Correlations

A Pearson, two-tailed correlation coefficient (r) was calculated for each of the LoA indices and teaching style index to test the null hypothesis that there was no linear correlation between teaching style and the LoA for TPU, TPP and TCU in Alaska’s 1:1 high school classrooms. (See Appendix “C” for descriptions of the statistical formulas and procedures used to process the data.) Table 30 presents the results.

Table 30

Pearson (r) fo r Teaching Style and the LoA fo r TPU, TPP and TCU.

Level of Adoption Pearson (r) Coefficient Significance

Classroom Use r = .234 p = .023*

Professional Practice r = .351 p = .001**

Personal Use r = .152 p = .144~

Note: * {p is significant at .05); ** (p is significant at .001); ~ (p is not significant at the .05 level). Cohen effect sizes: Small r <= .2; Medium .2 <r<= .5; Large r >.5. Sample size (n) = 94. Pearson (r) correlation tests were conducted using SPSS 19. A significance level of 5% (alpha) was set as the cut point to determine significance. See Appendix “C” for

information relative to the application of Pearson’s (r) and measures related to effect size and significance

The Pearson (r) coefficient measuring the association between teaching style and the level of adoption of technology for classroom use was calculated using SPSS 19 to test the null hypothesis:

"Ho-' There is no relationship between teaching style and the LoA for classroom use of technology.

Hi: There is a relationship between teaching style and the LoA for classroom use of technology.

Pearson’s (r) showed there was a significant positive relationship between teaching style and the LoA of technology for classroom use (r = .234,p = .023, n = 94). Cohen (1988) labels a .234 effect size as small (r <= .2 = small; .2 < r < .5 = medium; r =>.5 = large). Pearson (r) coefficient rejected the null hypothesis in favor of the alternative hypothesis. The scatter plot of the relationship in Figure 16 portrays the weak positive relationship.

Teach in g Style vs Level o f Adoption of Te c h n o lo g y fo r Classroom Use

Teaching Style Index

Figure 16. Scatter plot: Teaching style and the LoA for classroom use.

The weak correlation was consistent with descriptive data that demonstrated tension between a teacher’s constructivist beliefs and pedagogical practices consistent with those beliefs. The LoA survey measured technological fluency, the complexity of the application and the application’s frequency. A low index may have reflected a practiced familiarity with instructional technology yet a limited implementation for instruction.

The Pearson (r) coefficient for teaching style and the level of adoption of technology for professional practice was calculated using SPSS 19 to test the null hypothesis:

Ho: There is no relationship between teaching style and the LoA for professional use of technology.

Hi: There is a relationship between teaching style and the LoA for professional ^ use o f technology.

Pearson’s (r) showed there was a significant positive relationship between

teaching style and the LoA of technology for professional practice (r = .351, p < .001, n =

94). Cohen, (1988) labels a .351 effect size as medium (r <= .2 = small; .2 < r < .5 = medium; r =>.5 = large). A medium, significant Pearson (r) coefficient rejected the null hypothesis in favor of the alternative hypothesis that there is a relationship between teaching style and the level of adoption of technology for professional practice. The scatter plot o f the relationship (Figure 17) provides visual evidence o f the weak, positive correlation between teaching style and the LoA for professional practice.

Teaching Style vs Level of Adoption of Technology for Professional Use

Teaching Style Index

Figure 17. Scatter plot: Teaching style and the LoA for professional practice

The greater relationship between teaching style and the LoA for both professional practice and classroom use suggested that the limited use of DLT by teachers might not have been primarily related to proficiency barriers. Over 98% of the teachers, when asked what proficiency best described their levels o f adoption, selected an intermediate to expert proficiency. However, only 40% believed that technology had significantly changed the ways students use technology in the classroom. The differences between professional and classroom use suggested that barriers may have attenuated the LoA of technology in the classroom, regardless of pedagogical beliefs.

The Pearson (r) coefficient for teaching style and the LoA for personal use was calculated using SPSS 19 to test the null hypothesis:

S’

Ho: There is no relationship between teaching style and the LoA for personal use of technology.

H i: There is a relationship between teaching style and the LoA for personal use of ^ technology.

Pearson’s (r) showed there was a small but statistically insignificant (p >.05), positive relationship between teaching style and the LoA of technology for personal use (r = . 152,

p > .05, n = 94). As a result, the null hypothesis that there was no statistically significant

relationship between teaching style and the level of adoption for the personal use of technology, was accepted. A scatter plot provides a visual representation o f the

relationship (See Figure 18) between teaching style and the personal use of technology.

;h in g Style vs Le vel o f A d o p t io n o f T e c h n o lo g y f o r P e rs o n al U s e JR** l i n e a r m 0 .0 2 3 -O c 4 i VJ e o 8 0 . 0 - 6 0 . 0 - 4 0 . 0 - O H 2 0 . 0 ' SO.0 0 6 0 .0 0 7 0 .0 0 8 0 .0 0 9 0 .0 0 100.00

Teaching Style Index

Figure 18. Scatter plot: Teaching style and the LoA for personal use of technology.

The personal use index exposed the limited value technology held for personal use. Only three applications were used more frequently than once a month: e-mail

(100%), social networking (46%) and Internet browsing (93%). Any relationship between teaching style and personal use is difficult to evaluate given the limited personal use

reported by survey respondents.