 15 JCA 205 Typology of computer use © 2007 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd 16 16 DP RO O F constructivist orientation are eager to adopt ‘computers as an information tool’ and this in view of computer use to ‘communicate electronically’ or to ‘present information to an audience’ (Becker 2000). Next to the possibility of exploring potential determinants of different types of computer use, the instrument can be used to measure the variation of computer use across countries. Although patterns of computer use in schools are both context- and time-dependent, the instrument has the potential to investigate these variations. The instrument can also be used as a tool to examine whether teachers are using computers in accordance to policies or guidelines of educational authorities. A transparent understanding of the types of computer use can result in more adequate and informed measures of policy developers in view of fostering the integrated use of computers in the classroom. Policies can include information and awareness campaigns, in-service training, or focused action programmes. Finally, the instrument can encourage individual schools to reflect on the educational use of computers at school level. A better understanding of the variety of computer use can stimulate the discussion about the adoption of specific computer-related school policies. Computer use will – as a result – become linked to teacher, classroom, and school variables. UN CO RR EC TE A number of studies shows that, although the use of computers in education is increasing, computers are rather poorly integrated into the teaching and learning process (e.g. Loveless & Dore 2002; Sutherland et al. 2004). A recent study (Hennessy & Deaney 2004) reports that teachers only recently started to integrate computers into their own learning and teaching processes. These results seem to reinforce the point that teachers especially focus on basic computer skills. However, the present findings suggest an alternative explication. The results propose that the frequency of ‘computers use as an information tool’ is different depending on grade level in primary education. Fifthand sixth-grade teachers are more likely to provide opportunities to use computers as an information tool. It could be argued that this represents a ‘higher order use’ of computers and that this is related to the curriculum of fifth and sixth graders. But, as stated earlier, this alternative explanation introduces a value judgement about preferable or less preferable types of computer use. However, the three types of computer use do not comprise value judgements about ‘good practice’. Many studies provide a longer list of dimensions to distinguish between types of computer use. A too large number is less helpful to identify relevant use patterns. This illustrates an apparent tension between the need for simplicity and the need to present a rich picture of computer use (Twining 2002). The three dimensions presented in this study synthesize actual types of computer use in Flemish primary education. Because a certain amount of types of computer use that have hardly been observed in current educational practice have been excluded from the instrument, innovative computerbased learning activities were ignored, such as ‘the use of computers to organize their thinking (e.g. mind mapping or concept mapping or ‘the use of computers for problem solving’). In this study, an attempt has been made to link computer use and classroom practice without taking diversity in underlying educational beliefs into consideration. As a recommendation for further research, teachers’ educational beliefs can be explored as potential determinants of the three different subsets of computer use. Different types of computer use could refer to different teacher characteristics and/or antecedents. For instance, teacher beliefs about learning and instruction could be identified as a critical predictor of types of computers use, e.g. teachers with a strong 9 Conclusion Based on the adoption of a multidimensional approach towards computer use in primary education, a new scale was developed and evaluated in this study. The instrument helped to identify three different dimensions in computer use at the primary education level: ‘basic computer skills’, ‘computers as an information tool’, and ‘computers as a learning tool’. A clear attempt was made to avoid value-laden in the development of the instrument. Future use of the instrument is envisioned to explore the determinants on the types of computer use in primary education, e.g. at teacher, classroom, and school levels. Further refinement and evaluation of the instrument might be needed: use and evaluation at other educational levels and an evaluation outside the Flemish educational context. Although the results in this study cannot be generalized beyond the context of Flemish primary schools, the results of the present study can inspire other researchers to examine computer use in 17 17 JCA 205 10 J. Tondeur et al. 18 F UN CO RR EC TE 18 Ainley J., Banks D. & Fleming M. (2002) The influences of IT: perspectives from five Australian schools. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 18, 395–404. Baron G.L. & Bruillard E. (2003) Information and communication technology: models of evaluation in France. Evaluation and Program Planning 26, 177–184. Baylor L.A. & Ritchie D. (2002) What factors facilitate teacher skill, teacher moral, and perceived student learning in technology-using classroom? Computers & ducation 39, 395–414. Becker J.H. (2000) Findings from the teaching, learning and computing survey: Is Larry Cuban right? Paper presented at the School Technology Leadership Conference of the Council of Chief State School Officers, Washington, DC. Bentler P.M. (1990) Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin 107, 238–246. van Braak J., Tondeur J. & Valcke M. (2004) Explaining different types of computer use among primary school teachers. European Journal of Psychology of Education 14, 407–422. Cattell R.B. (1966) The scree test for the number of factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research 1, 245–276. Commission of the European Communities (2002) eEurope 2005: an information society for all. An Action Plan to be presented in view of the Sevilla European Council, 21–22 June 2002. Available at: http://europa.eu.int (accessed •• •• ••). Hennessy S. & Deaney R. (2004) Sustainability and Evaluation of ICT-Supported Classroom Practice. Final Report for Becta, ICT Research Bursary. Hogarty K.Y., Lang T.R. & Kromrey J.D. (2003) Another look at technology use in classrooms: the development and validation of an instrument to measure teachers’ perceptions. Educational and Psychological Measurement 63, 139–162. Jöreskog K.G. & Sörbom D. (1993) LISREL 8 User’s Reference Guide. Scientific Software, Chicago. Kaiser H.E. (1960) The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement 20, 141–151. Kent N. & Facer K. (2004) Different worlds. A comparison of young people’s home and school ICT use. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 20, 440–455. Kozma R., ed. (2003) Technology, Innovation and Educational Change: A Global Perspective. Information Society RO O References for Technology in Education [ISTE] Publications, Eugene, OR. Lim C.P. (2002) A theoretical framework for the study of ICT in schools: a proposal. British Journal of Educational Technology 33, 411–421. Loveless A. & Dore B., eds. (2002) ICT in the Primary School Learning and Teaching with ICT. Open University Press, Buckingham. Ministry of the Flemish Community. Department of Education (2004) ICT Competencies in Primary Education. Available at: http://www.ond.vlaanderen.be (accessed •• •• ••). Niederhauser D.S. & Stoddart T. (2001) Teachers’ instructional perspectives and use of educational software. Teaching and Teacher Education 17, 15–31. O’Connor B.P. (2000) SPSS and SAS programs for determining the number of components using parallel analysis and Velicer’s MAP test. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers 32, 396–402. OECD/CERI (2001) Learning to Change: ICT in Schools. OECD, ••. Available at: http://www.oecd.org (accessed •• •• ••). Pelgrum (2001) Obstacles to the integration of ICT in education: results from a worldwide educational assessment. Computers & Education 37, 163–178. Qualification and Curriculum Authority/Department for Education and Employment (1999) Information and Communication Technology. The National Curriculum for England. Available at: http://www.nc.uk.net (accessed •• •• ••). Rubin A. (1996) Educational technology: support for inquirybased learning. In Technology Infusion and School Change: Perspectives and Practices (eds K. Fulton, A. Feldman, J.D. Wasser, W. Spitzer, A. Rubin, E. Mc.Namara, C.M. Grant, B. Porter & M. Mc.Conaghie), pp. 34–37. Research Monograph. Technology Education Research Centre, Cambridge, MA. Sutherland R., Amstrong V., Barnes S., Brawn R., Breeze N., Gall M., Matthewman S., Olivero F., Taylor A., Triggs P., Wishart J. & John P. (2004) Transforming teaching and learning into everyday classroom practices. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 20, 413–425. Tondeur J., van Braak J. & Valcke M. (2006) Primary school curricula and the use of ICT in education. Two worlds apart? British Journal of Educational Technology, in press. Twining P. (2002) Conceptualising computer use in education: introducing the computer practice framework (CPF). British Educational Research Journ 28, 95–110. Waite S. (2004) Tools for the job: a report of two surveys of information and communications technology training and use for literacy in primary schools in the West of England. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 20, 11–20. DP their educational context and/or to update the content and structure of the present version of the research instrument. © 2007 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd 19 19 20 20 21 21 22 22 23 23 RO O AUTHOR QUERY FORM F SNP Best-set Typesetter Ltd. Proofreader: Jason Delivery date: 18 October 2006 Copyeditor: Rhona Journal Code: JCA Article No: 205 Page Extent: 10 Dear Author, During the preparation of your manuscript for publication, the questions listed below have arisen. Please attend to these matters and return this form with your proof. Many thanks for your assistance. Query DP Query References Au: ‘a different set of characteristics’ has been changed to ‘different sets of characteristics’. Is this OK? q2 Au: Baron & Bruilllard 2003 has been changed to Baron & Bruillard 2003 so that this citation matches the list. q3 Au: ‘(inter) national computer curricula’ has been changed to ‘national and international computer curricula’. Is this OK? q4 q5 q6 q7 q8 q9 q10 q11 q12 q13 UN CO RR EC TE q1 Au: Qualification & Curriculum Authority 1999 has been changed to Qualification and Curriculum Authority/Department for Education and Employment 1999 so that this citation matches the list. Au: Ministry of the Flemish Community 2004 has been changed to Ministry of the Flemish Community. Department of Education 2004 so that this citation matches the list. Au: OECD 2001 has been changed to OECD/CERI 2001 so as to match the list. Au: Ministry of the Flemish Community 2004 has been changed to Ministry of the Flemish Community. Department of Education 2004 so that this citation matches the list. Au: Should Ministry of the Flemish government (2004) be changed to Ministry of the Flemish Community. Department of Education (2004) to match the list? Au: Would you consider including Squires and McDougall’s (1994) work in the list? Au: ‘The results of their evaluation study . . .’ has been changed to ‘The results of Niederhauser and Stoddart’s (2001) study . . .’ Is this OK? Au: Please spell out IEA. Au: (e.g. the pupils’ use the computer . . .) has been changed to (e.g. the pupils’ use of the computer to make graphics). Is this correct? Au: Should ‘and statistically different from zero’ be changed to ‘are statistically different from zero’? Remark Au: Qualification & Curriculum Authority 1999 has been changed to Qualification and Curriculum Authority/Department for Education and Employment 1999 so that this citation matches the list. q15 Au: Ministry of the Flemish Community 2004 has been changed to Ministry of the Flemish Community. Department of Education 2004 so that this citation matches the list. q16 Au: ‘policies of guidelines’ has been changed to ‘policies or guidelines’. Is this OK? q17 Au: There seems to be a missing word in ‘A clear attempt was made to avoid value-laden in the development of the instrument’. Please check (value-laden ???). q18 Au: Please supply the accessed date. q19 Au: Please supply the accessed date. q20 Au: Please supply the publisher’s location and the accessed date. q21 Au: Please supply the accessed date. q22 Au: Please confirm the author last name Mc.Conaghie is correct. q23 Au: Please supply the volume number and page range. q24 Au: What do the asterisks in Figure 2 signify? UN CO RR EC TE DP RO O F q14 MARKED PROOF Please correct and return this set Please use the proof correction marks shown below for all alterations and corrections. If you wish to return your proof by fax you should ensure that all amendments are written clearly in dark ink and are made well within the page margins. Instruction to printer Leave unchanged Insert in text the matter indicated in the margin Delete Textual mark under matter to remain New matter followed by or through single character, rule or underline or through all characters to be deleted Substitute character or substitute part of one or more word(s) Change to italics Change to capitals Change to small capitals Change to bold type Change to bold italic Change to lower case Change italic to upright type under matter to be changed under matter to be changed under matter to be changed under matter to be changed under matter to be changed Encircle matter to be changed (As above) Change bold to non-bold type (As above) Insert ‘superior’ character Marginal mark through letter or through characters through character or where required or new character or new characters or under character e.g. Insert ‘inferior’ character (As above) Insert full stop Insert comma (As above) Insert single quotation marks (As above) Insert double quotation marks (As above) over character e.g. (As above) or or (As above) Transpose Close up Insert or substitute space between characters or words Reduce space between characters or words linking and/or or or Insert hyphen Start new paragraph No new paragraph or characters through character or where required between characters or words affected and/or