Differences in Computer Use of Practicing Versus Preservice Teachers

References

• Anderson, D. E., & Maes, W. R. (1986). Teacher locus of control and teacher characteristics. Unpublished manuscript, University of New Mexico.
   Google Scholar
• Andrews, D. H., & Goodson, L. A. (1980). A comparative analysis of models of instructional design. Journal of Instructional Development, 3(4), 2–16.
   Google Scholar
• Bailey, K. D. (1987). Methods of social research. New York: The Free Press.
   Google Scholar
• Becker, H. J. (1989). [U.S. Administration of the 1989 IEA computers in education survey, Johns Hopkins University Center for Social Organization of Schools]. Unpublished raw data.
   Google Scholar
• Berman, P., & McLaughlin, M. W. (1978). Federal programs supporting educational change. Vol. II: Factors affecting implementation and continuation. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation.
   Google Scholar
• Coovert, M. D., & Goldstein, M. (1980). Locus of control of users’ attitude toward computers. Psychological Reports, 47, 1167–1173.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dambrot, F. H., Watkins-Malek, M. A., Silling, S. M., Marshall, R. S., & Garver, J. A. (1985). Correlates of sex differences in attitudes toward and involvement with computers. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 27, 71–86.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eccles, J. (1983). Expectancies, values, and academic behavior. In J. T. Spence (Ed.), Achievement and achievement motives: Psychological and sociological approaches (pp. 77–146). San Francisco: Freeman.
   Google Scholar
• Gallo, D. D. (1986). Expectancy theory as a predictor of individual response to computer technology. Computers in Human Behavior, 2, 31–41.
   Google Scholar
• Gilliland, K. (1990). Curriculum development for gender equity in computer education. In C. Warger (Ed.), Technology in today’s schools (pp. 129–141). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD).
   Google Scholar
• Goldman, R. D., Kaplan, R. M., & Platt, B. B. (1973). Sex differences in the relationship of attitudes toward technology to choice of field of study. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 20, 412–418.
   Google Scholar
• Guskey, T. R. (1981). Measurement of the responsibility teachers assume for academic successes and failures in the classroom. Journal of Teacher Education, 32, 44–51.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hall, G. E. (1981). Viewing evaluation utilization as an innovation (Report No. 3141), Austin, TX: University of Texas, Research and Development Center for Teacher Education.
   Google Scholar
• Hurt, H. T., Joseph, K., & Cook, C. D. (1977). Scales for the measurement of innovativeness. Human Communication Research, 4, 58–65.
   Google Scholar
• Jorde-Bloom, P., & Ford, M. (1988). Factors influencing early childhood administrators’ decisions regarding the adoption of computer technology. Journal of Computing Research, 4(1), 31–47.
   Google Scholar
• Kellner, R., & Sheffield, B. F. (1973). A self-rating scale of distress. Psychological Medicine, 3, 88–100.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maes, W. R., & Anderson, D. E. (1985). A measure of teacher locus of control. Journal of Educational Research, 79(1), 27–32.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marcinkiewicz, H. R. (1993/94). Computers and teachers: Factors influencing computer use in the classroom. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 26(2), 220–237.
   Google Scholar
• Marcinkiewicz, H. R., & Grabowski, B. L. (1992). The relationships of personological variables to computer use by elementary school teachers: Report of phase one—Baseline data. In M. R. Simonson & A. O. K. Jurasek (Eds.), Proceedings of selected research and development presentations at the national convention of the Association of Educational Communications and Technology (pp. 527–542). Washington, DC: AECT.
   Google Scholar
• Marcinkiewicz, H. R., & Welliver, P. W. (1993). Procedures for assessing teachers’ computer use based on instructional transformation. In M. R. Simonson & A. O. Kristen (Eds.), Proceedings of selected research and development presentations at the national convention of the association of educational communications and technology (pp. 679–684). New Orleans, LA: AECT.
   Google Scholar
• Market Data Retrieval, (1992, August 18). Meanwhile “microintensity.” Educational Technology News, p. 1.
   Google Scholar
• National Task Force on Educational Technology. (1986). Transforming American education: Reducing the risk to the nation—A report to the Secretary of Education, United States Department of Education. T.H.E. Journal, 14(1), 58–67.
   Google Scholar
• Nickerson, R. S. (1981). Why interactive computer systems are sometimes not used by people who might benefit from them. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 15, 469–483.
   Google Scholar
• Piaget, J. (1952). The origins of intelligence in children. New York: W. W. Norton.
   Google Scholar
• Rieber, L. P., & Welliver, P. W. (1989). Infusing educational technology into mainstream educational computing. International Journal of Instructional Media, 16(1), 21–32.
   Google Scholar
• Rogers, E. M. (1962). Diffusion of innovations. New York: The Free Press of Glencoe.
   Google Scholar
• Rogers, E. M. (1983). Diffusion of innovations (3rd ed.). New York: The Free Press of Glencoe.
   Google Scholar
• Rogers, E. M., & Shoemaker, F. (1971). Communication of innovations: A cross-cultural approach. New York: The Free Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rose, J. S., & Medway, F. J. (1981). Measurement of teachers’ beliefs in their control over student outcome. Journal of Educational Research, 74(3), 185–190.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rose, J. S., & Medway, F. J. (1982). Measurement of teachers’ beliefs in their control over student outcome [Erratum]. Journal of Educational Research, 75(3), 188–189.
   Google Scholar
• Rotter, J. B. (1954). Social learning and clinical psychology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs, 80 (1, Whole No. 609).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Rutherford, W. L., & Hall, G. E. (1982). An instrument for measuring concerns change facilitators have about their role in facilitating change (R & D Report No. 3144). Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association.
   Google Scholar
• Shanker, A. (1990, September 23). Equipping teachers for productivity: From chalkboards to computers. The New York Times, p. E7.
   Google Scholar
• Sheingold, K., & Hadley, M. (1990). Accomplished teachers: Integrating computers into classroom practice. New York: Bank Street College, Center for Technology in Education.
   Google Scholar
• Stipek, D. J. (1993). Motivation to learn (2nd ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
   Google Scholar
• Torgerson, W. S. (1958). Theory and methods of scaling. New York: John Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, (1988). Power on! New tools for teaching and learning (OTA-SET-379). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
   Google Scholar
• Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. New York: Wiley and Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Welliver, P. W. (1990). Instructional transformation: A model for change. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University, Regional Computer Resource Center.
   Google Scholar
• White, R. (1959). Motivation reconsidered: The concept of competence. Psychological Review, 66, 297–333.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Witteman, H. (1976). The relationship of communication apprehension to opinion leadership and innovativeness. Unpublished master’s thesis, West Virginia University, Morgantown.
   Google Scholar