Teacher Pedagogical Beliefs: The Final Frontierin Our Quest for Technology Integration?

D] Peggy A. Ertmer

Although the conditions for successfultechnology integration finally appear to be inplace, including ready access to technology,increased training for teachers, and afavorablepolicy environment, high-level technology useis still surprisingly low. This suggests thatadditional barriers, spec#ically related toteachers' pedagogical beliefs, may be at work.Previous researchers have noted the influenceof teachers' beliefs on classroom instructionspecifically in math, reading, and science, yetlittle research has been done to establish asimilar link to teachers' classroom uses oftechnology. In this article, I argue for theimportance of such research and present aconceptual overview of teacher pedagogicalbeliefs as a vital first step. After defining anddescribing the nature of teacher beliefs,including how they are likely to impactteachers' classroom practice, I describeimportant implications for teacher professionaldevelopment and offer suggestions for futureresearch.

E According to Becker (2000), computers serveas a "valuable and well-functioning instruc-tional tool" (p. 29) in schools and classrooms inwhich teachers: (a) have convenient access, (b)are adequately prepared, (c) have some freedomin the curriculum, and (d) hold personal beliefsaligned with a constructivist pedagogy.Although many teachers do not work in schoolsin which all of these variables are present, anumber of recent reports suggest that this isstarting to change. For example, according toMarket Data Retrieval (MDR, 2002) studentsacross the United States now enjoy an averagestudent-computer ratio of 4:1, with 98% ofschools and 77% of classrooms connected to theInternet. Recent demographic data from theIntegrated Studies of Educational Technology(ISET; U.S. Department of Education [DOE],2003) revealed that 81% of teachers have eithermoderate or high levels of access to instructionalcomputers. Furthermore, no significant differ-ences were found in computer availability byschool type (elementary vs. secondary) or pov-erty level.

Along with increased access have comeincreased opportunities for teachers to gain tech-nology skills. The majority of teachers (85%)now report feeling "somewhat well-prepared"to use technology for classroom instruction (U.S.DOE, 2003), a notable increase since the 2000report of the National Center for Education Sta-tistics (NCES) in which 53% of teachers reportedfeeling somewhat prepared. Furthermore, in the2003 study, only 37% of teachers expressedinterest in learning basic computer skills whileover 80% expressed interest in learning how tointegrate computer technology into curricularareas, suggesting that the majority of current

ETR&D, Vol. 53, No. 4,2005, pp. 25-39 ISSN 1042-1629 25

ETR&D, Vol. 53, No. 4

teachers have obtained (or at least perceive theyhave obtained) minimum levels of technicalcompetency.

Although progress in the third area (e.g.,freedom in the curriculum) is harder to measure,recent legislation and policy statements indicatea strong commitment by education authoritiesto support the expansion and use of computersin K-12 classrooms (U.S. DOE, 1996,2001, 2003).Evidence of this commitment includes the adop-tion of standards for technology use by adminis-trators, teachers, and students (InternationalSociety for Technology in Education, 2003); theincreasing prevalence of block scheduling(which allows for longer class periods) at thehigh -school level (American Federation ofTeachers, 1999; North Carolina Department ofPublic Instruction, 1998); and provisions withinthe No Child Left Behind Act to ensure thatteachers can integrate technology into the curric-ulum for the purposes of improving studentachievement (U.S. DOE, 2001). Simply stated:"Technology is now considered by most educa-tors and parents to be an integral part of provid-ing a high-quality education" (U.S. DOE, 2003,p. 3).

Although the first three conditions identifiedby Becker (2000) appear to havebeen nearly met,the fourth (teachers' beliefs) is much less under-stood and, consequently, less readily resolved.This may be due, at least in part, to the fact thatthe first three conditions have required changesthat might best be described as first order(Waters, Marzano, & McNulty, 2003); that is,changes that adjust current practice in an incre-mental fashion without changing existing struc-tures or beliefs. However, the fourth componentcomprises a second-order change-change thatconfronts teachers' fundamental beliefs and,thus, requires new ways of both seeing anddoing things. While first-order changes are, ineffect, reversible, second-order changes are seenas irreversible: Once you begin, it is impossibleto return to your previous routines and habits(Brownlee, 2000). As such, these types ofchanges are riskier for teachers, as well as moredifficult to achieve. Furthermore, knowing howto facilitate and support these types of changes ismuch less familiar to staff developers who typi-cally have been concerned with facilitating first-

order change (Garet, Porter, Desimone, Birman,& Yoon, 2001).

A number of large-scale studies (e.g., Barron,Kemker, Harmes, & Kalaydjian, 2003) have veri-fied that teacher technology use has increased inclassrooms across the nation, undoubtedlybecause of these increased levels of access andskill, as well as the current favorable policy envi-ronment. However, although many teachers areusing technology for numerous low-level tasks(word processing, Internet research), higherlevel uses are still very much in the minority. Forexample, results of a survey conducted by Mich-igan Virtual University (Newman, 2002) as partof a program to give every Michigan teacher alaptop computer (completed by more than90,000 teachers) indicated that whereas mostteachers reported knowing how to get informa-tion from the Web and send e-mail, only a smallproportion of the teachers (sometimes only 1 in9) knew how to use high-tech tools such asspreadsheets, presentation software, or digitalimaging to enhance their lessons. Results fromISET (U.S. DOE, 2003) were similar: The com-puter-related activities in which teachers mostoften engaged their students included express-ing themselves in writing, improving their com-puter skills, doing research using the Internet,using computers as a free-time or reward activ-ity, and doing practice drills.

Thus, while instructional computer useappears to be increasing (at least as measured byself-report data), the most common and frequentuses have resulted in only incremental, or first-order, changes in teaching style and remain farremoved from the best practices advocated inthe literature (Becker, 1994; Berg, Benz, Lasley,& Raisch, 1998; Dede, 1998; Dexter, Anderson, &Becker, 1999). For example, Becker (1994) classi-fied exemplary technology users based on stan-dards that "suggest a classroom environment inwhich computers were both prominent in theexperience of students and employed in orderthat students grow intellectually and not merelydevelop isolated skills" (p. 294). In general, low-level technology uses tend to be associated withteacher-centered practices while high-level usestend to be associated with student-centered, orconstructivist, practices (Becker, 1994; Becker &Riel, 1999).

26

TEACHER BELIEFS

The predominance of low-level uses may bedue simply to the fact that low-level uses pre-cede high-level uses, and that not enough timehas passed for high-level uses to emerge. Basedon developmental models of technology integra-tion proposed by researchers for the AppleClassrooms of Tomorrow (e.g., Sandholtz,Ringstaff, & Dwyer, 1997) and others (Becker,1994; Hooper & Rieber, 1995; Marcinkiewicz,1993), it takes five to six years for teachers toaccumulate enough expertise to use technologyin ways advocated by constructivist reformefforts. The assumption, then, is that increasedor prolonged technology use will actuallyprompt teachers to change their practicestoward more constructivist approaches. Whilethis may be true, it has yet to be verified byempirical research (e.g., Barron et al., 2003; New-man, 2002). For example, based on the results oftheir work in two high-tech high schools in Cali-fornia, Cuban, Kirkpatrick, and Peck (2001)noted that "Few fundamental changes in thedominant mode of teacher-centered instructionhad occurred. . . . Even in computer-basedclasses, teacher-centered instruction was thenorm" (p. 825). Cuban and his colleagues postu-lated that these results might have been becauseof the "deeply entrenched structures of the self-contained classroom, departments, time sched-ules, and teachers' disciplinary training ..(p. 83).

Still, one has to wonder whether changes inthese structures would be sufficient to facilitatethe type of fundamental changes required forteachers to use technology in constructivistways. Although changes in these structuresmight create more opportunities for teachers touse student-centered approaches, other second-order barriers (i.e., barriers that are intrinsic toteachers and that challenge their beliefs aboutcurrent practice) may limit their efforts (Ertmer,1999). As noted by Dexter et al. (1999),"Although culture and context create norms ofteaching practice.., teachers can choose, withinthese limits, the approach that works for them.This autonomy provides teachers with choicesto adopt, adapt, or reject an instructionalreform" (p. 224).

Ultimately, the decision regarding whetherand how to use technology for instruction rests

on the shoulders of classroom teachers. If educa-tors are to achieve fundamental, or second-order, changes in classroom teaching practices,we need to examine teachers themselves and thebeliefs they hold about teaching, leamning, andtechnology. As Marcinkiewicz (1993) noted,"Full integration of computers into the educa-tional system is a distant goal unless there is rec-onciliation between teachers and computers. Tounderstand how to achieve integration, we needto study teachers and what makes them usecomputers" (p. 234). Cuban's observation (1997)supports this: "It's not a problem of resources,but a struggle over core values" (online).

Purpose of Article

The purpose of this article is to examine the rela-tionship between teachers' pedagogical beliefsand their technology practices. While previousresearchers have documented the influence ofteachers' pedagogical beliefs on classroom prac-tices related to teaching mathematics (Vacc &Bright, 1999), science (Czerniak & Lumpe, 1996),history (Wilson & Wineburg, 1988), and literacy(Fang, 1996), few have examined how thesebeliefs influence teachers' adoption and use oftechnology. Zhao, Pugh, Sheldon, and Byers(2002) lamented that, despite a preponderanceof survey studies examining factors influencingteachers' uses of technology, "these types ofstudies tend to neglect the messy processthrough which teachers struggle to negotiate aforeign and potentially disruptive innovationinto their familiar environment" (p. 483). In thisreview, I extend the work of these and otherscholars who have examined teacher beliefs insubject-related contexts, to explicate the relation-ship between pedagogical beliefs and technol-ogy use. The hope is that by gaining a betterunderstanding of this complex relationship,educators might gain a greater appreciation forwhy more teachers are not using technology inways advocated in the literature. This, then, mayenable us to facilitate abetter alignment betweenresearch, practice, and beliefs and to providemore effective ways of supporting and docu-menting teacher change. Ultimately, the goal isto facilitate uses of technology that lead to

27

8ER&D, Vol. 53, No. 4

increased student learning. As noted by Pajares(1992): "Little will have been accomplished ifresearch into educational beliefs fails to provideinsights into the relationship between beliefs...and teacher practices, teacher knowledge, andstudent outcomes" (p. 327).

Definition of Teacher Beliefs

Unfortunately, there is a lot of confusion in theliterature regarding both the labels and defini-tions used to describe teacher beliefs. Pajares, inhis 1992 review, labeled teacher beliefs a "messyconstruct," noting that "the difficulty in study-ing teachers' beliefs has been caused by defini-tional problems, poor conceptualizations, anddiffering understandings of beliefs and beliefstructures" (p. 307). According to Calderhead(1996), teacher beliefs, as well as teacher.knowl-edge and teacher thinking, comprise the broaderconcept of teacher cognition. Yet, Kagan (1990)noted that the term teacher cognition "is some-what ambiguous, because researchers invokethe term to refer to different products, includingteachers' interactive thoughts during instruc-tion; thoughts during lesson planning; implicitbeliefs about students, classrooms, and learning;[and] reflections about their own teaching per-formance .... " (p. 420 ).

Part of the difficulty in defining teacherbeliefs centers on determining if, and how, theydiffer from knowledge. In this review, I acceptthe distinction suggested by Calderhead (1996):Whereas beliefs generally refer to "suppositions,commitments, and ideologies," knowledgerefers to "factual propositions and understand-ings" (p. 715). Therefore, after gaining knowledgeof a proposition, we are still free to accept it asbeing either true or false (i.e., believe it, or not).For example, teachers may gain specific knowl-edge about how to create spreadsheets for stu-dent record keeping, and may also know thatother teachers have used them successfully, yetstill not believe that spreadsheets offer an effec-tive tool for their classroom use. This might beespecially true if, based on previous experiences,they have negative beliefs about their own tech-nical capabilities. Another distinction betweenknowledge and beliefs, illustrated by this exam-

ple, is the stronger affective and evaluative com-ponents often associated with beliefs (Nespor,1987). Given these distinctions, Nespor and oth-ers (Griffin & OhIsson, 2001; Kagan, 1992;Pajares, 1992) have concluded that beliefs are farmore influential than knowledge in determininghow individuals organize and define tasks andproblems. This, then, makes them stronger pre-dictors of behavior.

Despite the difficulties related to sorting outthis "messy construct," Pajares (1992) proposedthat, "All teachers hold beliefs, however definedand labeled, about their work, their students,their subject matter, and their roles and respon-sibilities .. .." (p. 314). Because "humans havebeliefs about everything" (p. 315), Pajares rec-ommended that researchers make a distinctionbetween teachers' broader, general belief sys-tems and their educational beliefs. In addition,he recommended that educational beliefs benar-rowed further to specify what those beliefs areabout, for example, educational beliefs about thenature of knowledge, perceptions of self andfeelings of self-worth, confidence to perform cer-tain tasks, and so on. Following Pajares's recom-mendation, in this review I focus specifically onteachers' educational beliefs about teaching andlearning (referred to here as pedagogical beliefs)and the beliefs they have about how technologyenables them to translate those beliefs into class-room practice. It is my hope that establishing aclear understanding of these concepts and therelationships among them will accomplish animportant first step in improving both futureresearch and practice related to teacher change,in general, and teacher technology use, morespecifically.

Link Between Beliefs and Practice

A great deal of empirical evidence has estab-lished the significance of beliefs for understand-ing teacher behavior (see reviews byCalderhead, 1996; Clark & Peterson, 1986; Kane,Sandretto, & Heath, 2002; Pajares, 1992). Indescribing this relationship, Pajares noted, "Fewwould argue that the beliefs teachers hold influ-ence their perceptions and judgments, which inturn, affect their behavior in the classroom..."

28

TEACHER BELIEFS

(p. 307). Kagan (1992) cited significant evidencesupporting this relationship: "Empirical studieshave yielded quite consistent findings: Ateacher's beliefs tend to be associated with a con-gruent style of teaching that is often evidentacross different classes and grade levels" (p. 66).In fact, given that the knowledge base of teach-ing consists of few, if any, indisputable "truths,"Kagan postulated, "most of a teacher's profes-sional knowledge can be regarded more accu-rately as a belief" (p. 73).

Yet some researchers have described incon-sistencies between teachers' beliefs and theirclassroom practices (Calderhead, 1996; Ertmer,Gopalakrishnan, & Ross, 2001; Fang, 1996; Kaneet al., 2002). For example, Fang described a num-ber of studies in which researchers found littlerelationship between teachers' beliefs and theirinstructional reading practices, and suggestedthat contextual factors interfered with teachers'ability to consistently apply their beliefs in prac-tice. Results from a study of technology-usingteachers supported this as well. Ertmer et al.(2001) reported that teachers' visions for, orbeliefs about, classroom technology use did notalways match their classroom practices. Despitethe fact that most of the teachers described them-selves as having constructivist philosophies,they implemented technology in ways thatmight best be described as representing a mixedapproach, at times engaging their students inauthentic, project-based work, but at other timesasking them to complete tutorials, practice skills,and learn isolated facts. Teachers' explanationsfor these inconsistencies often included refer-ences to contextual constraints, such as curricu-lar requirements or social pressure exerted byparents, peers, or administrators. Scott,Chovanec, and Young (1994) observed a similarpattern in their study of the beliefs and class-room practices of 14 college professors. Theauthors described how their participants drewfrom more than one philosophical base and con-cluded that the "common theme in this research• . . is one of negotiation between what oneassumes and believes to be true about teachingand the contextual factors (students, institution,and societal assumptions and beliefs) whichserve as enablers or constrainers to playing outthese assumptions and beliefs" (p. 23). These

results, then, point to the need for both research-ers and practitioners to be aware of, and toaccount for, the potential influence of thesetypes of contextual factors when examiningteachers' beliefs or promoting teacher change.

While not discounting these types of incon-sistencies, Pajares (1992) suggested that theysimply illustrate the difficulties inherent in try-ing to measure beliefs accurately. Because beliefsexist, primarily, in tacit form (Kagan, 1992; Kaneet al., 2002; Nespor, 1987), understandingteachers' beliefs requires making inferencesbased on what teachers say, intend, and do. Ifindividuals are unable, or unwilling, to accu-rately represent their beliefs, this can lead tomisjudging or misrepresenting that which trulymotivates their behavior. According to Munby(1982), when beliefs about a particular subjectarea are inconsistent with a teacher's practice inthat area, it may just be that "different andweightier" beliefs are the cause (p. 216). Forexample, although teachers may express thebelief that technology is best used for high-levelproblem-solving activities, their day-to-day usesmay include a large number of drill-and-practiceapplications, because they hold a more centralbelief that teachers are responsible for assuringthat their students learn foundational, or prereq-uisite, skills. The problem, then, lies in sortingthrough these apparent contradictions to deter-mine which beliefs, exactly, are influencingwhich actions.

Nature of Beliefs

The potential power of beliefs as an influence onbehavior is inherently related to the nature ofbeliefs, as outlined by Nespor (1987). Amongother characteristics, Nespor described beliefs asrelying on episodic memory, with informationbeing drawn from personal experiences or cul-tural sources of knowledge. Early episodes orevents, then, have the potential to color percep-tions of subsequent events, especially if earlyexperiences are particularly unique or vivid.Furthermore, because of their highly personalnature, beliefs are unlikely to be affected by per-suasion. This is readily illustrated when we con-sider how initial experiences with computers,

29

ETR&D, Vol. 53, No. 4

especially traumatic or negative experiences,can shape teachers' subsequent encounters foryears to come, despite great efforts to persuadethem differently. The past events have created aguiding image, or what Goodman (1988) termed"an intuitive screen," through which new infor-mation and experiences are now filtered.

According to Nespor (1987), beliefs also tendto be "unbounded," that is, readily extended toapply to phenomena that may be unrelated tothe context in which they were formed, such aswhen teachers extend their beliefs about how todiscipline their own children to include beliefsabout how to discipline their students, despitethe apparent differences between these contexts.Yet based on these characteristics, Nesporargued that beliefs have great value in dealingwith complex, ill-defined situations such asthose teachers tend to encounter, in which thereare large amounts of information available andno single correct solution. In such contexts, theepisodic and unbounded nature of beliefs makesit possible to apply them flexibly to new prob-lems. Moreover, the nonconsensual nature ofbeliefs makes them relatively immune to contra-diction.

Beliefs about teaching and learning (and allbeliefs for that matter) tend to be embeddedwithin a larger, "loosely bounded" belief sys-tem, which Rokeach (1968) defined as "havingrepresented within it, in some organized psy-chological but not necessarily logical form, eachand every one of a person's countless beliefsabout physical and social reality" (p. 2 ). Accord-ing to Nespor (1987), belief systems, unlikeknowledge systems, do not require group con-sensus, and thus may be quite idiosyncratic.This may explain why two teachers who knowthe same things about technology might believedifferent things about its use (e.g., one seeing itas a blessing; the other as a curse). In fact, as hasbeen noted earlier, even individual beliefswithin the system do not, necessarily, have to beconsistent with each other. This property makesbelief systems more inflexible and less dynamicthan knowledge systems (Pajares, 1992), makingthe prospect of trying to promote change inteachers' beliefs utterly daunting.

How Beliefs Are Formed

In general, beliefs are created through a processof enculturation and social construction; theycan be formed by chance, an intense experience,or a succession of events (Pajares, 1992). Asnoted above, early experiences tend to colorlater experiences, even to the extent that subse-quent, contradictory information will be manip-ulated to fit with earlier interpretations. Griffinand Ohlsson (2001) claimed that this is becausebeliefs serve both cognitive and affective-socialfunctions. Thus, people might accept a certainidea independent of its coherence with relevantknowledge, or perhaps even change a belief,despite reducing conceptual coherence, becauseit enables the achievement of affective or socialgoals. Given this, personal theories and beliefsare rarely sufficiently revised and, thus overtime, become deeply personal, highlyengrained, and extremely resistant to change.

Although little has been written about howteachers' beliefs about technology are formed,there is little reason to think they follow a pathdifferent from that described for other beliefs.Because few current teachers have experienced,or even observed, the use of technology in theirown K-12 schooling, they are unlikely to havemany preconceived ideas about how technologyshould be used to achieve student learning. Yetbased on the nature of beliefs described above,both inexperienced and seasoned teachers arelikely to respond to these new instructional situ-ations by relying on previous beliefs and experi-ences (Kagan, 1992). Even new information(about technology, alternative teaching meth-ods, etc.), if attended to at all, will be filteredthrough these existing belief systems. Thus,teachers are likely to think about technology inthe same way they think about other teachingmethods, tools, or reform initiatives, dependingon if or how they classify technology into one ofthese categories. Whereas some teachers maythink of technology as just another tool they canuse to facilitate student learning, others maythink of it as one more thing to do (i.e., an inno-vation). These early perceptions and classifica-tions, then, result in vastly different beliefsregarding if, when, and how to use the tool.

Previous evidence suggests that, if technol-

30

TEACHER BELIEFS

ogy is treated as an instructional innovation,beliefs will play a significant role in whether orhow it is adopted and implemented (Cuban,1986; Czerniak & Lumpe, 1996; Peterson,Fennema, Carpenter, & Loef, 1989). Based on thereported relationship between teachers' beliefsand their implementation of reform initiatives,Niederhauser and Stoddart (2001) suggestedthat teachers use technology in ways that areconsistent with their personal beliefs about cur-riculum and instructional practice. That is, iftechnology is presented as a tool for enactingstudent-centered curricula, teachers withteacher-centered beliefs are less likely to use thetool as advocated. Rather, they are more likely touse it, if at all, to support the kinds of traditionalactivities with which they are comfortable.According to Zhao et al. (2002), the further anew practice is from existing practice, the lesslikely it will be implemented successfully. Giventhis, instructional technologists might considerintroducing technology as a tool to accomplishthat which is already valued (e.g., communicat-ing with parents, locating relevant instructionalresources). Then, once the tool is valued, theemphasis can switch to its potential for accomp-lishing additional or new tasks, including thosethat are supported by broader, or different,beliefs (Ertmer, 2001). For example, once teach-ers become comfortable using e-mail to commu-nicate with parents, they may be more willing toconsider allowing students to use e-mail to com-municate with peers across the state or evenacross the world, an activity that has the poten-tial to influence teacher beliefs about using tech-nology to achieve higher level goals (e.g.,authentic writing activities; cross-cultural col-laborations).

How Beliefs Are Changed

Beliefs vary in strength and kind; the ease withwhich teachers can change their beliefs is relatedto the strength of the particular beliefs underscrutiny (Block & Hazelip, 1995). In general,stronger beliefs are those that are more central toan individual's identify (Rokeach, 1968), quitepossibly because they were established duringearlier experiences and, thus, were used in the

processing of subsequent experiences (Pajares,1992). According to Rokeach, the centrality of abelief relates to its connectedness: "The more agiven belief is functionally connected or in com-munication with other beliefs, the more implica-tions and consequences it has for other beliefsand, therefore, the more central the belief" (p. 5).

Using the analogy of an atom, Rokeach (1968)described a belief system as being anchored by anucleus, or a set of core beliefs, and outlined fivetypes of beliefs that vary along this central-peripheral dimension:1. At the center are Type A beliefs, that is, core

beliefs that are formed through personalexperiences, reinforced through social con-sensus, and highly resistant to change. TypeA beliefs include beliefs about one's identityor self, as well as beliefs that are shared withothers.

2. Moving out from the core are Type B beliefswhich, like Type A, are formed throughdirect experience but, because they are heldprivately, tend to be unaffected by persua-sion.

3. Next are Type C beliefs, which relate towhich authorities to trust, and although theyare resistant to change, it is expected thatopinions about them will differ.

4. Closer to the periphery are Type D beliefs,which are derived from the authorities inwhich we believe and which can be changed,providing the suggestion for change comesfrom the relevant authority.

5. Finally, Type E beliefs are located at the out-ermost edge and include inconsequentialbeliefs that are essentially matters of taste.

Rokeach did not specifically address teachers'beliefs about teaching, but it would not be sur-prising if at least some beliefs about the nature ofteaching are formed over many years of experi-ence as a student and are resistant to changebecause they have been supported by strongauthority and broad consensus (Albion & Ert-mer, 2002). If this is true, then core beliefs aboutteaching will influence how new informationabout teaching is processed (Kagan, 1992),including ideas related to teaching with technol-ogy. Additional research is needed to verify thevalidity of this concept: Where do teachers'

31

EFR&D, Vol. 53, No. 4

beliefs exist in Rokeach's scheme and how arethey used to process information related toteaching with technology?

Griffin and Ohlsson (2001) described beliefrevision as being highly subject to motivationalinfluence and epistemological values. Partici-pants in their study indicated that, even if pre-sented with sound conflicting evidence, theywould not be willing to change their affect-based beliefs (e.g., belief in an afterlife; disbeliefin evolution), but were relatively willing tochange their knowledge-based beliefs (e.g.,belief in evolution; disbelief in an afterlife). Theauthors explained these results by noting,"Affect-based beliefs by virtue of their lack ofcoherence with the conceptual framework mightbe immune to threats posed by conflicting infor-mation. Any new information is likely to be dis-torted, and if it is accurately comprehended, itwill have little influence.. ." (p. 6; italics added).Based on Rokeach's scheme (1968), it may bethat affect-based beliefs, because they are moreintimately connected to our personal identities,reside in a more central position in our beliefsystems, while knowledge-based beliefs,because they are less personal, exist somewhereon the periphery. Additional work is needed toclarify these ideas.

Although beliefs are not readily changed, thisdoes not mean that they never change (Nespor,1987; Pajares, 1992). According to Nespor,beliefs change, not through argument or reason,but rather through a conversion process orGestalt shift. Posner, Strike, Hewson, andGertzog (1982) noted that, in order for beliefs tochange, individuals must be dissatisfied withtheir existing beliefs. This is most likely to hap-pen when either existing beliefs are challengedor new beliefs cannot be assimilated into exist-ing ideas. Based on the conceptual change litera-ture, Kagan (1992) noted that if a teachereducation or professional development programis to be successful at promoting belief changeamong teachers, "it must require them to maketheir preexisting personal beliefs explicit; it mustchallenge the adequacy of those beliefs; and itmust give novices extended opportunities toexamine, elaborate, and integrate new informa-tion into their existing belief systems" (p. 77).

This same sentiment has been expressed in

recent professional development literature (e.g.,Garet et al., 2001; Howard, McGee, Schwartz, &Purcell, 2000; Putnam & Borko, 2000), includingthat related to technology development(Niederhauser & Stoddart, 2001; Pedersen &Liu, 2003; Windschitl, 2002; Windschitl & Sahl,2002). For example, Winschitl and Sahl sug-gested that there "can be no institutional 'visionof technology use' that exists separately frombeliefs about learners, beliefs about what charac-terizes meaningful learning, and beliefs aboutthe role of the teachers within the vision" (p.202). Based on their study of the implementationof a laptop initiative in one middle school, theyrecommended that members of the school com-munity hold public conversations to reveal theirbeliefs about learners and learning and to makeexplicit the ways in which technology can facili-tate progress toward shared goals, based onthose beliefs.

Implications for ProfessionalDevelopment

How, then, is belief change most likely to hap-pen? What experiences will teachers need inorder to question, and to be dissatisfied with,existing beliefs? Three strategies seem to holdparticular promise for promoting change inteacher beliefs about teaching and learning, ingeneral, and beliefs about technology, specific-ally: (a) personal experiences, (b) vicarious expe-riences, and (c) social-cultural influences. Thesestrategies are predicated on the idea that beliefsare grounded in experience and authority, asdescribed above (Nespor, 1987; Rokeach, 1968).

Personal experiences. If beliefs are formedthrough personal experience, then changes inbeliefs might also be facilitated through experi-ence. Although it was suggested earlier thatbeliefs shape practice (e.g., Cuban, 1986; Kagan,1992; Niederhauser & Stoddart, 2001), this doesnot mean, necessarily, that the best way tochange teacher practice is by changing theirbeliefs. In fact, Guskey (1986) argued thatchange in beliefs follows, rather than precedespractice, and that by helping teachers adopt newpractices that are successful, the associatedbeliefs will also change. This idea is supported

32

TEACHER BELIEFS

by the self-efficacy literature (e.g., Bandura,1997; Schunk, 2000), which highlights the impor-tance of building a teacher's confidence throughsuccessful experiences with small instructionalchanges before attempting larger changes.

Particularly when technology is involved,starting with relatively simple uses may be amore productive path to achieving teacherchange than expecting teachers to use technol-ogy, from the outset, to achieve high-endinstructional goals. According to Zhao andCziko (2001), many teachers use technology, notbecause it helps them achieve a new goal, butbecause it allows them to achieve their currentgoals more effectively than do their traditionalmethods. Zhao and Cziko explained thatbecause technology is at a lower level of thebelief-goal hierarchy than pedagogical beliefsand teaching approaches (or, in Rokeach's 1968schema, less central to a teacher's belief system),and because lower-level goals are easier to vary,it is no surprise that many teachers adopt tech-nology without changing their pedagogy. Infact, if teachers feel pressured to change theirpedagogy in order to accommodate new tech-nologies, they are more likely to resist adoptingtechnology altogether (Zhao & Cziko).

Although introducing teachers to relativelysimple uses of technology may be the most feasi-ble way to initiate the adoption process (Ertmer,2001; Snoeyink & Ertmer, 2001-2002), additionalstrategies, such as those advocated here (e.g.,engaging teachers in explicit belief exploration,providing opportunities to examine new prac-tices supported by different beliefs), are likely tobe needed to move teachers beyond their initial,low-level uses. Without these extra strategies,there is little reason to expect that teachers willadopt higher level uses, as evidenced by theresults of a number of recent studies (Barron etal., 2003; Cuban et al., 2001; Newman, 2002).

According to Nespor (1987), instructionalchange is not a matter of completely abandoningbeliefs, but of gradually replacing them withmore relevant beliefs, which Dwyer, Ringstaff,and Sandholtz (1990) suggested are shaped bypersonal experiences in an "altered" context. Toachieve this type of change, Windschitl (2002)recommended approaches to professionaldevelopment that comprise (a) questioning

one's own practice and the practices of others,(b) making assumptions explicit, and (c) usingclassrooms as sites for inquiry. This approachcombines suggestions made in the conceptualchange literature (i.e., making beliefs andassumptions explicit) with suggestions made inthe professional development literature (i.e.,providing altered experiences in a relevant con-text). According to Windschitl, this kind oflearning can be transformative, fostering funda-mental changes in deeply held beliefs, knowl-edge, and habits of practice. Additional researchis needed to determine the efficacy of thisapproach.

Vicarious experiences. The power of vicariousexperiences for building teacher confidence andcompetence is supported by both the self-effi-cacy literature and the literature on technologyprofessional development (Bandura, 1997;Downes, 1993; Handler, 1993). For example,Downes noted in her study that the influence ofa supervising teacher's uses of computers was sostrong that first-year students, whose supervis-ing teachers used computers with children, weremore likely to use computers with children thanwere third-year students whose supervisingteachers did not. Others (Calderhead, 1996;Kagan, 1992) also have described the relativelystrong influence of the supervising teacher, not-ing that this influence easily outweighs that ofcollege courses or university instructors.

Vicarious experiences are considered to be apowerful learning tool because observing sim-ilar others serves both informational and moti-vational functions (Schunk, 2000). That is,models can not only provide information abouthow to enact specific classroom strategies, theycan also increase observers' confidence for gen-erating the same behaviors. Furthermore, hav-ing access to multiple models increases both theamount of information available about how toaccomplish the performance and the probabilitythat observers will perceive themselves as sim-ilar to at least one of the models, thus increasingtheir confidence for also performing success-fully.

If, as Guskey (1986) suggested, beliefs followsuccessful practice, and confidence and compe-tence are foundational to achieving that success,

33

ETR&D, Vol. 53, No. 4

then at the very least, confidence and compe-tence must be built before changes to beliefs canbe expected. According to Elmore, Peterson, andMcCarthey (1996), ". . . teachers' practices areunlikely to change without some exposure towhat teaching actually looks like when it's beingdone differently" (p. 241). As suggested by Zhaoand Cziko (2001), observing successful othersmight increase teachers' perceived need forchange as well as assure them that the requiredchanges are not impossible. In addition, if teach-ers are going to actually change their practice,they will need access to others who can bothchallenge and support them as they implementthese new ideas in their classrooms.

Yet providing opportunities for teachers toexperience alternative approaches to teaching isnot readily accomplished because of difficultiesinvolved in locating suitable models and inreleasing teachers from their classrooms (Albion& Ertmer, 2002). This suggests the need for alter-native approaches that introduce teachers to dif-ferent methods, and provide opportunities forthem to test their ideas without having to worryabout making mistakes or jeopardizing theprogress of their students. Based on the proveneffectiveness of vicarious experiences, but recog-nizing the logistical difficulties involved inarranging them, educators have suggested pre-senting teacher models via electronic means:video, CD-ROM, or Web-based technologies(Albion, 2003; Ertmer et al., 2003).

Preliminary results suggest that these typesof electronic models can be effective in increas-ing preservice teachers' ideas about and self-effi-cacy beliefs for implementing technology intheir classrooms. For example, Albion (2003)found that preservice teachers, who interactedwith a set of multimedia problem-based scenar-ios in which practicing teachers discussed possi-ble solutions to technology issues, showedsignificantly greater increases in their self-effi-cacy for teaching with computers compared to acontrol group. Other data supported the conten-tion that users had changed their conceptions ofhow to integrate technology into their teaching.Ertmer and her colleagues (2003) found similarresults with 69 preservice teachers who exploredVisionQuest@, a CD-ROM that featured sixclassroom teachers who used technology effec-

tively in their classrooms. Significant increaseswere noted in participants' ideas about and self-efficacy for technology integration. Althoughpedagogical beliefs were not specificallyaddressed in these studies, there is some indica-tion that it may be possible to address teacherbeliefs using similar strategies. Additionalresearch, on the effectiveness of these and othermethods for changing and/or refining pedagog-ical beliefs, is needed.

Social-cultural influences. According to Beckerand Riel (1999), teachers' practices and beliefsare continually shaped by their ongoing experi-ences as teachers, by the values and opinionsexpressed by those around them, and by theexpectations of influential others, all of whichare transmitted through formal and informalnorms, rules, and procedures. Putnam andBorko (2000) noted that teachers' practice ismore likely to change as they participate in pro-fessional communities that discuss new materi-als, methods, and strategies, and that supportthe risk taking and struggle involved in trans-forming practice.

The establishment of a professional learningcommunity as a means to renew both teachersand schools is a common recommendation in theprofessional development literature (Grant,1996; Guskey, 1995; Little, 1993). In 2001, theNational Staff Development Council (NSDC)revised its professional development standardsto reflect these new ideas. Listed first among the12 revised standards was the acknowledgementthat effective staff development "organizesadults into learning communities whose goalsare aligned with those of the school and district"(online).

The importance of a social network of com-puter-using teachers for sustaining the work ofexemplary computer-using teachers has alsobeen reported (Becker, 1994). In one study, theonly significant predictor of teachers' computeruse was "subjective norms," that is, expectationsfor computer use by influential others inteachers' lives-principals, colleagues, students,and the profession (Marcinkiewicz & Regstad,1996). More recently, Lumpe and Chambers(2001) found that teachers' reported uses of tech-nology-related teaching practices was influ-

34

TEACHER BELIEFS

enced by their self-efficacy for teaching withcomputers, their context beliefs about factorsthat enabled them to be effective teachers, andthe likelihood of those factors occurring in theirschools.

These studies point to the influence of theschool environment on how teachers' beliefsabout technology use might be developed andimplemented. A recent study (Windschitl &Sahl, 2002) of three teachers learning to use tech-nology in the context of a laptop program foundthat the ways in which they learned to integratetechnology were "powerfully mediated by theirinterrelated belief systems about learners inschools, about what constituted 'good teaching'in the context of the institutional culture, andabout the role of technology in students' lives"(p. 165). Results from the work of Zhao et al.(2002) suggest a similar interpretation: An inno-vation is less likely to be adopted if it deviatestoo greatly from the prevailing values, pedagog-ical beliefs, and practices of the teachers andadministrators in the school. Furthermore, Zhaoand Frank (2003) reported that although profes-sional development was available that providedinformation to their participants about newmethods and tools, these activities had littleeffect on teachers' classroom practices. Rather,change in teacher beliefs regarding the value ofcomputers was more likely to occur when teach-ers were socialized by their peers to think differ-ently about technology use. This suggests theneed to provide ample time for colleagues tointeract with and help each other as they explorenew technologies, as well as new pedagogies.

In summary, given what is known about themanner in which beliefs are formed, as well asthe relative resistance of beliefs to change, thethree strategies described above appear to holdpromise for affecting changes in teachers' beliefsspecifically related to integrating technology inthe classroom. Furthermore, if these strategieswere to be combined with strategies recom-mended in the conceptual change literature (e.g.,requiring teachers to explicate their beliefs, pro-viding opportunities to question the adequacyof one's own beliefs), the potential for changeappears greater.

Specifically, if school personnel were inter-ested in designing professional development

experiences to effectively initiate and supportteachers' uses of technology, including thosesupported by new pedagogical beliefs, the fol-lowing components might be considered forinclusion:

"* Ongoing public conversations explicatingstakeholders' (teachers, administrators, par-ents) pedagogical beliefs, including explicitdiscussions about the ways in which technol-ogy can support those beliefs.

"* Small communities of practice, in whichteachers jointly explore new teaching meth-ods, tools, and beliefs, and support each otheras they begin transforming classroom prac-tice.

"* Opportunities to observe classroom prac-tices, including technology uses, that are sup-ported by different pedagogical beliefs.

"* Technology tools, introduced gradually,beginning with those that support teachers'current practices and expanding to those thatsupport higher level goals.

"* Ongoing technical and pedagogical supportas teachers develop confidence and compe-tence with the technological tools, as well asthe new instructional strategies required toimplement a different set of pedagogicalbeliefs.

Implications for Research

Although research on teacher beliefs is not new(Pajares, 1992), relatively few researchers haveexamined the relationship between teachers'pedagogical beliefs and their classroom uses oftechnology. Yet without a clear understandingof this relationship, practitioners and research-ers may continue to advocate for specific uses oftechnology that they are unable to facilitate orsupport, because of these underlying fundamen-tal beliefs. Suggestions for research have beenmade throughout this article; a few additionalquestions and issues are highlighted here. Forexample, based on the current understanding ofteachers' beliefs and their relationship toteachers' practice, additional research is neededto determine:* How and when are teachers' pedagogical

beliefs formed?

35

ETR&D, Vol. 53, No. 4

® How central are these beliefs to a teacher'sidentify? How are they used to process newinformation about teaching methods andtools, including technology tools?

"* What are the similarities and differencesbetween teachers' pedagogical beliefs andtheir beliefs about technology (i.e., the extentto which these beliefs are held as either coreor peripheral beliefs)?

"* What are appropriate instruments for mea-suring these different types of beliefs?

"* What is the influence of contextual factors onteachers' ability to apply their beliefs in prac-tice?

The answers to these questions have implica-tions for professional development efforts and,as such, lead to another set of questions regard-ing the most effective means for changingteachers'beliefs:

"* How viable are the suggestions listed above?

"* Is one strategy (personal vs. vicarious experi-ences; individual vs. group exploration) rela-tively more or less effective for changingbeliefs?

"* To what extent can we expect these strategiesto be effective when used individually ratherthan in combination?

* If a combination is needed, what is the mosteffective combination?

* Does change in beliefs occur from the coreout, or from the periphery in; that is, shouldour early professional development effortsfocus more on changing core or peripheralbeliefs, with the expectation that connectedbeliefs will change later?

Although few researchers have yet to exam-ine these issues, this is an area that holds greatpromise for the future. As noted by Pajares(1992), "Attention to the beliefs of teachers...can inform educational practice in ways thatprevailing research agendas have not and can-not" (p. 329). Furthermore, "when [beliefs] areclearly conceptualized, when their key assump-tions are examined, when precise meanings areconsistently understood and when specificbelief constructs,are properly assessed, they canbe the single most important construct in educa-tional research" (p. 329).

CONCLUSION

While the foundations for successful technologyintegration finally appear to be in place (U.S.DOE, 2003; MDR, 2002), high-level technologyuse is still surprisingly low (Barron et al., 2003;Newman, 2002; Zhao et aL, 2002), suggestingthat additional barriers, specifically related toteachers' pedagogical beliefs, may be at work.Although it is not clear whether beliefs precedeor follow practice (Guskey, 1986), what is clear isthat we cannot expect to change one withoutconsidering the other. As Clark and Peterson(1986) warned, "Teachers' belief systems can beignored only at the innovator's peril" (p. 291).Thus, if we truly hope to increase teachers' usesof technology, especially uses that increase stu-dent learning, we must consider how teachers'current classroom practices are rooted in, andmediated by, existing pedagogical beliefs.

When considering ways to change teachers'practice, particularly their uses of technology,the literature reviewed here suggests that isimpossible to overestimate the influence ofteachers' beliefs. Given that teachers' decisionsare more likely to be guided by familiar imagesof what is proper and possible in classroom set-tings than by instructional theories (Windschitl,2002), the challenge becomes one of finding themost effective ways to alter these images.Although personal and vicarious experiences, aswell as social and cultural norms, appear to havesome potential for altering teachers' beliefs,research is needed to verify their relative impact.

Still, it is important to remember that it is notnecessary to change teachers' beliefs beforeintroducing them to various technology applica-tions. A more effective approach might be tointroduce teachers to the types of technologyuses that can support their most immediateneeds (Ertmer, 2001). At the very least, thisshould increase teachers confidence for usingtechnology so that, over time, higher level usesbecome more plausible. Still, this has not yetbeen borne out by the literature. It will be impor-tant to revisit, in the future, those teachers whoare currently reporting a variety of low-leveluses (Barron et al., 2003) to see if this changeoccurs and, if it does, to determine the factorsthat initiated and supported the change.

36

TEACHER BELIEFS

"As schools continue to acquire more andbetter hardware and software, the benefit to stu-dents increasingly will depend on the skill withwhich some three million teachers are able touse these new tools" (President's Panel on Edu-cational Technology, 1997, p. 47). Furthermore,given that these skills are unlikely to be usedunless they fit with teachers' existing pedagogi-cal beliefs, it is imperative that educatorsincrease their understanding of and ability toaddress teacher beliefs, as part of their efforts toincrease teachers' technology skills and uses. Inthe best of all worlds, then, this will not onlyenable teachers to use computers to their fullpotential but will enable students to reach theirfull potential as well.

Peg Ertmer is a professor in the Curriculum andInstruction Department at Purdue University.

She gratefully acknowledges the support andsuggestions provided by three insightful colleagueson earlier versions of this article: Peter Albion, LaurieBrantley-Dias, and Krista Simons. She would alsolike to thank Steve Ross and three anonymousreviewers for their exceptional feedback and support.

REFERENCES

Albion, P. (2003). PBL + IMM = PBL2: Problem basedlearning and Interactive multimedia development.Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 11, 243-257. [Online]. Available: http://dl.aace.org/13564.

Albion, P., & Ertmer, P. A. (2002). Beyond the founda-tions: The role of vision and belief in teachers' prep-aration for integration of technology. TechTrends,46(5), 34-38.

American Federation of Teachers. (1999). Block sched-uling-Look before you leap. American Teacher.Retrieved March 15,2002, from www.aft.org/publi-cations/american_teacher/sept99/block.html.

Bandura, A. (1997). Setf-efflcacy: The exercise of control.New York: Freeman.

Barron, A. E., Kemker, K., Harmes, C., & Kalaydjian,K. (2003). Large-scale research study on technologyIn K-12 schools: Technology integration as it relatesto the National Technology Standards. Journal ofResearch on Technology in Education, 35,489-507.

Becker, H. J. (1994). How exemplary computer-usingteachers differ from other teachers: Implications forrealizing the potential of computers in schools. Jour-nal of Research on Computing in Education, 26, 291-321.

Becker, H. J. (2000). Findings from the teaching, learning,and computing survey: Is Larry Cuban right? [PDF file].

Center for Research on Information Technology andOrganizations. Retrieved October 2, 2001, fromhttp://www.crito.uci.edu/tlc.

Becker, H. J., & Riel, M. M. (1999). Teacher professional-ism, school work culture and the emergence of construc-tivist-compatible pedagogies [PDF file]. Center forResearch on Information Technology and Organiza-tions. Retrieved October 2, 2002, fromhttp://www.crito.uci.edu/tlc.

Berg, S., Benz, C.R., Lasley, T. J., & Raisch, C. D. (1998).Exemplary technology use in elementary class-rooms. Journal of Research on Computing in Education,31,111-122.

Block, J. H., & Hazelip, K (1995). Teachers' beliefs andbelief systems. In L. W. Anderson (Ed.), Internationalencyclopedia of teaching and teacher education (2nd ed.,pp. 25-28). New York: Pergammon.

Brownlee, P. P. (2000, September). Effecting transfor-mational institutional change. The National AcademyNewsletter, 1. Retrieved February 6, 2004, fromhttp://www.thenationalacademy.org/Newsletters/voll-3.htmi.

Calderhead, J. (1996). Teachers: Beliefs and knowl-edge. In D. Berliner, & R. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook ofEducational Psychology (pp. 709-725). New York:Macmillan Library Reference.

Clark, C. M., & Peterson, P. L. (1986). Teachers'thought processes. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbookof research on teaching. New York: Macmillan.

Cuban, L. (1986). Teachers and machines. New York:Teachers College Press.

Cuban, L. (1997, May 21). High-tech schools and low-tech teaching. Education Week on the Web. RetrievedFebruary 10, 2004, fromhttp://www.edweek.org/ew/vol-16/34cuban.hl6.

Cuban, L., Kirkpatrick, H., & Peck, C. (2001). Highaccess and low use of technologies in high schoolclassrooms: Explaining an apparent paradox. Ameri-can Educational Research Journal, 38, 813-834.

Czerniak, C. M., & Lumpe, A. T. (1996). Relationshipbetween teacher beliefs and science educationreform. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 7, 247-266.

Dede, C. (Ed.) (1998). Learning with technology: The 1998ASCD Yearbook. Alexandria, VA: Association forSupervision and Curriculum Development.

Dexter, S. L., Anderson, R. E., & Becker, H. J. (1999).Teachers' views of computers as catalysts forchanges in their teaching practice. Journal of Researchon Computing in Education, 31, 221-238.

Downes, T. (1993). Student-teachers' experiences inusing computers during teaching practice. Journal ofComputer Assisted Learning, 9,17-33.

Dwyer, D. C., Ringstaff, C., & Sandholtz, J. H. (1990).Teacher beliefs and practices part 1: Patterns of change.The evolution of teachers' instructional beliefs and prac-tices in high-access-to-technology classrooms (ACOTReport #8). Cupertino, CA: Apple Computer.

Elmore, R., Peterson, P., & McCarthy, S. (1996).Restructuring in the classroom. San Francisco: Jossey-

37

8ETR&D, Vol. 53, No. 4

Bass.Ertmer, P. A. (1999). Addressing first- and second-

order barriers to change: Strategies for technologyintegration. Educational Technology Research andDevelopment, 47(4), 47-61.

Ertmer, P. A. (2001). Responsive instructional design:Scaffolding the adoption and change process. Educa-tional Technology, 41(6), 33-38.

Ertmer, P. A., Conklin, D., Lewandowski, J., Osika, E.,Selo, M., & Wignall, E. (2003). Increasing preserviceteachers' capacity for technology integrationthrough use of electronic models. Teacher EducationQuarterly, 30(1), 95-112.

Ertmer, P. A., Gopalakrishnan, S., & Ross, E. M. (2001).Technology-using teachers: Comparing perceptionsof exemplary technology use to best practice. Journalof Research on Technology in Education, 33(5). Avail-able online at http://www.iste.org/jrte/33/5/ert-mer.htm1.

Fang, Z. (1996). A review of research on teacher beliefsand practices. Educational Research, 38(1), 47-65.

Garet, M. S., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L., Birman, B. F.,& Yoon, K. S. (2001). What makes professionaldevelopment effective? Results from a national sam-ple of teachers. American Educational Research Jour-nal, 38, 915-945.

Goodman, J. (1988). Constructing a practical philoso-phy of teaching: A study of preservice teachers' pro-fessional perspectives. Teaching and TeacherEducation, 4,121-137.

Grant, C. M. (1996). Professional development in a techno-logical age: New definitions, old challenges, newresources. Retrieved April 11, 2003, fromhttp://ra.terc.edu/publications/TERC_-pubs/tech-infusion/prof_dev/profLdev_intro.htrnl.

Griffin, T. D, & Ohlsson, S. (2001, August). Beliefs vs.knowledge: A necessary distinction for predicting,explaining and assessing conceptual change. Presentedat the 23rd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Sci-ence Society: Edinburgh, Scotland. Retrieved Janu-ary 13,2004, from http://tigger.uic.edu/tgriffin/.

Guskey, T. R. (1986). Staff development and the pro-cess of teacher change. Educational Researcher, 15(5),5-12.

Guskey, T. R. (1995). Results-oriented professional devel-opment: In search ofan optimal mix of effective practices.North Central Regional Educational Laboratory(NCREL), Naperville, IL. Retrieved February 24,2003, fromhttp://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/rpl__esys/pdlitrev.htm.

Handler, M. G. (1993). Preparing new teachers to usecomputer technology: Perceptions and suggestionsfor teacher educators. Computers and Education, 20,147-156.

Hooper, S., & Rieber, L. (1995). Teaching with technol-ogy. In A. C. Ornstein (Ed.), Theory into practice (pp.155-170). Boston: Allyn and Bacon,

Howard, B. C., McGee, S., Schwartz, N., & Purcell, S.(2000). The experience of constructivism: Trans-

forming teacher epistemology. Journal of Research onComputing in Education, 32,455-465.

International Society for Technology in Education.(2003). National education technology standards(NETS). Retrieved February 6, 2004, fromhttp://cnets.iste.org/.

Kagan, D. M. (1990). Ways of evaluating teacher cogni-tion: Inferences concerning the Goldilocks principle.Review of Educational Research, 60,419-469.

Kagan, D. M. (1992). Implications of research onteacher belief. Educational Psychologist, 27(1), 65-90.

Kane, R., Sandetto, S., & Heath, C. (2002). Telling halfthe story: A critical review of research on the teach-ing beliefs and practices of university academics.Review of Educational Research, 72,177-228.

Little, J. W. (1993). Teachers' professional develop-ment in a climate of educational reform. EducationalEvaluation and Policy Analysis, 15(2), 129-151.

Lumpe, A. T., & Chambers, E. (2001). Assessingteachers' context beliefs about technology use. Jour-nal of Research on Technology in Education, 34(1), 93-107.

Marcinkiewicz, H. R. (1993). Computers and teachers:Factors influencing computer use in the classroom.Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 26,220-237.

Marcinkiewicz, H. R., & Regstad, N. G. (1996). Usingsubjective norms to predict teachers' computer use.Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 13(1), 27-33.

Market Data Retrieval. (2002). Technology in education2002. Shelton, CT: Market Data Retrieval.

Munby, H. (1982). The place of teachers' beliefs onresearch on teacher thinking and decision making,and an alternative methodology. Instructional Sci-ence, 11, 201-225.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2000, Sep-tember). Teachers' tools for the 21st century: A report onteachers' use of technology (Report No. NCES 2000-102). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Educa-tion, National Center for Education Statistics.

National Staff Development Council. (2001). Standardsfor staffdevelopment (Rev. ed.). Oxford, OH: Author.

Nespor, J. (1987). The role of beliefs in the practice ofteaching. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 19(4), 317-328.

Newman, H. (2002, February 26). Computers usedmore to learn than teach. Detroit Free Press.Retrieved, April 29, 2002, from,http://www.freepress.com/news/education/newman26__20020226.htm.

Niederhauser, D. S., & Stoddart, T. (2001). Teachers'instructional perspectives and use of educationalsoftware. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17,15-31.

North Carolina Department of Public Instruction.(1998). Block scheduling in North Carolina: Imple-mentation, teaching, and impact issues. Raleigh,NC: Author.

Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers' beliefs and educationalresearch: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of

38

TEACHER BELIEFS 39

Educational Research, 62(3), 307-332.Pedersen, S., & Liu, M. (2003). Teachers' beliefs about

issues in the implementation of a student-centeredlearning environment. Educational TechnologyResearch and Development, 51(2), 57-76.

Peterson, P. L., Fennema, E., Carpenter, T. P., & Loef,M. (1989). Teachers' pedagogical content beliefs inmathematics. Cognition and Instruction, 6(1), 1-40.

Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog,W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific concep-tion: Toward a theory of conceptual change. ScienceEducation, 66,211-227.

President's Panel on Educational Technology. (1997).Report to the President on the use of technology tostrengthen K-12 education in the United States. Wash-ington DC:U.S. Government Printing Office.

Putnam, R. T., & Borko, H. (2000). What do new viewsof knowledge and thinking have to say aboutresearch on teacher learning. Educational Researcher,29(1), 4-15.

Rokeach, M. (1968). Belief, attitudes, and values: A theoryof organization and change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Sandholtz, J. H., Ringstaff, C., & Dwyer, D. (1997).Teaching with technology: Creating student-centeredclassrooms. New York: Teachers College Press.

Schunk, D. H. (2000). Learning theories: An educationalperspective (3rd. ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Mer-rill/Prentice Hall.

Scott, S. M., Chovanec, D. M., & Young, B. (1994). Phi-losophy-in-action in university teaching. CanadianJournal of Higher Education, 24(5), 1-25.

Snoeyink, R., & Ertmer, P. A. (2001-2002). Thrust intotechnology: How veteran teachers respond. Journalof Educational Technology Systems, 30(1), 85-111.

U.S. Department of Education. (1996). Goals 2000: Edu-cate America Act, October 1996 Update. RetrievedMarch 4, 2001, from http://www.ed.gov/G2K/g2k-fact.html.

U.S. Department of Education. (2001). No child leftbehind Act of 2001. Retrieved July 31, 2003, fromhttp://www.ed.gov/offices/OESE/asst.html.

U.S. Department of Education. (2003). Federal funding

for educational technology and how it is used in the class-room: A summary offindingsfrom the Integrated Studiesof Educational Technology. Office of the Under Secre-tary, Policy and Program Studies Service: Washing-ton, D.C. Retrieved February 6, 2004, fromwww.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ os/technology/evaluation.html.

Vacc, N. N., & Bright, G. W. (1999). Elementary pre-service teachers' changing beliefs and instructionaluse of children's mathematical thinking. Journal ofResearch in Mathematics Education, 30(1), 89-110.

Waters, J. T., Marzano, R. J., McNulty, B. A. (2003). Bal-anced leadership: What 30 years of research tells us aboutthe effect of leadership on student achievement. Aurora,CO: Mid-continent Research for Education andLearning.

Wilson, S. M., & Wineburg, S. S. (1988). Peering at his-tory through different lenses: The role of disciplin-ary perspectives in teaching history. Teachers CollegeRecord, 89,525-539.

Windschitl, M. (2002). Framing constructivism in prac-tice as the negotiation of dilemmas: An analysis ofthe conceptual, pedagogical, cultural, and politicalchallenges facing teachers. Review of EducationalResearch, 72,131-175.

Windschitl, M., & Sahl, K. (2002). Tracing teachers' useof technology in a laptop computer school: Theinterplay of teacher beliefs, social dynamics, andinstitutional culture. American Educational ResearchJournal, 39(1), 165-205.

Zhao, Y., & Cziko, G. A. (2001). Teacher adoption oftechnology: A perceptual control theory perspec-tive. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1),5-30.

Zhao, Y., & Frank, K. A. (2003). Factors affecting tech-nology uses in schools: An ecological perspective.American Educational Research Journal, 40, 807-840.

Zhao, Y., Pugh, K., Sheldon, S., & Byers, J. L. (2002).Conditions for classroom technology innovations.Teachers College Record, 104, 482-515.

COPYRIGHT INFORMATION

TITLE:SOURCE:PAGE(S): 25-39

WN: 0500403447006

The magazine publisher is the copyright holder of this article and itis reproduced with permission. Further reproduction of this article inviolation of the copyright is prohibited.

Copyright 1982-2005 The H.W. Wilson Company. All rights reserved.