Effects of Elementary School Teachers’ Background Variables on Their Educational Beliefs and Different Types of Computer Use

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to investigate whether teachers’ background variables affect teachers’ educational beliefs and different types of computer use. In addition, this study explored the relationship between teachers’ educational beliefs and different types of computer use. The participants in this research were 180 elementary school teachers, including 56 males and 124 females, in central-west Taiwan. A questionnaire was developed for the purpose of collecting relevant information. Moreover, descriptive statistics, factorial analysis, independent samples t-test, one-way ANOVA and product-moment correlation were used as the methods of statistical analysis. To understand elementary school teachers’ attitude toward and perception of teachers’ educational beliefs and different types of computer use, the researchers interviewed 18 teachers in the process of collecting the questionnaires as well. The results indicated that teachers’ educational degrees affected teachers’ educational beliefs, while teachers’ educational degrees, teaching years, positions, number of classes, and the frequency of technology integration affected different types of computer use. The results of the questionnaire and interviews demonstrated that teachers’ educational beliefs were correlated with different types of computer use. Based on the findings, some implications are considered to be of help to elementary school teachers and educators.

 

Keywords

• Background variables,Educational beliefs,Computer use

References

1. Alfassi, M. (1998). Reading for meaning: The efficacy of reciprocal teaching in fostering reading comprehension in high school students in remedial reading class. American Educational Research Journal, 35 (2), 309-332.
2. Berg, B. L. (2007). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
3. Chen, T. C. (2002). The development of English reading diagnostic test for junior high school students. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Changhua University of Education, Taiwan.
4. Duffy, G. G., & Roehler, L. R. (1987). Improving reading instruction through the use of responsive elaboration. The Reading Teacher, 40 (6), 514-519.
5. Fevre, D. M. L., Moore, D. W., & Wilkinson, I. A. G. (2003). Tape-assisted reciprocal teaching: Cognitive bootstrapping for poor decoders. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 73 (1), 37-58. doi:10.1348/000709903762869905
6. Fielding, L., & Roller, C. (1992). Making difficult books accessible and easy books acceptable. The Reading Teacher, 45 (9), 678-685.
7. Gay, L. R., Mills, G. E., & Airasian, P. (2009). Educational research: Competencies for analysis and applications (9th). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
8. Hong, Y. L., Huang, H. S., Lin, C. R., Chou, Y. L., Liou, Y.-M., & Hsie, L. H. (2006). The development of the Englsih word recognition test for junior high and elementary school students. Psychological Testing, 53 (2), 155-180.

9. Jenkins, J. R., Stein, M. L., & Wysocki, K. (1984). Learning vocabulary through reading. American Educational Research Journal, 21 (4), 767-787.
10. Lee, K., Ardeshiri, M., & Cummins, J. (2016). A computer-assisted multiliteracies programme as an alternative approach to EFL instruction. Technology, Pedagogy and Education. doi: 10.1080/1475939X.2015.1118403
11. A computer-assisted multiliteracies... (PDF Download Available). Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/294107654_A_computer-assisted_multiliteracies_programme_as_an_alternative_approach_to_EFL_instruction [accessed Apr 27 2018].
12. Ministry of Education. (2008). Guidelines of English curriculum of grade 1st-9th. Taiwan: MOE.
13. Myers, P. A. (2006). The princess storyteller, clara clarifier, quincy questioner, and the wizard: Reciprocal teaching adapted for kindergarten students. The Reading Teacher, 59 (4), 314-324.
14. Neuman, W. L. (2006). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches (6th ed.). Boston: Pearson.
15. Oczkus, L. D. (2003). Reciprocal teaching at work: Strategies for improving reading comprehension (2nd ed.). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
16. Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension fostering and comprehension monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1 (2), 117-175. doi:10.1207/s1532690xci0102_1
17. Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1986). Interactive teaching to promote independent learning from text. The Reading Teacher, 39 (8), 771-777.
18. Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
19. Pilonieta, P., & Medina, A. L. (2009). Reciprocal teaching for the primary grades: We can do it, too! The Reading Teacher, 63 (2), 120-129. doi:10.1598/RT.63.2.3
20. Rosenshine, B., & Meister, C. E. (1993, May). Reciprocal teaching: A review of 19 experimental studies (tech. rep. No. 574). Urbana, IL. Retrieved from https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/bitstream/handle/2142/17744/ctrstreadt echrepv01993i00574_opt.pdf?sequence=1
21. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2006). Knowledge building: Theory, pedagogy, and technology. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences (pp. 97-118). New York: Cambridge University Press.
22. Tutty, L. M., Rothery, M., & Grinnell, R. M. (1996). Qualitative research for social workers: Phases, steps, and tasks. London: Allyn and Bacon.