Project Background

From a review of the recent International and Australian research on the definition and measurement of ICT curriculum integration, this study describes the development of an instrument to measure ICT curriculum integration. The instrument was conceptualised from the Productive Pedagogies framework (Education Queensland, 2000). While the instrument was designed specifically for use in Queensland (Australia) schools, it has relevance internationally as it was based on current international research.

The study commenced with a review of the research undertaken to date, both nationally and internationally, with respect to defining and measuring ICT integration (e.g., BECTA, 2003; Cuttance & Stokes, 2000; DEST, 2001, 2002; Finger & Trinidad, 2002: OFSTED, 2002).

From the findings a set of recommendations were established for the development of a teacher self-report instrument to measure the quantity and quality of ICT curriculum integration in all subject areas and years from 1-12. The suite of items were generated based on a Productive Pedagogies framework (Lindgard et al., 2001). All items were generated using the sentence stem  ‘In my class students use ICTs to ….’.  This structure reflected the recommendation in Raising the Standards (DEST, 2002) that an ICT standard should be defined in relation to successful professional performance involving the use of ICT and that “teacher competence is connected to student competence” (p. 12).

A thorough process of consultation was used to refine the list of items. Two 4-point (Never, Sometimes, Often & Very Often) Likert-style frequency-of-use scales were used to reflect the ‘Current’ (actual) and ‘Preferred’ positions. The choice of the dual frequency-of-use scales enables the instrument to be used for both performance measurement and professional development. The instrument was then trialed with 136 teachers from 6 schools.

Findings and Conclusions

The literature review with respect to global attempts at measuring ICT curriculum integration indicated the complexity of rationales and terminology that underwrites initiatives; significant issues relating to teacher professional development and ICT competencies; obstacles to integration generally; and the inherent theoretical and methodological difficulties in trying to measure such a broadly defined construct as ICT curriculum integration. Further, ICT curriculum integration measurement studies revealed a lack of substantial history and development with most studies occurring since 1998. Also, most studies had focused on ‘inputs’ such as student to computer ratios, expenditure on ICTs, and the training and professional development of teachers, while very little had occurred in terms of developing instruments for measuring the ‘outputs’ for teachers and students associated with ICT curriculum integration.

While there has been an ongoing push to bring ICT into classrooms and to integrate it into the curriculum, there has been little attention given to how such integration might be measured outside of counting machines or calculating student to computer ratios. More alarmingly, there has been little attention given to defining the term “integration”. It is self-evident to suggest that how something is understood and defined and when and where it is used determines how it should be measured. This study and the resultant instrument provided a definition for the concept of ICT curriculum integration and arguably a clearer understanding of the role and level of mediation of the technology in learning contexts.

The trialing process indicated that the 45 item instrument was reliable and applicable across a wide teacher demographic, and that it was able to provide valid statistical data with regards to the Productive Pedagogical use of ICTs for learning. Completion of the instrument enabled teachers to reflect on and compare their Current and Preferred use of ICTs with their students. The study concluded by warning that self-report methodologies can be subject to fundamental challenges to their validity and reliability and it was recommended that the instrument form one part of a broader methodology that collects data to triangulate the results obtained with the instrument (e.g., observations, interviews, artifacts).

The Project Team

The Chief Investigators are Dr Romina Jamieson-Proctor (Griffith University), Dr Glenice Watson (Griffith University), Dr Glenn Finger (Griffith University), Dr Peter Grimbeek (Griffith University), Prof Paul Burnett (Charles Sturt University) and Michelle Williams.

Funding Partner:

------------------------------------

Participating Members:------------------------------------