Factors related to teacher use of technology in secondary geometry instruction.

     This survey sought to identify variables related to teacher use of
     technology in secondary level geometry classrooms in southeastern
     Idaho. The primary variables examined in the study were teacher
     technology awareness, teacher attitude toward technology, teacher
     technology training, and teacher computer use for instruction. This
     study also tested for associations between these primary variables
     and principal attitude toward technology and a selected group of
     demographic variables: geometry teaching experience, number of
     sections of geometry taught, college mathematics major, and
     computer lab access. Four significant relationships were found. An
     inverse relationship was found between teacher computer use and the
     number of geometry sections taught. Direct relationships were found
     between teacher attitude and both teacher technology awareness and
     principal attitude. Finally, a direct relationship between type of
     teacher training and teacher instructional computer use was
     reported.

**********

The use of technology in education, especially mathematics instruction, has been recommended on multiple occasions by the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM, 1996, 2000) and the Conference Board of the Mathematical Sciences (2001). In the state of Idaho, technology use has even been mandated (Watson, 1996). At the secondary level, many articles have recommended the use of computer technologies in geometry classes; however, few studies have been published on the effectiveness of technology within geometry classrooms.

In order to find a starting point for a research agenda in the use of technology in geometry classrooms, it was determined that a survey of current technology use should be carried out. The need for this survey was heightened by two other factors. The first was Idaho's lack of participation in the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) until the 2001 test. Therefore, the data normally available from the NAEP had never been collected in Idaho. The second factor was the amount of technology funding in Idaho during the 1990s. For the seven years prior to this study, the state legislature had earmarked over ten million dollars annually for technology purchases. Given that approximately 250,000 students attend K-12 classes annually, the per capita spending on technology was approximately $300 dollars per year over the seven years prior to this study. Therefore, it was of some interest to see how technology was being used in a relatively "technology-rich" environment.

The purpose of this study was to discover relationships of teacher technology awareness, teacher technology training, teacher and principal attitude toward technology, and teacher computer use among secondary geometry teachers in the southeastern region of the state of Idaho. This study was broken into three groups of research questions. The first set of research questions sought to discover associations between selected demographics variables (experience, number of geometry sections taught, teacher mathematics major, and hardware availability) and the primary variables of teacher technology awareness, teacher technology training, teacher attitude toward technology, and teacher technology use. The second research question examined relationships between the primary variables and principal attitude toward technology use in geometry. Finally, the last three research questions sought to determine associations between the four primary variables of the study.

DISCUSSION

The Use of Technology in Geometry

Hirschhorn & Thompson (1996) pointed out the most critical juncture in secondary mathematics for student performance was either algebra or geometry, but most likely was both subjects. The National Research Council (1989) stated that geometry acts as a filter for higher-level mathematics achievement, and as such becomes an important course in the secondary curriculum. Geometry presents unique challenges for teachers that technology, such as dynamic geometry environment software, may help overcome. For example, Tikoo (1998) discussed the need for technology in geometry as a tool for performing constructions, claiming that students have more time to consider the meaning of the geometry rather than spending that time on the tedious effort required to perform numerous constructions. Zbiek (1996) claimed that without the use of technology, few students ever gain sufficient geometric reasoning required to master "the Pentagon Problem;" however, with the use of technology, nearly the entire class found a solution to the problem.

Teacher Awareness of Geometry Software Relationship to the Use of Technology in Geometry

As early as 1983, VanDeMark (1983) stated, "Teachers must become aware of the problems, potentials, uses, and effectiveness of computers so that they can be applied effectively in education." Knowledge of the potential uses of technology was a requirement for the successful use of technology.

In 1991, the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) developed professional standards for teaching mathematics. The Council concluded that teachers must be aware of the tools necessary to enhance discourse in the mathematics classroom and emphasized that technology is one of these tools.

Many recommendations have been made for the use of technology in classrooms (NCTM, 1991, 1996). However, the overall position of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics emphasized that a prerequisite for the integration of technology is that teachers must be aware of the existence and potential benefits of both hardware and software.

Suydam (1985), in an article appearing in The Mathematics Teacher, stressed the need for awareness of geometry software by classroom teachers as a necessary factor in determining successful integration of technology into geometry instruction. Hoyle (1994) confirmed previous views of awareness of geometry software as an essential ingredient for successful classroom use.

How does Teacher Training Relate to Use of Technology in Geometry?

Mathews, Davis, & Hamilton (1996), using a survey instrument, reported that more than one-third of the responding teachers never used technology for instructional purposes. While the response levels were low given the size of the teacher population, the results did reveal a posture among the teachers surveyed. Additionally, more than one-half of the responding teachers perceived themselves as computer novices. Mathews, et al. (1996) concluded that staff development was needed to enhance teachers' abilities to use technology as well as their actual use of technology.

Strickland (1999) developed and validated a Technology Needs Assessment (TNA) survey instrument; a component of this instrument was a section focusing on teacher training and the use of technology for instructional purposes. While more than 92% of the teachers reported having a computer system in their classroom, only 15% reported integrating it into the curriculum for instructional purposes. Overall, Strickland concluded that additional training on integrating technology into everyday instruction was necessary.

How Does Teacher Attitude Toward Technology Relate to Use of Technology in Geometry?

Medcalf-Davenport, in a 1998 study, reported that very little had changed in teachers' attitudes toward the uses of technology in the classroom over the previous decade. The computer was still viewed as the curriculum (i.e., teaching about how to use it), rather than as a tool for teaching the curriculum to students (i.e., using the computer as an integrated tool). Medcalf-Davenport contended that there was still resistance and fear in the integration of anything new into the classroom and most teachers did not recognize the usefulness or necessity of using technology for teaching and learning.

Savenye (1993) reported a study based on the assumption that teacher success in learning about technology was partially dependent upon positive teacher attitudes toward technology. Savenye stated that participation in an intensive computer literacy course appeared to have improved students' (i.e., in-service teachers) attitudes toward using technology.

How Does the Principal's Attitude Toward Technology Relate to the Teacher's Use of Technology in Geometry?

Glathorn (1997) asserted that there was abundant evidence that the principal plays a key role in determining the overall effectiveness of the school. Moreover, Glathorn identified principal "leadership" as the process of enabling teachers to achieve goals. Ubben & Hughes (1997) set an equally high level for principal leadership in the school environment by stating, "Effective instructional leadership requires a complex set of relationships between principals and their beliefs and the surrounding environment of the school."

Drake & Roe (1994) maintained that one portion of the principal's leadership role was to foster change in teachers' attitude and performance. Most significant to this research, Ritchie (1996) identified eight impediments for integration of instructional technology. Ritchie continued by saying, "Of these eight, lack of administrative support may be the most critical, for without the commitment of a school administrator, the likelihood is increased that one or more of the other seven variables will negatively influence technology adoption and implementation." This study went on to say that schools were not yet effectively implementing instructional technologies in the classroom in spite of the increase in the capacity of educational technology. Finally, Ritchie concluded by declaring "administrators who are informed and comfortable with technology become key players in leading and supporting technology into the schools." Costello (1997) claimed the potential of technology in schools will only be realized if leaders in education lead in the effective use of technology. Davidson & Maurer (1995) discussed a program that attempted to prepare principals to be instructional leaders in educational technology. A strong recommendation was made that the principal should not delegate instructional technology responsibility to other staff members. Rather, principals should become "visionary leaders in the new instructional technology" (p. 23).

METHODS

Description of the Population

Idaho teachers and principals were considered in this study for several reasons. Since 1994, Idaho has invested heavily in technology for schools (Idaho Council on Technology in Learning, 1998). The State of Idaho has provided, and is still providing, monies earmarked for technology directly to school districts, requiring a plan for integrating technology into instruction from school districts as a condition of receiving that money. In addition, a private foundation has provided large dollar amounts for Idaho schools that incorporate technology into instruction. Finally, the state of Idaho has mandated the appropriate use of technology in instructional settings (Watson, 1996). Therefore, Idaho teachers were considered because Idaho schools have had both the money and the incentive to incorporate technology into the classroom for the last five years. Geometry teachers were examined in this study because dynamic geometry environment software tools, such as Geometer's Sketchpad or Cabri Geometry, offer opportunities for students to interact with the constructs of a filed which has been described as a hurdle for high school mathematics students (National Research Council, 1989).

Data Collection Techniques

The data was collected using a mail survey instrument. The surveys consisted of both closed and open response items. The survey packets were sent to all high schools and junior highs in southeast Idaho school districts that offer at least one section of geometry. Each packet contained a principal survey and teacher surveys for each geometry teacher in the school building.

Participants

The study participants were restricted to secondary school geometry teachers and their principals in southeastern Idaho. All junior and senior high schools that offered at least one section of geometry were invited to participate in the study. The principals of each of the selected schools made up the principal section of the sample. If multiple teachers from a given school were in charge of at least one geometry class, then all such teachers from that school were asked to participate in the study.

An initial telephone survey revealed that, of the 52 school districts located in southeastern Idaho, there were 75 secondary schools that offered at least one section of geometry: however, three small districts declined to take part in the study.

This produced a potential sample consisting of 136 teachers from 72 of the participating schools (representing 49 school districts). Completed surveys were received from 52 teachers and 33 principals from 26 school districts. The resulted in a return rate of 38% for teachers and 46% for principals. The response rates for the surveys appear to be abnormally low; however, in comparing 10 surveys reported in journals from 1994 to 1999, Ghezzo (2000) concluded that secondary mathematics teachers tended to respond poorly to external survey requests. In Ghezzo's analysis, it was concluded that while the normal expectations of survey response rates were between 65% and 83%, secondary mathematics teachers, in the 10 surveys reported, responded from a low of 31% to a high of 46%. While the researcher offered no insight as to the nature of this disparity, it was highlighted that the four lowest results were from rural communities.

Another factor affecting the survey response rates was the rural nature of the respondents. Alwin (1989a) and Agresti (1995) revealed that surveys that encompassed rural communities would experience a 20 to 25% drop compared to more urban areas. Alwin (1899b) amplified this position by conducting teacher surveys among rural and urban communities. The research reported that elementary teachers in such disciplines as science and mathematics were twice as likely as secondary teachers to return surveys.

The demographic data obtained from the teachers are in Table 1. The data returned from principals are reported in Table 2.

Discussion of Demographic Table Data

Several parts of the demographic tables merit particular mention. The first point is that the sample had nearly an even distribution of geometry teaching experience. This proved to be important when relationships involving teaching experience were computed. The stereotype of the long-service teacher who refuses to adapt to new methods could be examined using the sample in this study.

Another point of interest in the teacher demographic table is the small number of teachers who instruct four or more sections of geometry. This may be due to the prevalence of small school districts in the sampled region. The school districts with small enrollments offer a single section of geometry each year. A few of the districts in the area are so small that they offer geometry every other year. In contrast, few schools in the sample area were large enough to support a full-time geometry instructor. The lack of an even distribution in the number of geometry sections taught may limit the ability to generalize the results with regard to this variable.

It should also be noted that the principals of the schools in the study tend to rest toward the low end on the experience scale. This result may also follow from the small districts that make up the sample. If the principals are accepting positions in small, rural districts as "entry level" administrative positions, the larger number of such principals with one to five years of experience may be understood.

Summary of Findings

The first section, consisting of four research questions, examined the relationships between the primary variables (teacher technology awareness, teacher technology training, teacher and principal attitude toward technology, and teacher computer use) and the selected demographic variables (experience, number of sections taught, mathematics major, and hardware availability). The next research question sought associations between the primary variables and principal attitude toward technology. The final section, comprised of the last three research questions, tested for relationships between each of the different pairs of primary variables.

Four relationships were found to be statistically significant. The demographic variable of the number of geometry sections taught was inversely related to teacher technology use. Teacher attitude toward computers was directly related to principal attitude toward computers. Teacher attitude was also found to be directly related to teacher technology awareness. Finally, the type of teacher technology training was found to correlate positively with teacher computer use.

It should be noted that for each test conducted, the critical alpha value was set to be equal to .05. No correctional procedure was used to adjust the overall alpha level for the 26 comparisons performed in this study. This was because the purpose of the study was to identify relationships between the variables that would serve as topics of future research studies. Given that purpose, a false negative result would be of greater harm than a false positive result. Thus, the decision was made not to limit the power of the statistical procedures by employing an overall alpha correction routine.

Relationships Between the Primary Variables and Demographic Variables

The first set of research questions sought to discover associations between selected demographic variables (geometry teaching experience, number of geometry sections taught, mathematics major, and hardware availability as measured by computer lab access) and the primary variables of teacher technology awareness, teacher technology training, teacher attitude toward technology, and teacher technology use. Chi-square procedures were used to test for associations. The findings for each of the first four research questions are summarized below.

The first research question examined relationships between teacher technology awareness and the selected demographic variables. For each of the demographic variables, no significant relationship to teacher technology awareness was found.

Research question two tested for relationships between teacher technology training and the selected demographic variables. Once again, no significant relationships were found for the demographic variables and teacher technology training.

The third research question looked for associations between teacher attitudes toward technology and the selected demographics variables. The results indicated that no significant relationships were found in these tests.

Research question four sought to discover associations between teacher computer use and the selected demographic variables. No relationships were found between computer use and geometry teaching experience, mathematics major, and computer lab access. However, teacher computer use was found to be significantly related to the number of geometry sections taught. The chi-square value for the comparison between number of geometry sections taught and teacher technology use was [chi square] = 9.776, df = 4, p = .044. The strength of the association, as measured by Cramer's V, was V = .31. An examination of the data revealed that the more sections of geometry a teacher was assigned, the less likely that teacher was to make use of technology in teaching geometry.

Relationships Between the Primary Variables and Principal Attitude

The fifth research question examined relationships between the primary variables and principal attitude toward technology use in geometry. In three cases (teacher technology awareness, teacher technology training, and teacher computer use), no significant associations were found. However, principal attitude toward technology was found to be significantly related to teacher attitudes toward technology. The chi-square test for the comparison between principal attitude towards technology use and teacher attitude towards technology use was statistically significant, [chi square] = 6.297, df = 1, p = .012. The strength of the association was measured using Cramer's [PHI] as [PHI] = .351. It was found that those teachers with high attitudes toward technology use tended to work for principals with high attitudes toward technology use.

Relationships Among the Primary Variables

The last three research questions sought associations among the four primary variables of the study: teacher technology awareness, teacher technology attitude, teacher technology training, and teacher computer use. For these comparisons, correlation statistics were used.

The sixth research question tested for relationships between teacher attitude toward technology and the other three primary variables. No significant relationships were found between teacher attitude and teacher technology training or teacher computer use. However, a significant association was found between teacher attitude and teacher technology awareness. The Pearson product-moment correlation value was r = .30. Those teachers with higher awareness of the capabilities of computers tended to have more positive attitudes toward technology.

The seventh research question examined relationships between teacher technology awareness and teacher technology training or teacher computer use. The results of this study indicated that teacher technology awareness is significantly associated with neither teacher technology training nor teacher computer use.

The eighth and final research question looked for a relationship between teacher technology training and teacher computer use. The results of this study indicated that there was a significant relationship between these two variables. The Kendall Tau value was [tau] = .34. Those teachers who were trained in the integration of subject-specific software into their geometry classes were more likely to make use of technology when teaching geometry.

CONCLUSIONS

Relationships Between the Primary Variables and Demographic Variables

Three of the four demographic variables tested in this study showed no significant relationship to the primary variables. From these findings, it may be concluded that years of geometry teaching experience, college mathematics major, and access to a computer lab were not related to teacher technology awareness, technology attitude, technology training, or teacher computer use. This is in keeping with Dupagne & Krendel's (1992) finding that attitude towards computers was independent of personal characteristics.

The fourth demographic variable, number of sections of geometry, was not significantly related to technology awareness, attitude, or training. Therefore, the results of this study lend evidence to the conclusion that no such relationships exist in the general population of secondary geometry teachers.

The only significant finding involving a demographic variable developed in this study was the relationship between the number of sections of geometry that a teacher was assigned, and the use of computer technology in the classroom. It is interesting to note, however, that none of the high users taught more than three sections of geometry per day. Further, the majority of those teachers in the medium use group taught only one section of geometry per day. This may be a result of the large number of small schools in the sample that can only offer one geometry section per year. However, if these results are indicative of a more general population, it may represent a trend indicting that those teachers who have a larger number of geometry classes are less willing to experiment with a new teaching technique. Additionally, it may be that unequal access to computer technology may led teachers to adopt a least common denominator strategy: if it isn't available for all students, it won't be used by any students. Several teachers specifically mentioned the lack of time as a factor in their decision not to use technology. As one teacher put it, "We don't have time to teach the current curriculum; much less add time with technology." Many of the respondents stated that technology required more time to learn and implement than they had available or wee willing to give. This is in agreement with findings from previous studies on both principals (MacNeil & Delafield, 1998) and teachers (Cooper, 1998).

Relationships Between the Primary Variables and Principal Attitude

This study found no significant relationships between principal attitude toward technology and the variables of teacher technology awareness, technology training, and teacher computer use. The lack of a significant relationship between principal attitude and teacher computer use is in contrast to Stegall's (1998) finding that enthusiastic principal leadership was related to high technology use. This discrepancy may be explained by Stegall's definition of enthusiastic leadership. That term encompasses actions as well as attitudes. This study examined only the principals' attitudes. In order to effect classroom practice, it may be necessary for the principals to act upon their beliefs about the usefulness of technology. In other words, principal attitude may be a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for changing teachers' technology practices.

The interpretation of the significant relationship between teacher and principal attitudes towards the use of technology is straightforward. As the principals' attitudes go up, so do the teachers' attitudes. These findings are consistent with Drake & Roe's (1994) assertion that the principal should be able to foster change in teacher attitudes. It should be noted, however, the results of this study could also be explained as teachers effecting a change on their principals' attitudes.

An examination of the open response items indicated a potential problem. In both the teacher and the principal samples, approximately one-third of the respondents indicated that the amount of use was their primary gauge of appropriate technology use in the classroom. Since Roberts & Stephens (1999) found that merely increasing the amount of time students spend at the computer does not increase achievement in geometry, those who advocate simply more technology access or higher usage levels in secondary geometry classrooms are recommending a position in opposition to research findings.

Relationships Among the Primary Variables

This study found that teacher attitude was not significantly related to technology training or teacher computer use. These findings are in contrast to Okinaka's (1992) results. One possible reason for the difference is that Okinaka surveyed pre-service teachers' interest in taking more computer courses and their intent to use computers after being hired. It may be that in-service teachers have enough demands on their time that their attitude toward technology does not always lead to training on technology and use of technology in the classroom.

The variable of teacher technology awareness was not significantly related to teacher technology training or teacher computer use. This is some-what in opposition to the conclusions of Okinaka (1992) and Sheingold & Hadley (1990), that awareness is necessary for technology implementation. It may be that mere awareness of the capabilities of technology is insufficient to guarantee technology training or use.

In spite of their non-significant associations with technology training and teacher computer use, teacher attitude toward technology and teacher technology awareness were significantly related to each other. This finding does not contradict Okinaka's (1992) conclusion that teacher attitude toward technology can be positively affected by making teachers aware of the capabilities of technology.

Several papers have recommended additional training for teachers in order to increase their level of technology use (Cooper, 1998; NCTM, 1998; Mathews et al., 1996). Yet, none of these studies have shown that technology training and teacher computer use are related. Therefore, the significant association between teacher technology training and classroom technology use found in this study is a step toward justifying the recommendations for teacher technology training.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Recommendations for Future Research

This study found a relationship between teacher and principal attitudes. A portion of the relationship was based on the attitude that appropriate computer use could be described as an amount of time or level of access. Since merely increasing the amount of time spent in geometry class on a computer has been shown to be unrelated to achievement (Roberts & Stephens, 1999), the shared attitude has no supporting evidence. Therefore, it is recommended that one topic for future research should be an investigation of how teacher and principal attitudes towards the use of technology can be changed.

The relationship between type of technology training and teacher computer use also has more room for exploration. This study did not determine any causal relationship between these two variables. If a specific type of training is found to cause a higher level of computer use, that type of training should become standard. Therefore, it is recommended that the relationship between type of technology training and teacher computer use be a topic of future study.

Since the use of technology is both recommended (NCTM, 2000) and mandated (Watson, 1996), the inverse relationship between computer use and the number of sections of geometry taught becomes important. If it is a goal to use technology to increase geometry achievement, then the teachers who teach the most students should be using technology most often. Discovering the reasons behind this lack of technology use by these teachers should be a primary topic for future research.

Recommendations for Practice

The results of this study can provide school districts with several recommendations for practice. The inverse relationship between technology use and the number of sections of geometry taught provides one such recommendation. School administrators need to be aware of this relationship and take steps to discover if it holds true in their districts. If those administrators should find the inverse relationship among the geometry teachers in their district, an attempt should be made to determine the reasons behind the lack of technology use. A simple explanation may be that the teachers with more geometry sections may find it difficult to access the computer lab for all classes and therefore choose to not use it at all. Administrators should seek to alter the factors that lead to low technology use among teachers with the most sections of geometry.

The teachers in this study wee asked to report on the type of training they have received in the use of geometry-specific software. Of the 52 teachers who responded, 25 (48%) indicated that they have received no training in the use of geometry-specific software. Another nine (17%) reported that they had undergone training only in how to use geometry software. Since the use of technology has been both recommended and mandated, another recommendation for school districts is to even out the levels of training received by providing integration training to all geometry teachers.

The results of this study indicate that 26 of 51 (51%) of the respondents indicated that they had low or medium levels of awareness of the capabilities of technology in geometry classrooms. It is recommended that school districts make an effort to assure that their teachers are kept up to date with the latest products available in their fields. Since it is not possible to use technology about which the teacher is unaware, this action would remove a potential impediment to technology use.

Finally, this study offers recommendations for current practices in teacher education. Schools of education should provide opportunities for pre-service teachers to become aware of the capabilities of technology in the teaching of geometry. Pre-service teachers should also be trained in the integration of technology into their specific subject areas. In this way, colleges of education will assist school districts in accomplishing the previous two recommendations.

Table 1

Teacher Demographic Data

           Description              Responding Teachers  %

Gender
          Male                              34           65
          Female                            18           35

Geometry Teaching Experience
          1 to 5 years                      17           33
          6 to 15 years                     19           37
          16 or more years                  16           31

Number of Geometry Sections Taught
          1                                 22           42
          2 to 3                            26           50
          4 or more                         3            6

Mathematics Major
          Yes                               33           63
          No                                19           37

Table 2

Principal Demographic Data

         Description            Number of Principals  %

Gender
          Male                  29                    88
          Female                4                     12

Experience as a Principal
          1 to 5 years          14                    42
          6 to 15 years         12                    36
          16 or more years      7                     21

Mathematics Teacher Background
          Yes                   1                     3
          No                    32                    97

Table 3

Chi-square Table Comparing Principal Attitude Group to Teacher Attitude
Group

   Frequency     Neutral principal attitude  Positive principal attitude

                             25                           4
Middle attitude          Row % = 86                   Row % = 14
                        Col. % = 68                  Col. % = 29

                             12                          10
 High attitude           Row % = 55                   Row % = 45
                        Col. % = 32                  Col. % = 71

Chi-square  Value    DF  Significance
Pearson     6.29684  1   .01210

Minimum Expected Frequency - 6.039

Average Expected Frequency - 12.75

Statistic   Value   Significance

Cramer's V  .35138  .01210

Total observations: 51

Table 4

Chi-square Table Comparing Number of Geometry Sections to Teacher
Technology Use Group

 Frequency     1 section   2-3 sections  4 + sections

                  16            23            1
 Low users     Row % = 40   Row % = 58    Row % = 3
              Col. % = 73  Col. % = 88   Col. % = 33

                   4            1             2
Medium users   Row % = 57   Row % = 14    Row % = 29
              Col. % = 18  Col. % = 4    Col. % = 67

                   2            2             0
 High users    Row % = 50   Row % = 50    Row % = 0
              Col. % = 9   Col. % = 8    Col. % = 0

Chi-square  Value    DF  Significance
Pearson     9.77564  4   .04438

Minimum Expected Frequency - .235

Average Expected Frequency - 5.667

Statistic   Value   Significance

Cramer's V  .30958  .04438

Total observations: 51

Table 5

Correlation Coefficients and Significance Between Teacher Software
Awareness, Teacher Attitude Towards Technology Use, Type of Geometry
Specific Software Training, and Teacher Technology Use

            Software     Technology   Training
            Awareness    Attitude     Type

Technology  r = .30
Attitude    p = .031

Training    [tau] = .12  [tau] = .14
Type        p = .293     p = .214

Technology  r = .16      r = -.01
Use         p = .259     p = .928     p = .005

References

Alwin, Duane F. (1989a). Changes in survey response rates among teachers in the United States, 1964 to 1984. Social Science Research, 15, 195-236.

Alwin, Duane F. (1989b). Problems in the estimation of survey response rates among teachers survey data. Quality & Quantity, 24, 277-331.

Agresti, A. (1995). Survey models and related quasi-symmetric log-linear models for comparing responses to similar items in a survey in rural and urban areas. Sociological Methods and Research, 25, 68-95.

Conference Board of the Mathematical Sciences. (2001). The mathematical education of teachers: Part 1. Washington, DC: Mathematical Association of America.

Cooper, H. D. (1998). A study of a model technology school to determine best practices and teacher concerns (Doctoral dissertation, Pepperdine University, 1998). Proquest Digital Dissertations, AAT 9912030.

Costello, R. W. (1997). The leadership role in making the technology connection. T.H.E. Journal, Nov. 97, 58-62.

Davidson, G. & Maurer, M. M. (1995). Leadership in instructional technology. Techtrends 3(1995), 23-26.

Drake, T. L. & Roe, W. H. (1994). The Principalship. 5th Ed. Columbus, Ohio: Merrill.

Dupagne, M. & Krendel, K. A. (1992). Teachers' attitudes toward computers: A review of the literature. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 24, 420-429.

Ghezzo, R.H. (2000). Profiling survey sampling techniques across secondary school disciplines. Paper delivered at the American Statistical Association, Indianapolis, Indiana.

Glathorn, A. A. (1997). The principal as curriculum leader: Shaping what is taught and tested. Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin Press Inc.

Hirschhorn, D. B. & Thompson, D. R. (1996). Technology and reasoning in algebra and geometry. Mathematics Teacher, 89, 138-142.

Hoyle, J. R. (1994). What Standards for the Superintendency Promise. The School Administrator, 51, 22-26.

Idaho Council for Technology in Learning. (1998). The Idaho technology initiative: An accountability report to the Idaho legislature on the effects of monies spent through the Idaho Council for Technology in Learning. Boise, Idaho: Idaho Department of Education.

MacNeil, A. J. & Delafield, D. P. (1998). Leadership for successful school technology implementation. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 421 126)

Mathews, J. G., Davis, E. E., & Hamilton, G. H. (1996). Assessment of teacher technology needs in fifty-five southeastern Idaho school districts. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 402 120)

Medcalf-Davenport, N. A. (1998). Historical and current attitudes towards uses of educational technology: A work in progress. East Lansing, Michigan: National Center for Research on Teacher Learning. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 427 721)

National Council of Teachers and Mathematics. (1991). Professional standards for teaching mathematics. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1996). Position statements of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. NCTM 1996-97 Handbook. Reston, VA: NCTM.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

National Research Council. (1989). Everybody counts: A report to the nation on the future of mathematics education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Okinaka, R. (1992). The factors that affect teacher attitude towards computer use. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 346 039)

Ritchie, D. (1996). The administrative role in the integration of technology. The NASSP Bulletin, Oct. 96, 42-51.

Roberts, D. L., & Stephens, L. J. (1999). The effect of the frequency of usage of computer software in high school geometry. Journal of Computes in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 18, 23-30.

Savenye, W. C. (1993). Measuring teacher attitudes toward interactive computer technologies. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology. New Orleans, Louisiana, 1993. (ERIC Document 362 200)

Sheingold, K. & Hadley, M. (1990). Accomplished teachers: Integrating computers into classroom practice. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 322 900)

Stegall, P. (1998). The Principal: Key to technology implementation. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 424 614)

Strickland, J. (1999). The development and validation of a technology needs assessment (TNA) instrument for Idaho school districts: Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Idaho State University, Pocatello.

Suydam, M. N. (1985). The shape of instruction in geometry: Some highlights from research. Mathematics Teacher, 78, 481-486.

Tikoo, M. (1998). Integrating geometry in a meaningful way (a point of view). International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 29, 663-75.

Ubben, G. C. & Hughes, L. W. (1997). The Principal: Creative leadership for effective schools. (3rd Edition). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

VanDeMark, C. L. (1983). Implementation of microcomputers in the classroom: Problems and potentials. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 234 749)

Watson, R. (1996). Connections: A statewide plan for technology in Idaho's Schools. Boise, ID: Idaho Department of Education.

Zbiek, R. M. (1996). The Pentagon Problem: Geometric reasoning with technology. Mathematics Teacher, 89, 86-90.

DAVID A. COFFLAND

Idaho State University

USA

[e-mail]

ALBERT W. STRICKLAND

Idaho State University

USA

[e-mail]