Teachers’ beliefs have been identified as a barrier to classroom technology integration. School leadership support that reduces or removes integration barriers can assist teachers in the move from traditional teaching beliefs and practices towards successful classroom technology integration. This mixed methods study investigated beliefs of school leaders and teacher participants concerning support factors that affect technology integration from a mid-sized suburban public school system in the southeastern United States. The quantitative phase of this study included 556 school leaders and teachers. The quantitative survey Beliefs about Teaching with Technology (BATT) measured the school leaders and teachers’ beliefs concerning support factors that affect technology integration. A MANOVA was used to identify significant differences between the two groups and to select the extreme cases for the second phase of the study. An extreme case was defined as one in which the school leaders and teachers had a statistically different view of the beliefs about teaching with technology. Significance was found at the p = .001 level in all categories of beliefs investigated. This qualitative phase of the study included participants from three extreme case schools. Interviews with key informants further explored the differences in beliefs between three leaders and nine teachers and identified differing perspectives between their beliefs about factors that support technology integration in their schools. These interviews also provided descriptions of behaviors related to individuals’ beliefs about these factors. The constant comparative model was used for interview analysis. If classroom technology integration is to be successful, leaders and teachers in a school should possess similar beliefs about the availability and nature of the school-based support, resources, professional development, vision, and incentives necessary to encourage change within a school environment. This study identified the existence of differences in such beliefs between these two groups in one school system, a necessary step before conducting further research on the impact these differences in beliefs could have on individuals’ behaviors related to the successful integration of technology into classroom instruction.

<p> Students possess various learning styles and do not respond equally to the same instructional methods. College students today are often uninterested in their current traditional course design. The purpose of this study was to determine if differences exist in learning styles between students who select a traditional course delivery method versus a technology-enhanced course delivery method. Participants included 113 males and 195 females who were enrolled in a College of Business Principles of Marketing course for non-business majors at a large university in the southeast. The students who were enrolled in the course completed an online questionnaire including the Grasha-Reichmann Student Learning Style Scale (GRSLSS) and demographic questions. The GRSLSS consists of six learning styles: competitive, collaborative, avoidant, participant, dependent, and independent. A causal-comparative research design was used to identify a cause-effect relationship between the two groups of students. </p><p> Data analyses included a factorial multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) and analyses of variances (ANOVAs). Results from this study indicated a significant difference in course delivery methods and gender across all learning styles and no interactions between course delivery methods and gender. ANOVAs revealed a significant difference between the independent, avoidant, dependent, and participant learning styles between students who enrolled in the traditional and technology-enhanced course delivery methods. Students who enrolled in the traditional course delivery method had more of a dependent and participant learning style and students who enrolled in the technology-enhanced course delivery method had more of an independent and avoidant learning style. Males who enrolled in the course had more of a competitive learning style than females - regardless of the course delivery method. These findings are relevant for a better understanding of why students select a particular course delivery method.</p>

<p> For decades, scholars have searched for ways to more effectively teach and practice instructional design. A variety of strategies have been employed to address the ambiguity in and challenges of the field. Much of the focus in the education of instructional designers has been on teaching students how best to use the many models developed for the field (Rowling, 1992). These efforts, while meant to help the new instructional designer succeed, have often been stifled by the ever-changing landscape of what instructional designers are asked to do in their roles after graduation (Kenny, Zhang, Schwier, &amp; Campbell, 2005). Other research centers around the ways students can fuse their new instructional design knowledge with practical activities. </p><p> While many scholars have begun to focus on alternative methods for preparing instructional designers and improving instructional design processes, instructional designers themselves have been neglected. We teach instructional designers about the profession before we have truly understood the professional. From a teaching standpoint, this approach contradicts the very foundation of instructional design education: that of recognizing that the learners/users are at the center of instructional design (Cennamo &amp; Kalk, 2004). The purpose of this qualitative study was to examine instructional designers during design by engaging them in structured reflection as (a.) a way to better understand instructional designers in the design space and (b.) a technique for instructional designers to improve their design. Seven designers were asked to explore their thoughts, feelings, and experiences over six weeks while engaged in a design project. </p><p> This study used various data collection methods including reflection journals, interviews, and surveys. The Self-Reflection Insight Scale (SRIS) and REFLECT rubric were utilized to measure reflection abilities, and grounded theory was employed to conceptualize the data (Strauss &amp; Corbin, 1990), while concentrating on discovery and the development of theory (Charmaz, 1983). </p><p> Results showed that each designer is unique; designers rely on distinctive designer precedents; designers perceive reflection to positively impact their design products; designers' depth of reflection waxes and wanes; and designers reflect more deeply when provided with feedback.</p>

Thesis (Ed.D.)--University of Delaware, 2007. / Principal faculty advisor: Fred T. Hofstetter, School of Education. Includes bibliographical references.

Thesis (Ed.D.)--Duquesne University, 2005. / Title from document title page. Abstract included in electronic submission form. Includes bibliographical references (p. 123-132) and index.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of North Texas, 1990. / eContent provider-neutral record in process. Description based on print version record. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 282-285).

Thesis (Ed. D.)--Vanderbilt University, 1990. / eContent provider-neutral record in process. Description based on print version record. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 188-195).

Thesis--University of Maryland. / Photocopy of typescript, Ann Arbor, Mich. : University Microfilms International, 1978. -- 21 cm. eContent provider-neutral record in process. Description based on print version record. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 455-461).

Thesis (Ph. D.)--Florida State University, 1997. / eContent provider-neutral record in process. Description based on print version record. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 152-159).

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Wisconsin--Madison, 1981. / Typescript. Vita. eContent provider-neutral record in process. Description based on print version record. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 246-252).