Journal of Agricultural Education, 55(4), 191-205. doi: 10.5032/jae.2014.04191 Accessibility and Usage of Technology by North Carolina Agriculture Teachers Maegen R. Williams1, Wendy J. Warner2, James L. Flowers3, and D. Barry Croom4 Abstract This study examined the integration of technology into the instructional process in North Carolina agricultural education classrooms. The study used survey research methodology to collect information on the availability of instructional technology and the frequency of instructional technology use by North Carolina agriculture teachers. The study found most teachers had access to digital projectors and digital cameras. Agriculture teachers also had convenient access to a teacher desktop computer and teacher laptop computer. The most commonly used software included Internet browsers and software for managing student records. Use of technology by agriculture students was less frequent and commonly consisted of Internet searching and use of reference materials on CD-ROMs. It is recommended the findings of this research study be used to inform future professional development offerings. Also, there should be additional investigation of appropriate learner-centered approaches to technology integration and continued research on the availability and utilization of educational technology in agriculture classrooms over time. Keywords: technology integration; instructional technology; agricultural education In 2009, the National Education Technology Plan, Transforming American Education: Learning Powered by Technology, was presented to Congress. The plan calls for “applying the advanced technologies used in our daily personal and professional lives to our entire education system to improve student learning, accelerate and scale up the adoption of effective practices, and use data and information for continuous improvement” (U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology, 2010, p. vi). Specific technological goals have been identified in five areas deemed as critical components of the educational system: learning, assessment, teaching, infrastructure, and productivity. To achieve these goals, educators must “leverage technology to provide engaging and powerful learning experiences, to deliver content, and to develop resources and assessments that measure student achievement in more complete, authentic, and meaningful ways” (U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology, 2010, p. v). The use of technology continues to increase at a significant rate in our society (Mueller, Wood, Willoughby, Ross, & Specht, 2008). The inclusion of educational technology can improve student mastery of content, provide individualized instruction, improve students’ attitudes towards learning, prepare students for the workforce, and increase the cost effectiveness of instruction (Boe, 1989). Alston, Miller, and Williams (2003) stated students should “use technology in learning to solve problems, improve productivity, and gain the skills necessary to become contributing members of their communities and lifelong learners” (p. 39). Marcoux and Loertscher (2009) 1 Maegen R. Williams is an AgriConsumer Loan Officer at Carolina Farm Credit, 251 Rock Crusher Road, Asheboro, NC 27203, [email protected]. 2 Wendy J. Warner is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Agricultural and Extension Education at North Carolina State University, Campus Box 7607, Raleigh, NC, 27695, [email protected]. 3 James L. Flowers is a Professor and Department Head in the Department of Agricultural and Extension Education at North Carolina State University, Campus Box 7607, Raleigh, NC, 27695, [email protected]. 4 D. Barry Croom is a Professor in the Department of Agricultural and Extension Education at North Carolina State University, Campus Box 7607, Raleigh, NC, 27695, [email protected]. 191 Williams, Warner, Flowers and Croom Accessibility and usage… recognized several ways to achieve teaching and learning excellence with technology including efficiency, motivation to learn, deep understanding, learning how to learn (21st century skills), creativity and content creation, and inclusion of different types of learners. Due to the many benefits of using technology in education, a great deal of emphasis on incorporating technology in instruction is being exhibited at the national level. The National Educational Technology Standards for Teachers (NETS·T) increase expectations for educators to develop and demonstrate digital skills in the classroom. Initially developed in 2000, these standards recognize the critical contributions of teachers to a dynamic learning environment enhanced through technology. Teachers are challenged to transform their classrooms to “ensure digital-age students are empowered to learn, live, and work successfully, today and tomorrow!” (International Society for Technology in Education, 2008, p. 4). In order for teachers to effectively integrate and utilize technology, they must first have access to the necessary hardware and software. In 2010, the U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) provided the data on the availability and use of educational technology in public schools. In fall 2008, this study found an estimated 100% of public schools had one or more instructional computers with Internet access and a 3.1 to 1 ratio of students to instructional computers with Internet access. Ninety seven percent of schools had one or more instructional computers located in classrooms. Over half of schools reported having laptop computers on carts. Due to the inability to provide one to one computer access in all schools, these laptops were shared among classrooms to provide access for student instruction. In public schools, 14% of all instructional computers were laptops on carts and 51% were located in classrooms. Of these instructional computers, 98% had Internet access. Whole school wireless network access was reported by 39% of schools, while 30% reported wireless access to a portion of the school. Public schools also reported providing liquid crystal display (LCD) projectors and digital light processing (DLP) projectors in 97% of schools. Digital cameras were available in 93% of schools and interactive whiteboards in 73% of schools (U.S. Department of Education, NCES, 2010). In addition to instructional activities, public schools used the Internet and their district network for other school related functions. Eighty seven percent of schools reported using their network to provide standardized assessment results and data for teachers to individualize instruction and 85% reported use for collecting data for instructional planning. Online student assessment was used by 72% of schools and 65% used their online capabilities to provide high quality digital content (U.S. Department of Education, NCES, 2010). In agricultural education, a study of Louisiana agriscience teachers concluded the most accessible form of technology was teacher email accounts (Kotrlik, Redmann, & Douglas, 2003). A more recent study found all Louisiana agriscience teachers had a school email account. Additionally, teachers reported using interactive DVDs or CDs, digital cameras, and video players (Kotrlik & Redmann, 2009). However, this study also concluded, “many programs still do not have access to some of the newer technologies and teachers continue to experience moderate barriers” (Kotrlik & Redmann, 2009, p. 72). Rogers (2003) described the process of innovation adoption as a longitudinal process consisting of a series and actions and decisions. In the Model of the Innovation-Decision Process, Rogers identified five stages: knowledge, persuasion, decision, implementation, and confirmation. In the fourth phase, implementation, an individual puts an innovation into use (Rogers, 2003). In order for implementation to take place, there must be access to the innovation. Consequently, this study sought to examine the accessibility and implementation of educational technology in North Carolina agricultural education classrooms. There is a need for this study because there is limited data on the availability of technology and frequency of technology integration, specifically in agricultural education. Previous data from agricultural education studies do not represent some of the most current hardware such as interactive whiteboards, classroom response systems, or iPads or recent software appropriate for classroom instruction. The integration of instructional technology in agricultural education is an Journal of Agricultural Education 192 Volume 55, Issue 4, 2014 Williams, Warner, Flowers and Croom Accessibility and usage… important contributor to engaged learning environments, which reflects Priority Four in the National Research Agenda for Agricultural Education (Doerfert, 2011). Purpose and Objectives The purpose of this study was to examine the integration of technology into the instructional process in North Carolina agricultural education classrooms. The research objectives for this study were to: 1. Determine the availability of educational technology in agricultural education class-rooms. 2. Determine how frequently educational technology is utilized in agricultural education classrooms. Methods and Procedures The study used survey research methodology to collect information on the availability of instructional technology and the frequency of instructional technology use by North Carolina agriculture teachers. The population for this study consisted of all middle and high school agricultural education teachers in North Carolina (N = 420). The frame used to determine the population was a list of 2012-2013 agriculture teachers provided by the North Carolina Agricultural Education Regional Coordinators. The survey instrument was developed to meet the objectives of the study. Questions for the instrument were adapted from the Educational Technology in U.S. Public Schools: Fall 2008 and Teachers’ Use of Educational Technology in U.S. Public Schools: 2009 questionnaires published by the National Center for Education Statistics in the U.S. Department of Education (2010) and an instrument developed by Coley (2012). The instrument was reviewed for content validity by faculty members in the Agricultural and Extension Education Department at North Carolina State University. A pilot study was conducted using 22 Career and Technical Education teachers in North Carolina. Reliability was determined using the test-re-test approach (Ary, Cheser Jacobs, Razavieh, & Sorenson, 2006). The instrument was evaluated for significant differences between the first and second responses of the 22 participants. No significant differences were found. Therefore, the instrument was determined to be stable over time. The survey implementation followed the procedure recommended by Dillman, Smyth, and Christian (2009). A pre-notice letter was sent to subjects prior to the receipt of the instrument. Qualtrics, an online survey program, was used to send an email message to all agriculture teachers describing the research process, informed consent, and containing a link to the instrument. One week later, each agriculture teacher received another email message containing a link to the informed consent and survey instrument. Two additional reminder email messages were sent out over the course of 12 days. Qualtrics ensured only individuals who had not completed the survey were sent reminder email messages. A thank you email message was sent to all participants 5 days after the deadline. Three hundred and four North Carolina agriculture teachers completed the survey instrument for a response rate of 72.4%. The questions were formatted based on a Likert scale, multiple-choice format, or a listing of responses. Section one of the instrument was an introduction to the survey. In section two, teachers were asked to identify the availability of teacher-based technology and the frequency of use for the available technology. This section listed various types of technology including devices, software programs, and Web services. The availability of devices question included not available, available as needed, and always in classroom. The frequency of device use utilized a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (daily) with a 3 meaning 2-4 times a month. The software Journal of Agricultural Education 193 Volume 55, Issue 4, 2014 Williams, Warner, Flowers and Croom Accessibility and usage… programs and Web services questions used a 6-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (not available) to 6 (daily) with a 4 meaning 2-4 times a month. The next section of the survey asked agriculture teachers to identify the availability and frequency of use of instructional technologies by their students. The first question was an open- ended question that asked teachers to provide the number of student computers and tablet computers located in the classroom every day and that could be brought into the classroom. Similar to section one, this section listed various types of technology and utilized a 6-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (not available) to 6 (daily) with a 4 meaning 2-4 times a month. The final section of the instrument included demographic questions such as age, gender, years of teaching experience, number of agriculture teachers at the school, and teaching region. In order to improve the response rate, the survey was kept short and the completion time was estimated to be less than 15 minutes. Potential participants received a $1 bill with the pre- notice letter and were entered into a drawing for two $50 gift cards as an incentive (Dillman, Smyth, & Christian, 2009). To address non-response errors, the researcher compared early to late respondents, and no significant differences were found (Miller & Smith, 1983). Results and Findings The North Carolina agriculture teachers participating in this study were comprised of 57% male teachers (n = 173) and 43% female teachers (n = 131). The average agriculture teacher was approximately 37 years old and had been teaching for 11 years. Teachers were representative of all eight regions in North Carolina. There were 50 from the Southeast Region (16%), 49 teachers from the East Central Region (16%), 45 from the South Central Region (15%), 41 from the West Central Region (13%), 40 from the Southwest Region (13%), 33 from the Northwest Region (11%), 27 from the West Region (9%), and 19 from the Northeast Region (6%). There was considerable variation in the number of agriculture teachers per program. One hundred twenty-seven of the teachers taught in a one-teacher program (42%), 121 taught in a two-teacher program (40%), 41 taught in a three-teacher program (13%), 9 taught in a four-teacher program (3%), and 6 taught in a program with five or more teachers (2%). The first objective of this study was to determine the availability of educational technology in North Carolina agricultural education classrooms including computer operating systems, teacher-based devices, student computers, and tablet computers. Over half (51.64%) of the teachers reported Microsoft Windows XP was the computer operating system they used most often at school. Eighty of the teachers used Microsoft Windows 7 (26.32%), 22 teachers weren’t sure but thought it was Windows (7.24%), 21 teachers used Apple/Mac OS X (6.91%), 17 teachers used Microsoft Windows Vista (5.59%), 1 teacher used Linux (0.33%), and 1 teacher wasn’t sure but thought it was Mac (0.33%). Other operating systems teachers reported included Microsoft 2007, Microsoft Windows 3, and using multiple operating systems such as Windows 7 and XP. Table 1 displays the operating systems teachers used at school. Journal of Agricultural Education 194 Volume 55, Issue 4, 2014 Williams, Warner, Flowers and Croom Accessibility and usage… Table 1 Computer Operating System Operating System N % Microsoft Windows XP 157 51.64 Microsoft Windows 7 80 26.32 Not sure, but I think it's Windows 22 7.24 Apple/Mac OS X 21 6.91 Microsoft Windows Vista 17 5.59 Other 5 1.64 Linux 1 0.33 Not sure, but I think it's Mac 1 0.33 The most available technological device to agriculture teachers in their classrooms was projectors. Other devices teachers had in their classrooms included teacher desktop computers, DVD players, teacher laptop computers, older technologies (e.g., VHS, overhead projector), digital cameras, interactive whiteboards (e.g., SMART Board, Activboard), and video camera/camcorders. Most teachers did not have access to video conference units (61.51%), iPads or tablet computers (59.54%), and MP3 players or iPods (55.92%). Teachers also reported having access to a 3-D projector, ELMO, Mobi, a printer/copier/fax, web cam, and wireless Internet. Table 2 shows the availability of various teacher-based devices for instructional purposes. Frequency of Instructional Technology Use The second objective was to determine how frequently instructional technology (i.e., computers, devices that can be attached to computers, computer software, and web based applications) were utilized in North Carolina agricultural education classrooms by teachers and students. The most frequently used technological device for instruction was the projector. Other technologies commonly used included teacher desktop computers and teacher laptop computers. Technologies used only a several times a year included DVD players, interactive whiteboards (e.g., SMART Board, Activboard), digital cameras, and older technologies (e.g., VHS, overhead projector). Document cameras, video camera/camcorders, iPad or tablet computers, classroom response systems (e.g., clickers), MP3 players/iPods, and video conference units were rarely used by teachers. Teachers also reported Elmo, Mobi, and power point via TV were devices they used for instruction. Table 3 shows the frequency of use of various devices for instructional purposes. The most frequently used software program for planning and instruction was an Internet browser (e.g., Internet Explorer, Mozilla Firefox, Apple Safari, Google Chrome). Other software programs commonly used included software for managing student records (attendance, grades, reporting), word processing software (e.g., Word, Pages), software for making presentations (e.g., PowerPoint, Keynote), spreadsheets and graphing programs (e.g., Excel, Numbers), and state- specific software for administering tests (e.g., Elements). Software programs used only several times a year included video or audio player software (e.g., Windows Media Player, iTunes), publication software (e.g., Publisher), and database management software (e.g., Access). Photo creation and editing software (e.g., Photoshop, Picasa), drill/practice programs/tutorials software, subject-specific programs (e.g., iCEV, My CAERT), simulation and visualization programs, video creation and editing software (e.g., Windows Movie Maker, iMovie), and website composer software (e.g., Dreamweaver, Seamonkey) were rarely used by teachers. Word processing software Journal of Agricultural Education 195 Volume 55, Issue 4, 2014 Williams, Warner, Flowers and Croom Accessibility and usage… was the only software accessible to all teachers. Only one teacher did not have access to spreadsheets and graphing programs and software for making presentations. Other software programs used for planning and instruction included Agriculture Experience Tracker (AET), power points from Internet, and Pix writer, and Notebook. Table 4 shows the frequency of use of various software programs for planning and instructional purposes. The most frequently used web services for planning and instruction were for curriculum planning (e.g., Moodle for blueprints and instructional outlines). Another web service commonly used included data sharing services (e.g., Google Documents, Dropbox). Web services used only several times a year included a learning management system (e.g., Blackboard, Moodle), video sharing (e.g., YouTube, School Tube), personal website, blog, or wiki, chapter website, blog, or wiki, and social networking websites (e.g., Facebook, Twitter, Google Plus, FFA Nation). Online presentation websites (e.g., Prezi, Animoto, Glogster), social bookmarking (e.g., Diigo, Delicious, Pinterest), and photo sharing (e.g., Flickr, Picasa) were rarely used by most teachers that had these technologies available. Other web services used by teachers for planning and instruction included Edmodo, Gaggle, AET, and games. Table 5 shows the frequency of use of various web services for planning and instructional purposes. Computers were more available and used more frequently than tablet computers by students. Students used computers more frequently in the classroom rather than in other settings during instructional time. Computers at another location in the school were used a few times a month. Almost half of the teachers did not have tablet computers available in their classroom (48.36%) or in another location in the school (45.72%). Table 6 displays the frequency of computer and tablet computer use during instructional time by students. The most frequently performed activity using educational technology by students in the agriculture classroom was conducting research (e.g., Internet searching, using reference materials on CD-ROM). Other activities commonly performed were preparing written text (e.g., word processing, desktop publishing), corresponding with others (e.g., students, teachers, experts) via email, network, or Internet, developing and presenting multimedia presentations (e.g., PowerPoint), creating or using graphics or visual displays (e.g., graphs, diagrams, pictures, maps), solving problems, analyzing data, or performing calculations, and conducting experiments or performing measurements. Using social networking websites, creating art, music, movies, or webcasts, and contributing to blogs or wikis were rarely used by most teachers. Teachers also reported students play games, use Google Docs, use online simulations, and take state-specific standardized tests during their classes. Table 7 lists activities performed by students using education technology. Journal of Agricultural Education 196 Volume 55, Issue 4, 2014 Williams, Warner, Flowers and Croom Accessibility and usage… Table 2 Availability of Teacher-based Devices Not Available Available as Needed Always in Classroom Technology Type N % N % N % Projector 6 1.97 25 8.22 273 89.80 Teacher desktop computer 31 10.20 23 7.57 250 82.24 Teacher laptop computer 31 10.20 50 16.45 223 73.36 DVD player 18 5.92 70 23.03 216 71.05 Older technologies (e.g., VHS, Overhead 23 7.57 91 29.93 190 62.50 Projector) Interactive whiteboard (e.g., SMART Board, 116 38.16 49 16.12 139 45.72 Activboard) Digital camera 35 11.51 155 50.99 114 37.50 Document camera 112 36.84 99 32.57 93 30.59 Video camera/camcorder 60 19.74 185 60.86 59 19.41 Classroom response system (e.g., clickers) 124 40.79 129 42.43 51 16.78 iPad or tablet computer 181 59.54 81 26.64 42 13.82 Video conference unit 187 61.51 93 30.59 24 7.89 Other 262 86.18 18 5.92 24 7.89 MP3 player/iPod 170 55.92 113 37.17 21 6.91 Journal of Agricultural Education 197 Volume 55, Issue 4, 2014 Williams, Warner, Flowers and Croom Accessibility and usage… Table 3 Use of Devices for Instruction Several times a 2-4 times a Never year month 2-3 times a week Daily Technology Type N % N % N % N % N % Projector 47 15.46 5 1.64 7 2.30 17 5.59 228 75.00 Teacher laptop computer 17 5.59 12 3.95 8 2.63 58 19.08 209 68.75 Teacher desktop computer 44 14.47 19 6.25 15 4.93 27 8.88 199 65.46 Interactive whiteboard 138 45.39 24 7.89 16 5.26 34 11.18 92 30.26 iPad or tablet computer 228 75.00 28 9.21 14 4.61 18 5.92 16 5.26 Classroom response system 174 57.24 47 15.46 40 13.16 29 9.54 14 4.61 Other 74 24.34 98 32.24 103 33.88 18 5.92 11 3.62 MP3 player/iPod 34 11.18 63 20.72 147 48.36 50 16.45 10 3.29 Video conference unit 273 89.80 10 3.29 7 2.30 6 1.97 8 2.63 Digital camera 200 65.79 61 20.07 27 8.88 10 3.29 6 1.97 Older technologies 73 24.01 87 28.62 94 30.92 44 14.47 6 1.97 Document camera 143 47.04 115 37.83 35 11.51 7 2.30 4 1.32 Video camera / camcorder 239 78.62 44 14.47 14 4.61 5 1.64 2 0.66 DVD player 260 85.53 32 10.53 9 2.96 2 0.66 1 0.33 Journal of Agricultural Education 198 Volume 55, Issue 4, 2014 Williams, Warner, Flowers and Croom Accessibility and usage… Table 4 Use of Software Programs for Planning and Instruction Not Several 2-4 times a 2-3 times a available Never times a year month week Daily Technology Type N % N % N % N % N % N % Internet browser (e.g., Internet Explorer, Mozilla Firefox, Apple Safari, Google Chrome) 4 1.32 3 0.99 2 0.66 10 3.29 32 10.53 253 83.22 Software for managing student records (attendance, grades, reporting) 4 1.32 16 5.26 10 3.29 11 3.62 26 8.55 237 77.96 Word processing software (e.g., Word, Pages) 0 0.00 3 0.99 10 3.29 20 6.58 91 29.93 180 59.21 Software for making presentations (e.g., PowerPoint, Keynote) 1 0.33 5 1.64 21 6.91 41 13.49 96 31.58 140 46.05 Spreadsheets and graphing programs (e.g., Excel, Numbers) 1 0.33 12 3.95 54 17.76 83 27.30 90 29.61 64 21.05 Software for administering tests (e.g., Elements) 6 1.97 21 6.91 30 9.87 98 32.24 104 34.21 45 14.80 Database management software (e.g., Access) 32 10.53 114 37.50 54 17.76 48 15.79 37 12.17 19 6.25 Subject-specific programs (e.g., iCEV, My CAERT) 70 23.03 86 28.29 58 19.08 40 13.16 38 12.50 12 3.95 Video or Audio player (e.g., Windows Media Player, iTunes) 23 7.57 88 28.95 76 25.00 63 20.72 45 14.80 9 2.96 Drill/practice programs/tutorials 53 17.43 86 28.29 71 23.36 53 17.43 32 10.53 9 2.96 Publication software (e.g., Publisher) 25 8.22 58 19.08 116 38.16 68 22.37 30 9.87 7 2.30 Simulation and visualization programs 74 24.34 101 33.22 67 22.04 36 11.84 21 6.91 5 1.64 Other (please specify) 253 83.22 30 9.87 4 1.32 8 2.63 5 1.64 4 1.32 Photo creation and editing software (e.g., Photoshop, Picasa) 37 12.17 86 28.29 106 34.87 44 14.47 27 8.88 4 1.32 Website composer (e.g., Dreamweaver, Seamonkey) 67 22.04 159 52.30 49 16.12 17 5.59 9 2.96 3 0.99 Video creation and editing software (e.g., Windows Movie Maker, iMovie) 40 13.16 123 40.46 111 36.51 20 6.58 9 2.96 1 0.33 Journal of Agricultural Education 199 Volume 55, Issue 4, 2014 Williams, Warner, Flowers and Croom Accessibility and usage… Table 5 Use of Web Services for Planning and Instruction Not Several 2-4 times a 2-3 times a available Never times a year month week Daily Technology Type N % N % N % N % N % N % Curriculum planning (e.g., Moodle for blueprints & instructional outlines) 4 1.32 15 4.93 54 17.76 95 31.25 93 30.59 43 14.14 Data sharing services (e.g., Google Documents, Dropbox) 12 3.95 75 24.67 48 15.79 65 21.38 67 22.04 37 12.17 Learning Management System (e.g., Blackboard, Moodle) 22 7.24 84 27.63 61 20.07 60 19.74 48 15.79 29 9.54 Social networking websites (e.g., Facebook, Twitter, Google Plus, FFA Nation) 31 10.20 125 41.12 43 14.14 41 13.49 41 13.49 23 7.57 Personal website, blog, or wiki 25 8.22 101 33.22 68 22.37 44 14.47 45 14.80 21 6.91 Chapter website, blog, or wiki 30 9.87 99 32.57 60 19.74 52 17.11 48 15.79 15 4.93 Video sharing (e.g., YouTube, School Tube) 24 7.89 90 29.61 55 18.09 66 21.71 55 18.09 14 4.61 Social bookmarking (e.g., Diigo, Delicious, Pinterest) 46 15.13 185 60.86 22 7.24 27 8.88 15 4.93 9 2.96 Photo sharing (e.g., Flickr, Picasa) 37 12.17 188 61.84 40 13.16 25 8.22 9 2.96 5 1.64 Online presentation websites (e.g., Prezi, Animoto, Glogster) 29 9.54 125 41.12 74 24.34 44 14.47 29 9.54 3 0.99 Other (please specify) 246 80.92 41 13.49 6 1.97 7 2.30 1 0.33 3 0.99 Journal of Agricultural Education 200 Volume 55, Issue 4, 2014