Understanding Technology Literacy:

A Framework for Evaluating

Educational Technology
Integration
By Randall S. Davies
Brigham Young University

“Learners must become aware of the available

technology and its basic purpose, then implement
and practice it in authentic situations if they are
to reach the higher levels of technology literacy.”

Abstract The purpose of this article is to outline a

framework for understanding and assessing the
Federal legislation in the United States current- technology literacy of teachers and students.
ly mandates that technology be integrated into Such a framework is required for understand-
school curricula because of the popular belief ing and properly evaluating technology inte-
that learning is enhanced through the use of gration efforts in the teaching and learning
technology. The challenge for educators is to process. The proposed hierarchy, adapted from
understand how best to teach with technology taxonomies of educational learning objectives,
while developing the technological expertise of is based on observations from a five-year evalu-
their students. This article outlines a framework ation project which integrated learning tech-
of technological literacy designed to help educa- nologies into sixth grade science classrooms
tors understand, evaluate, and promote effective utilizing a problem-based learning approach
and appropriate technology integration. (Davies, Sprague, & New, 2008b). This article
Keywords: Technology Integration; Tech- also draws on a recent study by the author ex-
nology Literacy; Educational Technology ploring attitude differences in teaching candi-
dates and classroom teachers towards integrat-

I t is hard not to be excited about technology.

What’s not to like? Technology makes our lives
better. For some the thought of not using tech-
ing technology in teaching situations (Davies &
Linton , 2008a).
The proposed framework for understand-
nology as much as possible is sacrilege. Still, it ing technological literacy involves three levels:
is important for us as educational technologists (1) awareness, (2) praxis (i.e., training), and (3)
to step back and consider our ways. Given the phronesis (i.e., practical competence and prac-
trend in philosophy of science which persua- tical wisdom). These levels are most accurately
sively argues that all methods are limited and so represented as a continuum that involves a cy-
must be critically examined for their appropri- cle of continual reeducation. Just as higher lev-
ateness (Burgess-Limerick, Abernathy, & Lim- els of cognitive development require some level
erick, 1994), it is important to critically analyze of proficiency at lower levels, the highest lev-
technology literacy and how we evaluate success- els of technological literacy require students to
ful integration of technology into instructional move through the lower levels. Learners must
situations. become aware of the available technology and

Volume 55, Number 5 TechTrends • September/October 2011 45

its basic purpose, then implement and practice digital tools as an indicator of the highest level of
it in authentic situations if they are to reach the technology integration and literacy. However, a
higher levels of technology literacy. This frame- basic premise of Bloom’s taxonomy of cognitive
work of technological literacy was designed to learning outcomes suggests that the exercise of
help educators understand, evaluate, and pro- higher order skills involves the ability to evalu-
mote effective technology integration. ate proper implementation and usage beyond
simply procedural knowledge (Miller, Linn, &
A Background to Gronlund, 2009). This implies that an intelli-
Establish Context gent, technologically literate teacher may choose
not to use certain technologies for sound, peda-
Federal legislation mandates an emphasis gogically informed reasons. A student may de-
on technology integration in all areas of K-12 cide not to use a particular technology with an
education (U.S. Department of Education, equally informed rationale. Assessing the high-
2002). Under this mandate, education lead- est levels of technology literacy requires some-
ers at the state and local levels are expected to thing more than evidence of knowledge and use.
develop plans to effectively utilize educational It requires an answer for the why question: Why
technologies in the classroom. In addition, do individuals choose to utilize a specific tech-
the education system is expected to produce nology or not?
technologically literate students. The directive
to integrate instructional technology into the Educational Technology and
teaching and learning equation results from Technology Literacy
the following fundamental beliefs: (1) that Although it is commonly believed that
learning is enhanced through the use of tech- learning is enhanced through the use of tech-
nology and (2) that students need to develop nology (U.S. Department of Education, 2001),
technology skills in order to be productive not all share a common understanding of what
members of society (U.S. Department of Edu- technology is. For many, technology is synony-
cation, 2001). mous with computer equipment, software, and
By most measures, the quality and availabil- other electronic devices, and technology integra-
ity of educational technology in schools along tion means using this equipment in the class-
with the technological literacy of teachers and room. However, this definition is rather narrow.
students have increased significantly (McMil- Educational technology includes any tool, piece
lan-Culp, Honey, & Mandinach, 2005; Prensky, of equipment or device--electronic or mechan-
2001; Russell, Bebell, O’Dwyer, & O’Connor, ical--that can be used to help students accom-
2003). And, while most education practitioners plish specified learning goals (Davies, Sprague,
value technology (Davies & Linton , 2008a); & New, 2008b). Reasons for using educational
many researchers and school administrators are technologies may include saving time or im-
concerned that technology is not being integrat- proving the effectiveness of a student’s learning
ed into classroom instruction as much as theory efforts. Still, the uninformed or haphazard use
suggests it should (Bauer & Kenton, 2005; Top- of technology, regardless of quantity, may in fact
per, 2004). be evidence of a lack of what Mishra & Koehler
One problem with the expectation that tech- (2006) call technological pedagogical content
nology be used in schools may involve a funda- knowledge or TPACK.
mental misconception regarding educational Technology literacy has been defined in dif-
technology literacy. The typical method for ferent ways using a variety of labels. Computer
understanding technological literacy is based literacy, sometimes used synonymously with the
on a premise of technology adoption (Hall & term technology literacy, refers to the knowledge
Khan, 2003; International Society for Technol- and ability a person has to use computers (Mc-
ogy in Education, 2007 & 2008; Moersch, 1995; Millan, 1996; National Research Council Com-
Technology in Schools Task Force, 2002; Rog- mittee, 1999) or to the comfort level someone
ers, 2000). A common, but likely misguided, has with using computer programs and other ap-
assumption of technology adoption suggests plications associated with computers. Similarly,
that technology use is the best empirical evi- the definition of information and communication
dence that someone is in fact technologically technology literacy focuses on the ability to gath-
literate. Moersch (1995), for example, provides er, organize, analyze, and report information
an extremely useful framework describing lev- using technology (Leu & Kinzer, 2000). These
els of technology implementation (LoTi). Like terms focus on specific aspects of technology lit-
other indicators, the LoTi Framework tends to eracy and have an educational context; however,
rely on pervasive use of and access to advanced the definition used for this article focuses on a

46 TechTrends • September/October 2011 Volume 55, Number 5

broader perspective of educational technology ing objectives. Students are generally enthusi-
literacy. astic about using educational technology, but
Hansen (2003) has defined technology liter- teachers sometimes mistake technology inter-
acy as “an individual’s abilities to adopt, adapt, est for technology literacy, and activity involv-
invent, and evaluate technology to positively ing technology for learning
affect his or her life, community, and environ-
ment” (p. 117). Eisenberg & Johnson (2002)
through technology. Moti-
vation to use technology is
Technology literate
suggested that a technologically literate person not enough; students must people know what the
can “use technology as a tool for organization, get past the novelty of the
communication, research, and problem solving” technology and begin to technology is capable
(p. 1). Undoubtedly, developing technology lit- use it because they see how
eracy and implementing it well in a classroom the tools of technology will of, they are able to use
situation likely involves a complex interaction of
epistemic and pedagogical beliefs, intrapersonal
facilitate their learning.
When they gain this per-
the technology profi-
factors, social factors, and affordances of the en- spective, the technology ciently, and they make
vironment (Ertmer, 2005; Leu, 2006; Richardson, becomes transparent, al-
1996). For the purposes of this article, technol- most invisible to the learn- intelligent decisions
ogy literacy in educational situations is defined ing process. Equipment
as the ability to effectively use technology (i.e., with which students are about which technol-
any tool, piece of equipment or device, electronic
or mechanical) to accomplish required learning
familiar is more likely to
be used as a learning tool.
ogy to use and when
tasks. Technology literate people know what the Once students start focus- to use it.
technology is capable of, they are able to use the ing on the goal of complet-
technology proficiently, and they make intel- ing a learning task, using technology becomes
ligent decisions about which technology to use merely a way to accomplish the expected learn-
and when to use it. ing (Davies, Sprague, & New, 2008b).
Technology Literacy and Today’s
Student Population
Research Methods
While interesting, the description of “digi- The framework presented in this study is
tal natives” and “digital immigrants” (Prensky, based on the results of two studies conducted
2001) does not fully explain the phenomenon of by the author. The first was an observation-
literacy in an age of technology. The assumption al study that surveyed pre-service (student
that students are more technologically literate teachers) and in-service (practicing teachers)
than their parents simply because they are ex- regarding their attitudes towards technology
posed to technology at an earlier age is incorrect- and technology integration. In this study an
-or rather, incomplete. Certainly people become interesting trend was noted in which pre-ser-
skilled with technology only when they are aware vice teachers tended to value technology much
of its function, have access to it, and practice us- more than in-service teachers (Davies & Lin-
ing it. Yet exposure to technology does not make ton , 2008a). This first study was limited how-
someone a technology expert any more that liv- ever in its ability to explain why this phenom-
ing in a library makes a person a literary expert. enon occurred. The second study, which was
It is a common fallacy to suppose that because predominately used in the development of the
students are growing up in a technological age technology literacy framework presented in
they are somehow instinctively capable of using this article, was a five-year evaluation of a Na-
technology to learn what is expected of them in tional Science Foundation (NSF) project which
school. Students today are no more or less ca- integrated learning technologies into sixth
pable of learning to use available technologies grade science classrooms utilizing a problem-
than students have been in the past. In fact, to- based learning approach. One aspect of the
day’s students typically use technology primar- evaluation was conducted using a grounded
ily for social pursuits (i.e., communication and theory approach. Participating teachers, and
entertainment) but not necessarily for academic their students, were observed regularly over
learning (Peck, Cuban, & Kirkpatrick, 2003). a five year period as they learned to use new
Constructing knowledge is a human activity technology and integrate that technology into
that can be facilitated by technology, but students their classrooms (Davies, Sprague, & New,
must go beyond seeing technology as a motiva- 2008b). A constant comparative method of
tional or entertaining item and begin seeing the data analysis was utilized in the development
technology as a tool to accomplish specific learn- of the framework presented below.

Volume 55, Number 5 TechTrends • September/October 2011 47

Table 1.
Levels of Technology Literacy
Literacy Level Type of User Usage Level
Functionally illiterate Non user None/resistant
Awareness
Limited literacy Potential user Limited
Developing Tentative user Guided/directed
Praxis
Experienced Capable user Bring it on
Practical competence Expert user Power
Phronesis
Practical wisdom Discerning user Selective

Table 1.
Table 2.
Characteristics of Users at Various Levels of Technology Literacy
Typical Activity Literacy Question
Hear about new technologies
Awareness What can it do?
Learn of capabilities of new technologies
Practice customary implementation Explore/attempt How do you __?
Praxis
variety of applications Do you? Are you?
Effective use of technologies capabilities
Phronesis Why are you?
Discerning/appropriate use of technologies

Table 2.

A Framework for do? When a specific technology is mentioned,

someone at this level might recall what people
Understanding and Assessing say about it and what can be done with it. They
Technology Literacy know about the technology but as yet are not
The framework presented in Tables 1 and able to use it proficiently, if at all. This is a type
2 represents the way technology skills and ex- of declarative knowledge (Woolfolk, 2008).
pertise are developed. This framework involves Learners are more likely to successfully ne-
three levels: awareness, praxis, and phronesis. gotiate this level if they are actively seeking out
The higher levels of this framework are based in opportunities to learn about new technologies.
the Aristotelian notion of praxis and the goal of Resistant learners (both students and teachers)
practical competence and practical wisdom, ph- are much less likely to take the time and effort to
ronesis. In this sense the highest level of techno- become aware of what technologies are available
logical literacy has as its objective the develop- and how these technologies might benefit their
ment of wise technology use and informed tech- learning.
nology integration. These levels are represented At this level a learner may demonstrate a
as a continuum that requires a cyclical process rudimentary level of practical wisdom, but only
of continual reeducation. Just as higher levels in a limited sense. Teachers, for example, may
of cognitive development require lower level choose not to learn about or become familiar
skills, the highest levels of technological litera- with a particular technology because they rec-
cy require the learner to be aware of the nature ognize that their individual circumstances limit
and purpose of the available technology and to its availability or usefulness. In some schools
practice implementation. In addition, practical funding for technologies may not be available.
wisdom, the highest level of technology literacy, In others the limited number of computers in
cannot be attained without an authentic context. each classroom prevent teachers from fully and
properly implementing that technology as an
Awareness Level instructional resource. Such avoidance does not
To become technologically literate, learners constitute the kind of practical wisdom por-
need to be exposed to the technology. Moving trayed at the phronesis level.
through this level they become aware of the edu-
cational technologies available to them and the Praxis Level
basic purposes and functions involved. This is At this level learners engage in activities that
literacy at its most basic level. They are able to help them become familiar with the customary
answer the question, What can this technology uses and functionality of the technology. They
gain experience using the technology and are

48 TechTrends • September/October 2011 Volume 55, Number 5

able to accomplish simple tasks. Someone at this authentic situation. Observing how the tech-
level is able to answer the question, How do you nology is being used is important; but knowing
use this technology? This is a form of procedural why the technology is being used or not being
knowledge (Woolfolk, 2008). As their technolo- used is essential for those who attain the phro-
gy literacy improves, learners are able to explain nesis level.
how a specific technology might be used to ac-
complish specific tasks. They would also likely The Cyclical Nature of
answer “yes” to the question, Are you using tech- Educational Technology
nology?
Learners are most likely to succeed at this Literacy Development
level when they are provided with expert guid- The more one examines the issue of tech-
ance accompanied by practice involving simu- nology literacy, the more one becomes aware
lated problem solving activities. Students at this of how difficult it is to be truly technologically
stage often move from novice use to enthusiastic literate. The environment in which we live and
use. Often at this stage the quantity of use and the strive for literacy is continually changing: with
enthusiasm for the technology increase dramati- new and more complex technology, frequently
cally. Unbridled enthusiasm can, however, lead shifting educational policies, pragmatic fund-
to misuse of technology. For example, a person ing realities, and a multiplicity of instruction-
who learns to use a spreadsheet may become en- al objectives, values and goals. In many ways
thralled with the application and use it in place technology literacy is a moving target (Leu,
of a word processor. While this can and has been 2006). Thus developing this capacity involves
done, the situation does show how overly enthu- a cycle of continual reeducation.
siastic users may lack technology literacy at its Certainly individuals can achieve a gen-
highest level. To the man with a hammer, ev- eral degree of technological literacy; however,
ery problem is a nail. Teachers at the praxis level few people could claim to be competent with
sometime misuse technology in this way. Using technology in every educational situation or
technology only because one can use it or using to be literate with all educational technologies.
it in a way that fails to accomplish learning goals Additionally, once an individual attains practi-
may imply some level of competence, but may cal competency with a specific technology in a
also signify a lack of practical wisdom. specific situation, the pragmatic or wise appli-
Phronesis Level cation of that technology may change. In ad-
At the highest level of technology literacy, dition, someone might be extremely competent
learners have become adept at using technology. with the use of some technologies and integrate
They are skilled at learning new technology and them well in specific situations but fail to use
are not afraid to use technology to accomplish the technology appropriately in other educa-
their learning goals. Still they may choose not tional contexts. Being literate with educational
to use technology. Someone at this level is able technologies is not a one-time achievement;
to answer the why question, Why do I use or it is a lifelong endeavor. It involves reflective
not use technology in this specific situation? The practice, and one’s skills and abilities must be
highest level of technology literacy is attained continually refined.
when the learner develops wise technology use
and informed technology integration. This level Implications for Evaluating
constitutes conceptual or conditional knowledge Technology Integration in
(Woolfolk, 2008). It includes reflective practice. Learning Situations
In order to attain a level of practical compe-
tence and practical wisdom, the learner must be For technology to be used effectively as a
able to apply technology to authentic situations. learning tool, both teachers and students must
Wise and competent use of educational technol- first become familiar with its purpose and op-
ogy depends on context, not mandate. Appro- eration. One must be able to use the technol-
priate and effective use of technology is context ogy before developing the capacity to use it as
dependent and contingent on the specific learn- a learning tool. To gain instructional effective-
ing situation. In order to work at this level of ness and efficiency, guided practice seems to be
competency, the user must understand the learn- much better than self-discovery. The guided
ing task and recognize ways the technology will practice exercises tend to reduce the amount of
facilitate attainment of the learning goal. time required to become familiar with equip-
Measuring technology literacy at this level ment and allow groups to get started on their
requires a performance assessment involving an primary learning activities more quickly (Da-

Volume 55, Number 5 TechTrends • September/October 2011 49

vies, Sprague, & New, 2008b). Both teachers and ogy can facilitate accomplishment of the intend-
students need to expect a learning curve asso- ed learning goal. They may choose not to use
ciated with using new technology, and practice advanced levels of technology when the learning
using the equipment reduces frustration and might be accomplished effectively in another
problems at meeting expectations. However, way or with more traditional technologies.
training and practice with specific technology When evaluating technology literacy of
does not necessarily develop technology literacy teachers and their effectiveness in integrating
that can be transferred to other situations. If technology into their classrooms, an evaluator
teachers and students are to become truly liter- must first ask why a specific technology is be-
ate with the technology, they must be provided ing used. Technology use must be aligned with
with an authentic situation for which they are intended learning objectives. The reasons for
allowed to select the learning technologies. It is using specific educational technologies might
the ability to transfer knowledge of the technol- vary, but the decision of whether to implement
ogy to unique situations that makes an individ- a specific technology must ultimately lead to
ual competent. It is knowing when and how to facilitating or accomplishing the desired learn-
utilize specific technology that makes a person a ing objectives. Once the evaluation establishes
wise user of technology. why the technology is being used, the question
of how well the technology is being used should
Teachers’ Technology Literacy and
be addressed. Even when appropriate tools are
Technology Integration
selected, not every teacher implements the edu-
All teachers are expected to be highly quali-
cational technology well.
fied. Being highly qualified, however, is not the
same as being highly effective. The goal of tech- Students’ Technology Literacy and Use
nology integration in education is the wise and For students as well, developing the high-
competent use of technology to facilitate learn- est level of technology literacy involves using
ing. As teachers gain experience in the class- technology to accomplish specific learning ob-
room their view of technology importance and jectives. The learning process is their authentic
potential use tends to change (Davies & Linton situation. A teacher might provide an authen-
, 2008a). Certainly teaching can be enhanced tic situation for students to develop a degree
with the use of technology, but effective use of of competency by giving an inquiry-based or
technology requires understanding of the learn- problem-based learning assignment. Students
ing goals as well as the utility and function of must be allowed to choose the technology they
the technology in accomplishing these goals. will use to accomplish the required learning. A
Mishra & Koehler’s (2006) prerequisite for developing a phronesis level of
“It is a common term technological peda-
gogical content knowledge
technological literacy is to train students in the
use of a variety of technologies so they might
fallacy to suppose that (TPACK) accurately de- gain expertise in selecting and using technology
scribes classroom teachers to accomplish their learning goals. Obviously
because students are who demonstrate technol- having access to the technology they choose to
growing up in a tech- ogy literacy at the phrone-
sis level. For teachers, the
use is a prerequisite as well.
As with teachers, observers who are evalu-
nological age they are authentic situation is their
classroom. To teach effec-
ating technology literacy of students must first
understand why a specific technology is being
somehow instinctively tively, teachers must have used. The evaluator must determine whether
content knowledge (CK) the students know how specific technologies
capable of using and pedagogy knowledge might best be used, but understanding why they
technology to learn (PK). They must under-
stand the content they are
select specific tools for accomplishing a learn-
ing task is fundamental. After answering the
what is expected of to teach and must also
know the best way to teach
why question, assessors should evaluate how well
the technology was used to accomplish the
them in school.” it. TPACK is acquired learning task.
when teachers additionally
gain technology knowledge (TK): when they ef- Conclusions
fectively and appropriately integrate technology
With the popular belief that technology
into the learning process. Teachers who have
enhances learning and the resulting expecta-
TPACK choose to use specific technology be-
tion that teachers and administrators should
cause they understand the pedagogy for teach-
integrate technology into their school activities
ing specific content and know how the technol-
(Technology in Schools Task Force, 2002; U.S.

50 TechTrends • September/October 2011 Volume 55, Number 5

Department of Education, 2001), technology which is not always possible in formal technol-
integration has increased over the last few years ogy training situations, but can be feasible in a
(McMillan-Culp, Honey, & Mandinach, 2005; school setting. When evaluating technology
Russell, Bebell, O’Dwyer, & O’Connor, 2003). integration, a proper understanding of technol-
However, measuring the extent to which tech- ogy is essential, but assessors should look be-
nology is implemented and used effectively can yond technology use and consider the reason-
be challenging. While there have been several ing behind it.
attempts to explain what technology integration An important part of the instructional
might look like and how to assess technology lit- technology discipline will always include push-
eracy (International Society for Technology in ing the envelope to develop new ways to use
Education, 2007, 2008; Technology in Schools technology in educational situations. Training
Task Force, 2002), in practice these assessment technology users will always include becoming
strategies tend to rely on technology adoption aware of and providing practice with new tech-
as a key indicator when evaluating technology nology. However, reflective practice demands
literacy. A use model for determining technol- that we critically analyze our methods; in this
ogy literacy is easy to implement but insufficient case, why we use technology in specific situa-
if technology literacy is to be measured at its tions. At times we must temper our enthusi-
highest level. asm for technology use and evaluate appro-
The conceptual framework for understand- priate technology integration first in terms of
ing technology literacy presented in this article why we are using the technology, then how well
involves three levels: (1) Awareness, (2) Praxis the technology was used to accomplish the
(i.e., training), and (3) Phronesis (i.e., practical learning task.
competence and practical wisdom). To attain
the level of phronesis, students must progress Dr. Randall Davies ([email protected]) is cur-
though the lower levels, as is true with other, rently an assistant professor of Instructional Psychology and
higher level learning/thinking skills. Assessing Technology at Brigham Young University. His professional
technology literacy at the highest level requires experience includes ten years in a high school setting as a
technology and mathematics teacher. He also worked for
evaluation of the quantity and quality of use; but
several years teaching computer science, evaluation, and
more important, assessing technology literacy research related topics at the college level. His research in-
and integration at the practical wisdom level volves program evaluation in educational settings with the
must include evaluation of the decision making general objective of understanding and improving the teach-
process for whether to use technology. A per- ing and learning process. His research has a specific focus
formance assessment is necessary, involving an of evaluating technology integration, assessment policy, and
authentic situation in which the user must make educational practices.
decisions about which technology will or will not
be used; assessment should focus on how well References
the individual accomplishes the integration task
Bauer, J., & Kenton, J. (2005). Toward technology integra-
considering the intended learning objectives.
tion in the schools: Why it isn’t happening. Journal of
This framework of technological literacy was Technology and Teacher Education, 13(4), 519-546.
designed to help educators understand, evalu- Burgess-Limerick, R., Abernathy, B., & Limerick, B.
ate, and promote effective technology integra- (1994). Identification of underlying assumptions is
tion. The progression through these levels can an integral part of research: An example from motor
be visualized on a continuum that includes a control. Theory & Psychology, 4, 139-146.
cycle of continual reeducation. Due to change Davies, R., & Linton , J. (2008a). Understanding Dispo-
rate of technology innovations and the continu- sitional Dissonance. Paper presented at the Michigan
ally evolving context of practice, technology lit- Academy of Science, Arts & Letters Annual Meeting
eracy is not something one attains, rather some- at Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, MI.
thing one maintains. In order to properly inte- Davies, R., Sprague, C., & New, C. (2008b) Integrating
Technology into a Science Classroom: An evaluation
grate technology into a school setting, teacher
of inquiry-based technology integration. In D.W. Su-
and students must gain proficiency with specific nal, E. L. Wright, & C. Sundberg (Eds.), The Impact of
technologies and have opportunities to select Technology and the Laboratory on K-16 Science Learn-
technology tools to help them accomplish their ing series: Research in Science Education (pp. 207-237).
learning goals. Technology training is essen- Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, Inc.
tial for this to occur, but this typically involves Eisenberg, M.B., & Johnson, D. (2002) Learning and
only the lower levels of literacy. Gaining prac- teaching information technology: Computer skills in
tical competency and practical wisdom requires context. ERIC Document Reproduction No. ED 465
an authentic problem-based learning situation, 377.

Volume 55, Number 5 TechTrends • September/October 2011 51

“A use model for determining technology literacy
is easy to implement but insufficient if technology literacy
is to be measured at its highest level.”

Ertmer, P.A. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The 23(4), 40-42. Retrieved from http://loticonnection.com/
final frontier in our quest for technology integration? pdf/LoTiFrameworkNov95.pdf
Educational Technology Research and Development, National Research Council Committee on Information
53(4), 25-39. Technology Literacy. (1999). Being fluent with informa-
Hall, B., & Khan, B. (2003). Adoption of new technology. tion technology. Washington, D.C.: National Academy
NBER Working Paper. Retrieved from http://papers. Press.
ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=410656. Peck, C., Cuban, L., & Kirkpatrick, H. (2003). High-tech’s
Hansen, J. W. (2003) To change perceptions of technology high hopes meet student realities. Education Digest,
programs. Journal of Technology Studies, 29, 16-19. 67(8), 47-54.
International Society for Technology in Education. Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants.
(2007). National educational technology standards for On the Horizon, 9(5), 1–2.
students. Retrieved from http://www.iste.org/AM/Tem- Richardson, V. (1996). The role of attitudes and beliefs in
plate.cfm?Section=NETS learning to teach. In J. Sikula (ed.), The handbook of
International Society for Technology in Education. research in teacher education (2nd ed., pp. 102-119),
(2008). National educational technology standards for New York: MacMillan.
teachers. Retrieved from http://www.iste.org/AM/Tem- Rogers, P. (2000). Barriers to adopting emerging technolo-
plate.cfm?Section=NETS gies in education. Journal of Educational Computing
Leu, D. J., & Kinzer, C. K. (2000). The convergence of Research, 22(4), 455-472.
literacy instruction with networked technologies for Russell, M., Bebell, D., O’Dwyer, L., & O’Connor, K.
information and communication. Reading Research (2003). Examining teacher technology use: Implica-
Quarterly, 35(1), 108-127. tions for preservice and inservice teacher preparation .
Leu, D.J. (2006). New literacies, reading research, and Journal of Teacher Education, 54(4), 297-310.
the challenges of change: A Deictic perspective. (NRC Technology in Schools Task Force. (2002). Technology
Presidential Address). In J. Hoffman, D. Schallert, C. in schools: Suggestions, tools, and guidelines for assess-
M. Fairbanks, J. Worthy, & B. Maloch (Eds.) The 55th ing technology in elementary and secondary education.
Yearbook of the National Reading Conference.      (1-20). Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2003/tech_
Milwaukee, WI: National Reading Conference. schools/chapter7.asp
McMillan, S. (1996). Literacy and computer literacy: Topper, A. (2004). How are we doing? Using self-assess-
Definitions and comparisons. Computer & Education, ment to measure changing teacher technology literacy
27(3-4), 161-170. within a graduate educational technology program.
McMillan-Culp, K., Honey, M., & Mandinach, E. (2005). Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 12(3),
A retrospective on twenty years of educational tech- 303-317.
nology policy. Journal of Educational Computing Re- U.S. Department of Education (2001). Enhancing Edu-
search, 32(3), 279-307. cation Through Technology, SEC. 2402 - purposes
Miller, M. D., Linn, R. L., & Gronlund, N. E. (2009). Mea- and goals. Elementary and Secondary Education Act.
surement and assessment in teaching (10th ed.). Upper Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/
Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall. esea02/pg34.html#sec2401
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological peda- U.S. Department of Education, Office of Elementary and
gogical content knowledge: A new framework for Secondary Education. (2002). No child left behind: A
teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), desktop reference. Retrieved from https://www.ed.gov/
1017-1054. admins/lead/account/nclbreference/page.html
Moersch, C. (1995). Levels of technology implementa- Woolfolk, A. (2008). Educational Psychology, (10th ed.).
tion (LoTi): A framework for measuring classroom Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.
technology use. Learning and Leading with Technology,

52 TechTrends • September/October 2011 Volume 55, Number 5

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.