0% found this document useful (0 votes)

35 views

Computer Literacy Access and Use of Technology in The Family and

Com lit.

Uploaded by

lyca omapas

We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.

Available Formats

Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

0% found this document useful (0 votes)

35 views

Computer Literacy Access and Use of Technology in The Family and

Com lit.

Uploaded by

lyca omapas

We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.

Available Formats

Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

You are on page 1/ 70

University of Kentucky

UKnowledge
University of Kentucky Master's Theses Graduate School

2008

COMPUTER LITERACY, ACCESS AND USE

OF TECHNOLOGY IN THE FAMILY AND
CONSUMER SCIENCES CLASSROOM
Dana Renee Jenkins
University of Kentucky

Right click to open a feedback form in a new tab to let us know how this document benefits you.

Recommended Citation
Jenkins, Dana Renee, "COMPUTER LITERACY, ACCESS AND USE OF TECHNOLOGY IN THE FAMILY AND CONSUMER
SCIENCES CLASSROOM" (2008). University of Kentucky Master's Theses. 515.
https://uknowledge.uky.edu/gradschool_theses/515

This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at UKnowledge. It has been accepted for inclusion in University of
Kentucky Master's Theses by an authorized administrator of UKnowledge. For more information, please contact [email protected].
ABSTRACT OF THESIS

COMPUTER LITERACY, ACCESS AND USE OF TECHNOLOGY IN THE FAMILY

AND CONSUMER SCIENCES CLASSROOM

KEYWORDS: Use, Technology, Computer, Literacy, Access

Dana Renee’ Jenkins

3/18/08
COMPUTER LITERACY, ACCESS AND USE OF TECHNOLOGY IN THE FAMILY
AND CONSUMER SCIENCES CLASSROOM

Dana Renee’ Jenkins

Dr. Cheryl Mimbs

Co-Director of Thesis

Dr. Tracy Kitchel

Co-Director of Thesis

Dr. Randy Weckman

Director of Graduate Studies

3/18/08
Date
RULES FOR THE USE OF THESES

Unpublished theses submitted for the Master’s degree and deposited in the University of
Kentucky Library are as a rule open for inspection, but are to be used only with due
regard to the rights of the authors. Bibliographical references may be noted, but
quotations or summaries of parts may be published with only the permission of the
author, and with the usual scholarly acknowledgements.

Extensive copying or publication of the thesis in whole or in part also requires the
consent of the Dean of the Graduate School of the University of Kentucky.

A library that borrows this thesis for use by its patrons is expected to secure the signature
of each user.

Name Date

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________
THESIS

Dana Renee’ Jenkins

The Graduate School

University of Kentucky
2008
COMPUTER LITERACY, ACCESS AND USE OF TECHNOLOGY IN THE FAMILY
AND CONSUMER SCIENCES CLASSROOM

THESIS

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the

requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in the
College of Agriculture
at the University of Kentucky

Dana Renee’ Jenkins

Lexington, Kentucky

Co-Directors: Dr. Cheryl Mimbs, Assistant Professor of Family and Consumer Sciences
Education
and Dr. Tracy Kitchel, Assistant Professor of Agricultural Education

Lexington, Kentucky
2008

Copyright © Dana R. Jenkins 2008

Dedicated to the memory of my dad, David W. Brown, Jr.
Thank you and I love you.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to express my sincerest appreciation for those who supported,

assisted and provided me the necessary guidance as I completed this thesis.
To Dr. Cheryl Mimbs, who served as thesis co-director, for her ideas, advice, and
encouragement during this process. Thank you for all the knowledge and resources you
provided for me during my work on this thesis. Your knowledge of the profession was
invaluable.
To Dr. Tracy Kitchel, who served as thesis co-director, for his ideas, advice, and
encouragement during this process. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to attend
graduate school and for teaching me how to understand statistics and APA.
To Dr. Rick Maurer, for serving on my committee. You brought a different
perspective to the group and your help was greatly appreciated.
To my mom Debbie Brown, for her love and support and for pushing me to do my
very best, even during the hard times. To Brandon, for being the best brother anyone
could ask for.
Finally, to my husband Cord. I would like to thank him for his love, support, and
understanding throughout this process. We wouldn’t have made it through this without
each other. I love you.

iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.............................................................................................................................III
LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................................................... VI
LIST OF FILES........................................................................................................................................... VII
CHAPTER I ....................................................................................................................................................1
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................1
Theoretical Framework..........................................................................................................................2
Statement of Problem.............................................................................................................................3
Purpose of Study....................................................................................................................................4
Research Objectives...............................................................................................................................4
Definition of Terms ...............................................................................................................................5
Limitations of the Study ........................................................................................................................6
Basic Assumptions.................................................................................................................................7
Significance of the Problem...................................................................................................................7
CHAPTER II ...................................................................................................................................................8
REVIEW OF LITERATURE .............................................................................................................................8
Purpose of Study....................................................................................................................................8
Computer Literacy .................................................................................................................................8
Access..................................................................................................................................................10
Technology Use in the Classroom .......................................................................................................12
Summary..............................................................................................................................................16
CHAPTER III................................................................................................................................................17
METHODOLOGY.........................................................................................................................................17
Purpose of Study..................................................................................................................................17
Research Design ..................................................................................................................................17
Population and Sample ........................................................................................................................18
Instrumentation ....................................................................................................................................18
Data Collection ....................................................................................................................................20
Data Analysis.......................................................................................................................................20
CHAPTER IV ...............................................................................................................................................23
FINDINGS ...................................................................................................................................................23
Purpose of the Study ............................................................................................................................23
Objective One ......................................................................................................................................23
Objective Two .....................................................................................................................................27
Objective Three ...................................................................................................................................29
Objective Four .....................................................................................................................................30
Objective Five and Objective Six ........................................................................................................33
CHAPTER V.................................................................................................................................................34
CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................................................34
Purpose of Study..................................................................................................................................34
Objective 1...........................................................................................................................................34
Objective 2...........................................................................................................................................35
Objective 3...........................................................................................................................................35
Objective 4...........................................................................................................................................36
Objective 5 & 6....................................................................................................................................36
Implications and Recommendations for Future Research....................................................................37
APPENDICES...............................................................................................................................................39

iv
APPENDIX A ...............................................................................................................................................39
APPENDIX B ..............................................................................................................................................41
APPENDIX C ..............................................................................................................................................48
APPENDIX D ..............................................................................................................................................50
APPENDIX E ..............................................................................................................................................51
APPENDIX F...............................................................................................................................................52
REFERENCES..............................................................................................................................................54
VITA .............................................................................................................................................................58

v
LIST OF TABLES

Table 3.1, Davis Conventions for Correlation Coefficient ............................................... 22

Table 4.2, Years of Teaching Experience and Number of Teachers in the Program ....... 24
Table 4.3, Gender, Age, Highest Level of Education Attained, and Institution where
Initial Certification was Received .................................................................... 25
Table 4.4, Courses Taught by FCS Education Teachers During the 2007-2008 School
Year .................................................................................................................. 27
Table 4.5, Computer Literacy as Perceived by FCS Education Teachers in the Study.... 28
Table 4.6, Teachers Access to Various Types of Technology as Reported by FCS
Education Teachers in the Study ...................................................................... 30
Table 4.7, FCS Education Teachers Use of Various Types of Technology ..................... 32
Table 4.8, Correlations among Computer Literacy, Technology Use, and Access .......... 33

vi
LIST OF FILES

Dana Jenkins Thesis.pdf……………………………………………………………376 KB

vii
Chapter I

Introduction

For years, schools across the nation have been joining the technology revolution.
Today, students have at least some form of technology available to them in school
(Roblyer, Castine, & King, 1993; Croxall & Cummings, 2000). This trend is not likely to
change, so there is an increasing need for teachers who are literate in the use of the
various types of technology. Mason and McMorrow (2006) suggested there are two
distinct components to computer literacy, awareness and competence. Awareness
requires that a person have understanding of how computers affect their daily life or
society as a whole, and competence requires that a person be able to exhibit a hands-on
expertise with a software application. Both of these components should be evaluated
when looking at computer literacy within the classroom setting.
In modern classrooms, teachers and students have access to a wide variety of
technology. Various types of technology, including computers, projectors, handhelds,
televisions, and digital cameras, are more accessible now than ever before. This type of
technology, also called instructional technology, has helped move the classroom from a
teacher-centered environment to a more student-centered one (Trotter, 1998). Lu and
Miller (2002) also stated that instructional technology encompasses a wide variety of
technologies, as well as systems used to deliver information. Many Family and
Consumer Sciences Education classrooms are integrating technology to help students
better understand the concepts that are being taught (Croxall & Cummings, 2000).
While teachers are trying to implement new types of instructional technology into
their classrooms, many of them are faced with barriers that hinder their attempts to
advance. Beyond mere awareness and competence, anxieties, lack of training, and
outdated equipment are barriers that teachers face on a daily basis (Redmann & Kotrlik,
2004; U.S Department of Education, 2000; Keane, 2002; McFadden, Croxall, & Wright,
2001; Croxall, Cummings, 2000; Budin, 1999; Redmann & Kotrlik, 2004). Through
various research studies that have been conducted with Family and Consumer Sciences
Education teachers, researchers have found that teachers have positive attitudes about

1
technology (Martin & Lundstrom, 1988; Mehlhoff, 1985; cited in Croxall & Cummings,
2000), despite the barriers they face when trying to become literate in the functioning of
the equipment. If the barriers teachers face are addressed, they will be able to fully
integrate more technology into the classroom, thus providing students with a variety of
learning opportunities and help them to become more “technologically prepared for the
future” (Manley, Sweaney, & Valente, 2000, p.27). Computer literacy, in today’s
classroom, encompasses the ability to understand and use technology for instructional
purposes. Computer literacy can be accomplished several different ways: through self-
directed learning, technology training classes or by following a six-phase model
developed by Russell (1995), which involves “awareness, learning the process,
understanding and application of the process, familiarity and confidence, adaptation to
other contexts, and creative application to new contexts” (p. 175).
As teachers develop computer literacy, they will be more likely to use various
types of technology to present information to their classes. However, the teacher’s
efforts at developing computer literacy and using instructional technology may be
hindered by a variety of barriers (Redmann & Kotrlik, 2004; U.S Department of
Education, 2000; Keane, 2002; McFadden, Croxall, & Wright, 2001; Croxall, Cummings,
2000; Budin, 1999; Redmann & Kotrlik, 2004). Outdated equipment, lack of time during
the day, and inadequate number of computers can complicate a teachers plan for
instruction involving technology. Despite these barriers, teachers appear to still want to
use technology and are trying to find the means to do so.

Theoretical Framework
The theoretical framework for this study lies within the diffusion of innovations
theory. The diffusion process can be defined as “the spread of a new idea from its source
of invention or creation to its ultimate users or adopters” (Rogers, 1962, p. 13).
According to Rogers and Shoemaker (1971), there are five categories into which adopters
fall based upon their innovativeness: laggards, late majority, early majority, early
adopters, and innovators. The placements of the five areas of innovativeness are
arranged on a bell curve. The adoption process of the diffusion of innovations theory is
considered to be a type of decision-making. Rogers (1962) states that “the adoption of an

2
innovation requires a decision by an individual” (p. 77). The person must begin using a
new idea and allow it to replace the previous idea they were using.
The diffusion of innovations theory can be linked back to teacher’s computer
literacy, access to and use of technology. By analyzing prior research related to
technology, certain indicators are present that indicate a shifts between the five categories
of adoption: laggards, late majority, early majority, early adopters, and innovators
(Rogers & Shoemaker, 1971). Daulton (1997) found that Family and Consumer Sciences
Education teachers’ adoption rate for technology increased from 5 percent in 1983 to 83
percent in 1993. This increase shows that as technology became more common in the
school setting, teachers moved from the late majority category to the early adopter
category. According to a report published by the National Association of State Boards
of Education (NASBE), 63 percent of schools surveyed reported that the majority of
teachers used the internet and computers for instruction, but almost one quarter of those
schools classified their teachers as “beginners” when using technology. This shows that
teachers have the desire to incorporate technology into the classroom (early adopter), but
face challenges in acquiring the knowledge to do so.
When trying to determine computer literacy, access to technology and use of
technology in classrooms, it is important to look at relative advantage and compatibility
of adoptions. Rogers (1995) identifies relative advantage to be “one of the best
predictors of an innovation's rate of adoption” (p. 216) because when an innovation is
adopted the physical benefits (gains in social status, or savings in time, money or effort)
are easily acknowledged (Tornatsky & Klein, 1982). Rogers (1995) also identifies
compatibility to be “the degree to which an innovation is perceived as consistent with the
existing values, past experiences, and needs of potential adopters” (p. 224) and states that
it is positively related to adoption. If the innovation is not compatible with the needs,
values, or beliefs of the adopter, then they will not see its relative advantage.

Statement of Problem
In the United States, only about one-half of the teaching population has the
necessary training to effectively use technology in the classroom such as computers and
projectors (Bulkeley, 1997; cited in McFadden, Croxall, & Wright, 2001). This lack of

3
computer literacy, along with other barriers such as outdated hardware, lack of time, and
anxiety, has contributed to the non-use or inadequate use of computers and other
technology in the classroom. While research (Alston, Miller, & Williams 2003; Croxall
& Cummings, 2000; Lu & Miller, 2002) has been conducted in several states (North
Carolina, Virginia, New Mexico, and Ohio) regarding the use of technology in Family
and Consumer Sciences Education, there is no known published information on the state
of Kentucky. After a review of literature, the following questions arose: How computer
literate are Family and Consumer Sciences Education teachers in the state of Kentucky?
Do they have access to adequate amounts of technology? How much technology do they
use within their classroom? Is there a relationship between computer literacy and the use
of technology in Family and Consumer Sciences Education classrooms in Kentucky? Is
there a relationship between access to technology and Family and Consumer Sciences
Education teachers’ use of technology?

Research Objectives
The objectives for this study were to:
1. Describe the selected demographic characteristics (age, gender, number of
teachers in the Family and Consumer Sciences Education program, years of
teaching experience, highest education level attained, classes taught, institution
where degree was received).
2. Determine computer literacy of Family and Consumer Sciences Education
teachers in the state of Kentucky.
3. Determine the access Family and Consumer Sciences Education teachers have to
various types of technology.

4
4. Determine the use of technology in Family and Consumer Sciences Education
classrooms in the state of Kentucky.
5. Determine the relationship between Family and Consumer Sciences Education
teachers’ computer literacy and their use of technology in the classroom.
6. Determine the relationship between Family and Consumer Sciences Education
teachers’ access to technology and their use of technology in the classroom.

Definition of Terms
Adoption- the decision to make full or continued use of an innovation (Rogers, 1962).

Access- the right to obtain or make use of or take advantage of something

(http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&defl=en&q=define:access&sa=X&oi=glossary_d
efinition&ct=title).

Computer literacy- consists of two components: an awareness component that requires an

individual to have knowledge of how computers affect his/her daily life or society as a
whole, and a competence component that requires an individual to demonstrate hands on
proficiency with a software application (Mason & McMorrow, 2006, p. 94).

Early adopters: people who are early adopters “blend an interest in technology with a
concern for significant professional problems and tasks” (Geoghegan, 1994). These
professionals look for new instructional procedures that new technologies may enable.

Early majority: the people who fall into this category are fairly comfortable with the use
of technology, but tend to focus more on the concrete problems related to teaching rather
than on the technological tools that could be used to address the problems (Geoghegan,
1994).

Educational technology- the use of technology in education to improve learning and

teaching. Educational technology is also known as instructional technology or learning
technology. (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/educational+technology).

5
Innovation-any idea or technology that is new to the individual (Rogers, 1962).

Innovativeness- the degree to which an individual is relatively earlier in adopting new

ideas than other members of his social system (Rogers & Shoemaker, 1971).

Innovators: often considered “techies”; they grab on to new technology as soon as it is

available. Typically they are more concerned with the actual technology, than the way it
can be applied to a specific problem (Geoghegan, 1994).

Instructional technology- instructional technology is the systemic and systematic

application of strategies and techniques derived from behavioral, cognitive, and
constructivist theories to the solution of instructional problems
(http://www.umich.edu/~ed626/define.html); the use of technology (computers, compact
disc, interactive media, modem, satellite, teleconferencing, etc.) to support learning
(http://www.neiu.edu/~dbehrlic/hrd408/glossary.htm).

Laggards: this characteristic describes people who are likely to never adapt to the use of
information technology in their classroom teachings (Geoghegan, 1994).

Late Majority: people who fall into this category are usually less comfortable with the
use of technology, but may accept innovations “late in the game” after the technology has
become established among the majority of people (Geoghegan, 1994).

Limitations of the Study

1. The study was limited to Family and Consumer Sciences Education teachers in
the state of Kentucky.
2. Time and resources do not allow for a census of Family and Consumer Sciences
Education teachers in the United States.

6
Basic Assumptions
For this study the following assumptions were made:
1. All respondents were certified to teach Family and Consumer Sciences Education
in Kentucky.
2. The respondents will be able to read the material (participation letter,
questionnaire, etc.) given to them.
3. Respondents responded truthfully and accurately.

Significance of the Problem

While many attempts have been made to determine computer literacy of teachers
and use of technology in the general classroom setting, few studies have looked
specifically at the Family and Consumer Sciences Education teachers. There is a need
for this study because research indicates that Family and Consumer Sciences Education
teachers are using the latest technologies to teach their students (Keane, 2002), but they
need to be computer literate in order to effectively use the equipment. Manley, Sweaney,
and Valente (2000) suggest that an important step in the continuation of integration of
technology into the classroom is to determine the computer literacy of Family and
Consumer Sciences Education teachers nationally. Once literacy is determined, then
plans for addressing various types of training and workshops can be developed. By
implementing different types of trainings, teachers will gain a better understanding of
what technology is available for their use, how it can affect their classroom, and how to
implement it into the daily lessons. These improved skills will help the teacher to more
effectively teach Family and Consumer Sciences Education concepts to students, which
in turn will help students to be more successful in their acquisition and application of
learned knowledge. While this study is only focusing on one state the results could
provide some direction to other states or lead to further research.

7
Chapter II

Review of Literature

Computer Literacy
Mason and McMorrow (2006) suggested there are two distinct components to
computer literacy, awareness and competence. Awareness “requires an individual to
have knowledge of how computers affect his/her daily life or society as a whole”, and
competence “requires an individual to demonstrate a hands-on proficiency with a
software application” (p. 94). Some of the most basic computer literacy skills include
using a word processor, email, mailing lists, and the World Wide Web (Evans, 1999;
Manley, Sweaney, & Valente, 2000). Computer literacy is even thought to be as
important as writing, reading, and math in the school setting (Mehlhoff, 1985; cited in
Croxall & Cummings, 2000), as children in today’s society have never experienced
schools without computers (Robyler, Castine, & King, 1993). These skills are essential in
today’s school systems as more tasks are completed using computer technologies.
After conducting a study related to technology integration in Career and
Technical Education classrooms, Redmann and Kotrlik (2004) had several
recommendations as to how teachers can be proactive in their quest to become more
computer literate. These included attending workshops and conferences, taking college
classes that deal with technology and by engaging “in self-directed learning to stay
current with the use of technology in the teaching-learning process” (p. 21). Self-directed
learning might include experimenting with equipment, planning lessons using the
computer, and exploring various types of software available on the computer and on the
internet (Croxall & Cummings, 2000).

8
Russell (1995) conducted a study that looked at adult students’ use of email and
developed a six-stage process (p.175) they must go through in order to be email literate.
These stages are:
1. Awareness
2. Learning the process
3. Understanding and application of the process
4. Familiarity and confidence
5. Adaptation to other contexts
6. Creative application to new contexts
Once the email users moved through these six stages, the processes needed to use email
become invisible to them. These six stages can be used to help teachers develop
computer literacy related to different aspects of technology applications.
Eisenberg and Johnson (1996) state that computer literacy needs to include more
than just the “how” of using computers; it also needs to focus on the “when” and “why.”
Through their research, Eisenberg and Johnson developed some suggestions as to what
computer literacy should cover. Some of their basic suggestions included being able to
identify parts of the computer, creating drafts/final projects using a word processor, and
using the internet to search for information. The more advanced suggestions included
knowing computer terminology, being able to operate and maintain a computer, having
the knowledge to use instructional technology, having the skills to do various
programming activities, and having a working knowledge on the impact of technology on
society and all that society encompasses.
Research shows that computer literacy is an important component in having the
ability to successfully and confidently use technology (Croxall & Cummings, 2000;
Eisenberg & Johnson, 1996) within the Family and Consumer Sciences Education
classroom. Acquiring the skills to use instructional technology in the classroom is a
necessity in today’s society (Robyler, Castine, & King, 1993). Russell’s (1995) six-stage
process can be used to help teachers develop a better understanding of technological
applications, as can attending workshops or taking classes that deal with using
technology in the classroom (Redmann and Kotrlik, 2004).

9
Access
For teachers to effectively integrate technology into the classroom, they must
have easy access to various types of technology. Alston, Miller, and Williams (2003)
found that in North Carolina schools, certain types of technology were widely available
for teachers use, meaning the various types of technology were located in the classroom
or were easily accessible within the building. These include videotape, television,
desktop computer, CD-ROM, internet, email, laser printer, and video camera. Alston et
al, (2003) also found that certain types of technology were not easily accessible for
teacher use. LCD panel, computer projector, laptop computer, and digital camera were
technologies that teachers in North Carolina did not have within their classroom or even
within the school.
The internet has become an important resource for classroom activities. For
Family and Consumer Sciences Education teachers to be able to use the internet, they
must have access to not only a computer, but also a phone line, modem, an internet
Service Provider, and training in how to use these types of technology (Cohen, Negrini,
Cluff, Laus, Volpe, Dun, & Sternheim, 1999). The teacher would also need to have
classroom access to the internet and ideas as to how to guide students in their search for
information and use of activities related to Family and Consumer Sciences Education.
Recent findings indicate that almost all schools (99 percent) in the United States have
internet access and within those schools 87 percent of the individual classrooms have
access (U.S. Department of Education, 2005). With easier access to the internet, teachers
are better able to implement it use into the classroom instruction.
Eisenberg and Johnson (1996) developed criteria for computer skills based on the
Big Six Skills Approach, created by Eisenberg and Berkowitz (1988). The Big Six
focuses on task definition, information seeking strategies, location and access, use of
information, synthesis, and evaluation. Location and access are important factors when
implementing technology into the classroom. The following criteria were developed in
regards to location and access (p. 12-13):
1. Locate and use appropriate computer resources and technologies available
within the school library media center, including those on the library media
center's local area network (e.g., online catalogs, periodical indexes, full-text

10
sources, multimedia computer stations, CD-ROM stations, online terminals,
scanners, digital cameras).
2. Locate and use appropriate computer resources and technologies available
throughout the school including those available through local area networks
(e.g., full-text resources, CD-ROMs, productivity software, scanners, digital
cameras).
3. Locate and use appropriate computer resources and technologies available
beyond the school through the internet (e.g., newsgroups, listservs, WWW sites
via Netscape, Lynx or another browser, online public access library catalogs,
commercial databases and online services, other community, academic, and
government resources).
4. Know the roles and computer expertise of the people working in the school
library media center and elsewhere who might provide information or
assistance.
5. Use electronic reference materials (e.g., electronic encyclopedias, dictionaries,
biographical reference sources, atlases, geographic databanks, thesauri,
almanacs, fact books) available through intranets or local area networks, stand-
alone workstations, commercial online vendors, or the internet.
6. Use the Internet or commercial computer networks to contact experts and help
and referral services.
7. Conduct self-initiated electronic surveys through e-mail, listservs, newsgroups
and online data collection tools.
8. Use organizational systems and tools specific to electronic information sources
that assist in finding specific and general information (e.g., indexes, tables of
contents, user's instructions and manuals, legends, boldface and italics, graphic
clues and icons, cross-references, Boolean logic strategies, time lines, hypertext
links, knowledge trees, URLs, etc.) including the use of:
a. Search tools and commands for stand-alone, CD-ROM, networked or
Web-based online databases and services;

11
b. Search tools and commands for searching the Internet, such as search
engines, meta search tools, bots, directories, jump pages, and specialized
resources such as those that search the Invisible Web;
c. Specialized sites and search tool commands that limit searches by date,
location, format, collection of evaluated sites or other criteria
The above criteria give insight into the ways in which teachers can access various types
of information, resources, and expertise assistance within their school setting. If the
teachers do not have adequate experience with technology or do not have the technology
readily available, they will be lacking in the above areas.
Access to technology within the school is an important component when
implementing its use into the classroom (Alston, Miller, & Williams, 2003). Without
adequate access to various types of technology, including computers, internet, and
technology experts (Alston, Miller, & Williams, 2003; Cohen, et al, 1999; U.S.
Department of Education, 2005), teachers are unable to provide technology-enriched
lessons to their students. If Family and Consumer Sciences Education teachers can
follow the eight criteria set forth by Eisenberg and Johnson (1996), they will have an
easier time accessing resources available to them within their school and community.

Technology Use in the Classroom

Instructional technology is a vital part of Career and Technical Education and
“encompasses not only the computer but also other technologies and delivery systems”
(Lu & Miller, 2002) that may be used in the classroom. In recent years, there has been an
increased emphasis on the integration of technology into curriculum, especially at the
high school level (Peake, Briers, & Murphy, 2005). Lu and Miller (2002) described the
technology used in the classroom to be in various forms including computers, DVD/VCR
players, digital and video cameras, televisions, cooking equipment, and welding
equipment. They also describe how classroom technology can help the teacher to use,
assess, alter, and present information in a variety of ways.
Research has shown that Family and Consumer Sciences Education teachers’
attitudes towards the use of technology in the classroom are positive (Croxall &
Cummings, 2000; Martin & Lundstrom, 1988; Rogers, Thompson, Cotton, & Thompson,

12
1993). These positive attitudes about computer/technology use have lead teachers to
more readily incorporate technology into the classroom in order to enhance student
interest and involvement (Schofield, 1995; Croxall & Cummings, 2000; Way &
Montgomery, 1995).
For teachers to enhance the learning experiences of their classrooms, they will need
to use up-to-date and interactive technologies. The Educational Software Institute (ESI)
and Evalutech online offer various software related to Family and Consumer Sciences.
These include Design Your Own Home for housing and interiors, Deals on Wheels for
consumer services, My Amazing Human Body for nutrition and wellness, and Cyber
Snacks for food production (Keane, 2002). The internet also serves as a valuable
teaching tool, helping to enhance the curriculum through free downloads, interactive
websites, and email (McFadden, Croxall, & Wright, 2001).
The internet is an ever-changing entity and it is important that Family and
Consumer Sciences Education teachers stay current on what is available to them.
According to Manley, Sweaney, and Valente (2000) there are three main reasons why
this is important. First, the internet is a very useful tool and can be used to provide
hands-on learning experiences for the students. It provides quick and easy access to a
wealth of information from around the world. Second, as our culture has become more
technologically- orientated, so must our students if they are to live and work in today’s
society. By incorporating the internet into the classroom, the teacher is helping students
learn how to find information and successfully use technology. Third, Family and
Consumer Sciences Education teachers are constantly getting new technology and it is up
to them to expose their students to it in order for them to be successful in the work force.
There are certain phases teachers go through when incorporating technology into
the classroom. Sandholtz, Ringstaff, and Dwyer (1997) created a model describing five
phases educators go through when increasing their use of technology. These five phases
are:
1. Entry-teachers adapt to changes in physical environment created by technology
2. Adoption-teachers use technology to support text based instruction
3. Adaptation-teachers integrate the use of word processing and databases into the
teaching process

13
4. Appropriation-teachers change their personal attitudes toward technology
5. Invention-teachers have mastered the technology and create novel learning
environments
As teachers progress through each of these five phases, they develop a better
understanding as to how to use technology in the classroom.
The U.S. Department of Education (2005), along with Smerdon and Cronen
(2000), has developed several recommendations as to how technology use can be
increased within the classroom setting. These include:
1. Improving the preparation of new teachers in the use of technology
2. Ensuring that every teacher has the opportunity to take online learning courses
3. Improve the quality and consistency of teacher education through measurement,
accountability and increased technology resources
4. Ensure that every teacher knows how to use data to personalize instruction. This
is marked by the ability to interpret data to understand student progress and
challenges, drive daily decisions and design instructional interventions to
customize instruction for every student’s unique needs.
Through these recommendations, states, districts, and individual schools can develop and
have available resources that will allow teachers to expand their knowledge of technology
use in the classroom
The teacher standards that are in place in Kentucky include a section on how they
expect new and returning teachers to use technology in their classrooms. In order to
develop these standards, the Education Professional Standards Board was established in
1990 as a part of the Kentucky Education Reform Act. This agency determines standards
in regards to teacher preparation and certification. There are two sets of established
standards: new teacher standards and experienced teacher standards. Within both the
new and experienced teacher standards, there is a standard that asks teachers to
demonstrate implementation of technology within their classrooms. The description of
this standard states that “the teacher uses technology to support instruction; access and
manipulate data; enhance professional growth and productivity; communicate and
collaborate with colleagues, parents, and the community; and conduct research”

14
(Kentucky Education Professional Standards Board, 1999). The items in this description
lead to the performance criterion for this standard as seen in Appendix A.
While teachers may feel technology is important for use in the classroom, many
are faced with barriers which have prevented them from effectively implementing
available technology into their daily instruction. One of the common barriers teachers
may face is technology anxiety (Redmann & Kotrlik, 2004; Bradley & Russell, 1997).
Technology given to teachers with little to no experience with the equipment has been
shown to produce high levels of anxiety (Budin, 1999; Redmann & Kotrlik, 2004;
Lokken, Cheek, & Hastings, 2003). By providing teachers with more training (Croxall &
Cummings, 2000), they will feel more comfortable using new technology in their
classrooms, thus alleviating their anxiety.
In a survey conducted by the U.S Department of Education (2000), a list was
compiled of perceived barriers to proper knowledge and use of technology in the
classroom. These barriers included:
1. Not enough computers
2. Outdated, incompatible, or unreliable computers
3. Lack of good instructional software
4. Internet access not easily accessible
5. Concern about student access to inappropriate materials
6. Lack of release time for teachers to learn, practice, or plan ways to use computers
or the internet
7. Lack of time in schedule for students to use computers in class
8. Inadequate training opportunities
9. Lack of administrative support
10. Lack of support regarding ways to integrate telecommunications into the
curriculum
11. Lack of technical support or advice
Many of these barriers were also voiced in other studies (Croxall & Cummings 2000;
Dooley, Metcalf, & Martinez, 1999; Hasselbring, 1991; Sandholtz, Ringstaff, & Dwyer,
1997). Additionally, Rogers et. al., have found that rigid curriculum requirements also
prevent Family and Consumer Sciences Education teachers from integrating technology

15
into their daily classroom activities. Lack of knowledge has also led to the non-use of
computer programs and equipment (Keane, 2002; McFadden, Croxall, & Wright, 2001;
Lokken, Cheek, & Hastings, 2003).
Various types of technology are more accessible now than ever before. Many
Family and Consumer Sciences Education classrooms are integrating technology to help
students better understand the concepts that are being taught (Croxall & Cummings,
2000). While teachers are trying to implement new types of technology into their
classrooms, many of them are faced with barriers that hinder their attempts to advance
(Redmann & Kotrlik, 2004; U.S Department of Education, 2000; Keane, 2002;
McFadden, Croxall, & Wright, 2001; Croxall, Cummings, 2000; Budin, 1999; Redmann
& Kotrlik, 2004). If the barriers teachers face are addressed, they will be able to fully
integrate more technology into the classroom, thus helping students to be more
“technologically prepared for the future” (Manley, Sweaney, & Valente, 2000, p.27).

Summary
Computer literacy, in today’s classroom, encompasses the ability to understand
and use technology for instructional purposes. Computer literacy can be accomplished
several different ways: through self-directed learning, technology training classes and by
following a six-phase model developed by Russell (1995). As teachers develop computer
literacy, they will be more likely to use various types of technology to present
information to their classes. However, the teacher’s efforts at developing computer
literacy and using instructional technology may be hindered by a plethora of barriers
(Redmann & Kotrlik, 2004; U.S Department of Education, 2000; Keane, 2002;
McFadden, Croxall, & Wright, 2001; Croxall, Cummings, 2000; Budin, 1999; Redmann
& Kotrlik, 2004). Outdated equipment, lack of time during the day, inadequate number
of computers, etc. can complicate a teachers plan for instruction involving technology.
Despite these barriers, teachers appear to still want to use technology and are trying to
find the means to do so.

16
Chapter III

Methodology

Purpose of Study
The purpose of this study was to determine if a relationship exists between
computer literacy and use of technology, as well as if a relationship exists between
teachers’ access to technology and their use of technology in Family and Consumer
Sciences Education classrooms in the state of Kentucky. The objectives for this study
were to:
1. Describe the selected demographic characteristics (age, gender, number of
teachers in the Family and Consumer Sciences Education program, years of
teaching experience, highest education level attained, classes taught, institution
where degree was received).
2. Determine computer literacy of Family and Consumer Sciences Education
teachers in the state of Kentucky.
3. Determine the access Family and Consumer Sciences Education teachers have to
various types of technology.
4. Determine the use of technology in Family and Consumer Sciences Education
classrooms in the state of Kentucky.
5. Determine the relationship between Family and Consumer Sciences Education
teachers’ computer literacy and their use of technology in the classroom.
6. Determine the relationship between Family and Consumer Sciences Education
teachers’ access to technology and their use of technology in the classroom.

Research Design
The design of this quantitative study was descriptive-correlational research. The
purpose of correlational research was to look at two or more variables and determine if
there was a relationship and to what extent that relationship might be (Ary, Jacobs, &
Razavieh, 2002). When using correlational research, there are three main applications
that are used: determining relationships, assessing consistency, and prediction.

17
Population and Sample
The target population for this descriptive-correlational study consisted of middle
and high school Family and Consumer Sciences Education teachers in the state of
Kentucky (N = 389) (Kentucky Department of Education, 2006). A purposive sample
was used for the purpose of this study. The sample will consist of all Family and
Consumer Science Education teachers attending the Kentucky Career and Technical
Education Summer Teacher’s Conference held in July. The frame of Family and
Consumer Sciences Education teachers was obtained from the Kentucky Department of
Education. This frame was appropriate because the study was focusing on Family and
Consumer Sciences Education teachers in Kentucky and this was who the frame was
comprised of. In addition, several errors were addressed. Frame error occurs when there
is a discrepancy in the list of participants (McCracken, 1998). For this study, frame error
would occur if a name was left off the list or if a teacher was added to the list who did not
teach Family and Consumer Sciences Education. Sampling error was also taken into
account during this study. Sampling error is the degree to which the sample differs from
the population (McCracken, 1998). For this study, a non-probabilistic sampling
technique was used.

Instrumentation
To determine computer literacy, access to technology and the use of technology
within Family and Consumer Sciences Education classrooms in Kentucky, it was
determined that a questionnaire was the most appropriate and feasible method. The
questionnaire, which can be viewed in Appendix B, contained four sections. The first
section was designed based on existing research (Peake, Briers, & Murphy, 2005; Alston,
Miller, & Williams, 2003; Croxall & Cummings, 2000; Mason & McMorrow, 2006;
Kentucky Department of Education, 2006) and inquired into the use of various types of
technology in the classroom. A six-point Likert scale was used to rank the responses
with the ranking as follows: 6=always; 5=very frequently; 4=occasionally; 3=rarely;
2=very rarely; 1=never. The second section included questions that were designed to
determine the teacher’s level of computer literacy (Mason & McMorrow, 2006; Lokken,
Cheek, & Hastings, 2003). A six-point Likert scale was used to rank the responses with

18
the ranking as follows: 6=strongly agree; 5=moderately agree; 4=slightly agree;
3=slightly disagree; 2=moderately disagree; 1=strongly disagree. The third section
included questions that were designed to determine what types of technology teachers
had access to in their classroom or within the school (Alston, Miller, & Williams, 2003;
Peake, Briers, & Murphy, 2005; Croxall & Cummings, 2000; Redmann & Kotrlik, 2004).
A six-point Likert scale was used to rank the responses with the ranking as follows:
6=strongly agree; 5=moderately agree; 4=slightly agree; 3=slightly disagree;
2=moderately disagree; 1=strongly disagree. The fourth section included demographic
information such as age, gender, number of teachers in the program, years teaching
experience, highest education level attained, classes taught, and institution where degree
was received. Appendix C itemizes each section with the sources they were modified
from.
Ary et al. (2002) define validity as “the extent to which an instrument measured
what it claimed to measure (p.242).” For this study, face and content validity was
determined by using a panel of experts. Face validity can be defined as the having an
appearance that is valid for its intended purpose. Content validity can be defined as
measuring what the instrument sets out to measure. Seven experts from the Family and
Consumer Sciences Education field, including state staff and teacher educators, were
asked to review the questionnaire and provide feedback as to what they liked and what
they thought should be changed. Once the panel of experts finished with the
questionnaire, validity was established.
Reliability is defined as “the extent to which a measure yields consistent results
(Ary et al., 2002). For this study, reliability was determined using a pilot group. The
pilot group (n=30) consisted of Family and Consumer Sciences Education teachers from
Missouri. Using Cronbach’s alpha, a reliable coefficient of 0.80 was found for Section I,
which was use of technology; a reliable coefficient of 0.77 was found for Section II,
which was computer literacy; and a reliable coefficient of 0.88 was found for Section III,
which was access to technology. The researcher then did post hoc analysis.

19
Data Collection
For this research study, it was determined that the questionnaire would be
distributed at the Kentucky Career and Technical Education Summer Teachers
Conference, which took place in July. Once the questionnaire was received by the
researcher, the data was entered into the SPSS program and evaluated.

Data Analysis
To determine the appropriate analysis of the data, scales of measurement were
used as guidance. Levels of data may be classified as nominal, ordinal, interval, and
ratio. Nominal data is the simplest level of data. This type of data can be categorized,
but not ordered. Ordinal data is the next level of data. This type of data can be rank
ordered. Interval data is the third level of data. This type of data has no absolute zero
and equal differences between values represent equal units. Ratio data is the highest
level of data. This type of data has an absolute zero and equal intervals between values
(Ary et.al, 2002).

Objective One
Objective one sought to identify selected demographic characteristics of the
Family and Consumer Sciences Education teachers selected for the study. The Family
and Consumer Sciences Education teachers were asked age, gender, number of teachers
in the Family and Consumer Sciences Education program, years of teaching experience,
the highest education level attained, courses taught during the 2007-08 school year, and
institution were initial certification was received. The characteristics years of teaching
experience and number of teachers in the Family and Consumer Sciences Education
program are all ratio scale items; therefore, mean scores and standard deviations were
reported. Gender is a nominal scale item; therefore frequency and percent were reported.
Age is an ordinal scale item; therefore frequency and percent were reported. Highest
education level attained is an ordinal scale item; therefore, frequency and percent were
reported. Institution where degree was received is an ordinal scale item; therefore,
frequency and percent were reported. Courses taught is an ordinal scale item; therefore
frequency was reported.

20
Objective Two
Objective two sought to determine the computer literacy of Family and Consumer
Sciences Education teachers in Kentucky. The individual score was interval in nature
and therefore, mean and standard deviation were reported. In addition, for each
individual item, the frequency and percentage was reported. A grand mean was
calculated from the individual items to create a “computer literacy” construct score.

Objective Three
Objective three sought to determine the access Family and Consumer Sciences
Education teachers had to technology. The individual score was interval in nature and
therefore, mean and standard deviation were reported. In addition, for each individual
item, the frequency and percentage was reported. A grand mean was calculated from the
individual items to create an “access” construct score.

Objective Four
Objective four sought to determine the use of technology in Family and Consumer
Sciences Education classrooms in Kentucky. The individual score was interval in nature
and therefore, mean and standard deviation were reported. In addition, for each
individual item, the frequencies and percentages were reported. A grand mean was
calculated from the individual items to create a “use of technology” construct score.

Objective Five
Objective five sought to determine the relationship between Family and
Consumer Sciences Education teachers’ computer literacy and their use of technology in
the classroom. To calculate the relationship, the Pearson Product Moment Correlation
was calculated. Both computer literacy and use of technology are interval in nature,
making Pearson Product Moment Correlation appropriate. An alpha of .05 was
established at a priori. To interpret correlation, Davis (1971) conventions were adopted
(Table 3.1).

21
Table 3.1

Davis Conventions for Correlation Coefficient

Convention Correlation Coefficient
Perfect 1.00
Very High .70 .99
Substantial .50 - .69
Moderate .30 - .49
Low .10 - .29
Negligible .01 - .09

Objective Six
Objective six sought to determine the relationship between Family and Consumer
Sciences Education teachers’ access to technology and their use of technology in the
classroom. To calculate the relationship, the Pearson Product Moment Correlation was
calculated. Both access and use of technology are interval in nature, making Pearson
Product Moment Correlation appropriate. An alpha of .05 was established at a priori. To
interpret correlation, Davis (1971) conventions were adopted (Table 3.1).

22
Chapter IV

Findings

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study was to determine if a relationship exists between
computer literacy and use of technology, as well as if a relationship exists between
teachers’ access to technology and their use of technology in Family and Consumer
Sciences Education classrooms in the state of Kentucky. The objectives for this study
were to:
1. Describe the selected demographic characteristics (age, gender, number of
teachers in the Family and Consumer Sciences Education program, years of
teaching experience, highest education level attained, classes taught, institution
where degree was received).
2. Determine computer literacy of Family and Consumer Sciences Education
teachers in the state of Kentucky.
3. Determine the access Family and Consumer Sciences Education teachers have to
various types of technology.
4. Determine the use of technology in Family and Consumer Sciences Education
classrooms in the state of Kentucky.
5. Determine the relationship between Family and Consumer Sciences Education
teachers’ computer literacy and their use of technology in the classroom.
6. Determine the relationship between Family and Consumer Sciences Education
teachers’ access to technology and their use of technology in the classroom.

Objective One
Objective one sought to identify selected demographic characteristics (age,
gender, number of teachers in the Family and Consumer Sciences Education program,
years of teaching experience, the highest education level attained, institute where degree
was received, and courses taught during the 2007-08 school year) of the Family and
Consumer Sciences Education teachers in the study. Findings related to years of teaching

23
experience and number of teachers in the program are in Table 4.2. The average number
of years of teaching experience was 13.39 years (SD = 9.93). The average number of
teachers in a program was 2.53 (SD = 4.01).

Table 4.2

Years of Teaching Experience and Number of Teachers in the Program

Demographic M SD
Years of Teaching Experience 13.39 9.93
Number of Teachers in the Program 2.53 4.01

Findings related to gender, age, highest level of education attained and institution
where initial certification was received are in Table 4.3. All participants were female
(n = 94). Of the 94 participants who responded to the question regarding age, 36.2
percent (n = 34) were between the ages of 50-59; 19.1 percent (n = 18) were between
ages 40-49; 14.9 percent (n = 14) were between ages 26-30; 13.8 percent (n = 13) were
between ages 20-25; 11.7 percent (n = 11) were between ages 31-39; 4.3 percent (n = 4)
were 60 and over. For highest level of education attained, 19.4 percent (n = 18) of
participants had received a Rank III; 47.3 percent (n = 44) had received a Rank II; 31.2
percent (n = 29) had received a Rank I; and 2.2 percent (n = 2) had received some other
type of certification. Participants were also asked at which institution they received their
initial certification. Of the 93 participants that responded to this question, 12.9 percent
(n = 12) received certification from Eastern Kentucky University; 28 percent (n = 26)
from the University of Kentucky; 16.1 percent (n = 15) from Morehead State University;
18.3 percent (n = 17) from Western Kentucky State University; 9.7 percent
(n = 9) from Murray State University; 2.2 percent (n = 2) from Berea College; and 12.9
percent (n = 12) received certification from a school not listed.

24
Table 4.3

Gender, Age, Highest Level of Education Attained, and Institution where Initial
Certification was Received
Characteristic f %
Gender
Female 94 100
Male 0 0
Age
20-25 13 13.8
26-30 14 14.9
31-39 11 11.7
40-49 18 19.1
50-59 34 36.2
60 and over 4 4.3
Degree
Rank III 18 19.4
Rank II 44 47.3
Rank I 29 31.2
Other 2 2.2
Institution
Eastern Kentucky University 12 12.9
University of Kentucky 26 28
Morehead State University 15 16.1
Western Kentucky State University 17 18.3
Murray State University 9 9.7
Berea College 2 2.2
Other 12 12.9

Table 4.4 lists findings related to the classes taught by the participants in the
study. Participants were asked to list all classes they would be teaching during the 2007-
08 school year. Since teachers provided this information with the names they use for the

25
courses they teach, and were not given a select from list on the survey, not all course
titles were the same. A total of 53 different course titles were listed by the respondents.
A comparison of those titles to the list of the 22 approved courses in the Kentucky Family
and Consumer Sciences Curriculum
(http://education.ky.gov/users/jwyatt/CourseList/Family%20and%20Consumer%20Scien
ces%20v2006.pdf) was used to create the following table. Sixty five teachers taught
FACS Life Skills and was therefore the most commonly listed course. This was followed
by 57 teaching Foods and Nutrition; 42 teaching Child/Human Development; and 33
teaching Parenting. One teacher reported teaching Fashion and Interior Design III, as
well as Advanced Child and Human Development, which made them the least commonly
listed courses. These two courses were followed by three teachers teaching Principles of
Hospitality and Fashion and Interior Design II. The six teachers who indicated that they
taught middle school were grouped into the category Introductory Life Skills, which is
course work geared for middle school students.

26
Table 4.4

Courses Taught by FCS Education Teachers During the 2007-2008 School Year
Course Name Frequency
FACS Life Skills 65
Foods and Nutrition 57
Child/Human Development 42
Parenting 33
Relationships 28
Fashion and Interior Design I 26
Child Development Services I 25
Culinary Skills 23
Money Skills 20
Child Development Services II 14
Introductory Life Skills (Middle School) 6
Non-FCS Classes 6
Practical Living 5
Commercial Foods I 5
Principles of Teaching 4
Leadership Dynamics 4
Commercials Foods II 4
Careers 3
Fashion and Interior Design II 3
Principles of Hospitality 3
Advanced Child and Human Development 1
Fashion and Interior Design III 1

Objective Two
Objective two sought to determine the computer literacy of Family and Consumer
Sciences Education teachers in Kentucky. Table 4.5 summarizes findings related to
computer literacy, as well as the frequency, percent, mean, and standard deviation for

27
each item. Individual statement frequencies and percentages in relation to the used Likert
scale were also calculated and can be found in Appendix D. Participants tended to
moderately agree that they had a basic knowledge of computers (M = 5.38; SD = .88) and
that they knew there were various internet tools available for their use
(M = 5.77; SD = .53). Participants slightly agreed that they had a working knowledge of
computer terminology (M = 4.74; SD = .94), that they felt secure in their ability to
interpret a computer manual (M = 3.99; SD = 1.20), and that they felt confident using a
computer (M = 4.95; SD = .93). Participants slightly disagreed that they understood
technical aspects of computers (M = 3.93; SD = 1.30). A grand mean of 4.82 (SD = .69)
was then calculated for the construct Computer Literacy.

Table 4.5

Computer Literacy as Perceived by FCS Education Teachers in the Study

Statement f % Ma SD
I have a basic knowledge of computers. 94 100 5.38 .88
I have avoided computers because they are
94 100 5.04 1.48
unfamiliar to me.
I have a working knowledge of computer
93 98.9 4.74 .94
terminology.
I understand the technical aspects of
94 100 3.93 1.30
computers.
I feel secure about my ability to interpret a
94 100 3.99 1.20
computer manual.
I feel confident about using computers. 94 100 4.95 .93
I know there are different internet research
94 100 5.77 .53
tools (Google, Yahoo, etc.) available to use.
Grand Mean 4.82 .69
a
Scale (1=strongly disagree; 2=moderately disagree; 3=slightly disagree; 4=slightly
agree; 5=moderately agree; 6=strongly agree)

28
Objective Three
Objective three sought to determine the access Family and Consumer Sciences
Education teachers had to technology. Table 4.6 summarizes findings related to
computer access, as well as the frequency, percent, mean and standard deviation for each
item. Individual statement frequencies and percentages in relation to the used Likert
scale were also calculated and can be found in Appendix E. Participants strongly agreed
that they had access to a television (M = 5.99; SD = .10), a DVD/VCR (M = 5.97; SD =
.23), and internet (M = 5.96; SD = .20) in their school. Participants moderately agreed
that they had access to a projector (M = 5.59; SD = 1.09), a digital camera (M = 5.62; SD
= 1.01), a laser printer (M = 5.08; SD = 1.64), a desktop computer (M = 5.87; SD = .73),
presentation software (M = 5.46; SD = 1.11), and reliable internet (M = 5.41; SD = .93).
Participants slightly agreed that they had access to a full page scanner
(M = 4.40; SD = 2.00), a laptop computer (M = 4.96; SD = 1.73), and effective
instructional software (M = 4.58; SD = 1.26) for the courses that they teach. Participants
slightly disagreed that they had an adequate amount of technology to the number of
students in their classes (M = 3.81; SD = 1.83). A grand mean of 5.29 (SD = .57) was
then calculated for the construct Access to Technology.

29
Table 4.6

Teachers Access to Various Types of Technology as Reported by FCS Education

Teachers in the Study
Statement f % Ma SD
I have access to a television. 94 100 5.99 .10
I have access to DVD/VCR. 94 100 5.97 .23
I have access to a projector. 94 100 5.59 1.09
I have access to a digital camera. 94 100 5.62 1.01
I have access to a full page scanner. 92 97.8 4.40 2.00
I have access to a laser printer. 92 97.8 5.08 1.64
I have access to a desktop computer. 94 100 5.87 .73
I have access to a laptop computer. 94 100 4.96 1.73
I have access to presentation software. 94 100 5.46 1.11
I have access to the internet in my school. 92 97.8 5.96 .20
The internet is reliable at my school. 90 95.7 5.41 .93
I have an adequate amount of technology for
93 98.9 3.81 1.83
the number of students in my classes.
I have access to effective instructional
92 97.8 4.58 1.26
software for the courses I teach.
Grand Mean 5.29 .57
a
Scale (1=strongly disagree; 2=moderately disagree; 3=slightly disagree; 4=slightly
agree; 5=moderately agree; 6=strongly agree)

Objective Four
Objective four sought to determine the use of technology in Family and Consumer
Sciences Education classrooms in Kentucky. Table 4.7 summarizes findings related to
technology use, as well as the frequency, percent, mean and standard deviation for each
item. Individual statement frequencies and percentages in relation to the used Likert
scale were also calculated and can be found in Appendix F. Participants agreed that they
very frequently used email (M = 5.66; SD = .52), word processing (M = 5.46; SD = .73),
grade programs (M = 5.90; SD = .33), and internet research tools (M = 5.15; SD = .94)

30
when using a computer. Participants agreed that they occasionally used presentation
software and to develop materials (M = 4.96; SD = 1.02) and presentation hardware to
present lessons (M = 4.16; SD = 1.52). The participants also occasionally use computers
to create presentations (M = 4.86; SD = 1.37) and various technologies to support their
classroom instruction (M = 4.97; SD = .85). Participants rarely used a digital camera to
create a multimedia presentation (M = 3.29; SD = 1.47), or a computer to create databases
(M = 3.68; SD = 1.70) or spreadsheets (M = 3.63; SD = 1.65). Participants stated that
they did not very frequently create presentations using a scanner (M = 2.90; SD = 1.39) or
a video camera (M = 2.69; SD = 1.32). A grand mean of 4.72 (SD = .69) was then
calculated for the construct Technology Use.

31
Table 4.7

FCS Education Teachers Use of Various Types of Technology

Statement f % Ma SD
I use email on a regular basis. 94 100 5.66 .52
I utilize word processing to develop materials
92 97.8 5.46 .73
for class.
I use presentation software (Microsoft Word,
92 97.8 4.96 1.02
PowerPoint, etc.) to develop lessons/units.
I use presentation hardware (Projector, Smart
92 97.8 4.16 1.52
Board, etc.) to present lessons, units.
I keep track of grades using computers. 92 97.8 5.90 .33
I utilize various internet research tools. 91 96.8 5.15 .94
I create multimedia presentations using a
93 98.9 2.90 1.39
scanner.
I create multimedia presentations using a
91 96.8 3.29 1.47
digital camera.
I create multimedia presentations using a
93 98.9 2.69 1.32
video camera.
I use the computer for word processing. 93 98.9 5.66 .71
I use the computer to create databases. 91 96.8 3.68 1.70
I use the computer to create spreadsheets. 91 96.8 3.63 1.65
I use the computer to access email. 92 97.8 5.90 .29
I use the computer to access the internet. 93 98.9 5.84 .42
I use the computer to create presentations. 93 98.9 4.86 1.37
I use various technologies to support
93 98.9 4.97 .85
classroom instruction.
Grand Mean 4.72 .69
a
Scale (1=never; 2=not very frequently; 3=rarely; 4=occasionally; 5=very frequently;
6=always)

32
Objective Five and Objective Six
Objective five sought to determine the relationship between Family and
Consumer Sciences Education teachers’ computer literacy and their use of technology in
the classroom. Objective six sought to determine the relationship between Family and
Consumer Sciences Education teachers’ access to technology and their use of technology
in the classroom. The relationship between computer literacy and use of technology had a
positive correlation of .60 (Table 4.8). When compared to Davis’s Conventions for
Correlation Coefficient, the relationship between the two areas is substantial. The
relationship between access to technology and use of technology had a positive
correlation of .45. According to Davis, this relationship is moderate in nature.

Table 4.8

Correlations among Computer Literacy, Technology Use, and Access

Computer Technology Technology
Literacy Access Use
Computer Literacy 1 .14 .60
Technology Access 1 .45
Technology Use 1

33
Chapter V

Conclusion

Objective 1
Demographic characteristics for this study included age, gender, highest
education level attained, and classes taught. These demographics were compared to those
of previous studies in relation to FCS education teachers and technology. Several studies
indicated that the highest number of respondents were female (Bradley & Russell, 1997;
Taylor, et.al., 1999), as was the case with this study. This is a common trend in FCS

34
education, as women are typically the ones who choose this field of education. In the
study by Taylor, et.al. (1999), several similarities were found among the other
demographics. In both studies the largest percentage of teachers were over the age of 31
and held degrees higher than a bachelor’s/Rank III. Two of the most commonly taught
classes for both studies were Foods and Nutrition and Child/Family Development.

Objective 2
Upon completion of the research, it was found that Kentucky FCS Education
teachers slightly agreed that they had knowledge related to computer literacy. Computer
literacy is an important component in having the ability to successfully and confidently
use technology (Croxall & Cummings, 2000; Eisenberg & Johnson, 1996). To help
instill this confidence and ability, teachers need to be provided with the opportunity to
participate in workshops and conferences that deal with using technology (Redman &
Kotrlik, 2004). The teachers need to be proactive in their quest to learn about
technology. They need to explore what is available on the internet for their use, plan
lessons using the computer, and experiment with various types of technologies to become
more comfortable with use. FCS programs, both at the high school and college level,
need to incorporate technology into their classroom lessons and teach their students how
to understand the terminology.

Objective 3
Upon completion of the research, it was found that Kentucky FCS Education
teachers moderately agreed with statements regarding their access to technology. This
shows that the technology that is most commonly used in classrooms is easily accessible
for the teachers. Most teachers had access to TV, DVD/VCR, projector, desktop
computer, printer, and internet. Research conducted by Alston, Miller, and Williams
(2003) also found these types of technology to be readily accessible to teachers in North
Carolina. By having access to various types of technology within the classroom or
school, teachers will be more apt to try and implement them into their daily classroom
lessons. More research is needed to determine how schools allocate money for

35
technology purchases and what type of training they provide to help teachers become
more familiar with the new technology.

Objective 4
Upon completion of the research, it was found that Kentucky FCS Education
teachers occasionally used certain types of technology that they have available within
their classroom or school. The majority of the teachers who participated in the study
indicated that they used word processing programs, email, and grading programs on their
computers. While these were the three highest areas mentioned, they also used a wide
variety of technologies within their classrooms, yet ranked them lower. Our culture has
become very technologically oriented, meaning our students are using technology on a
regular basis (Manley, Sweaney, and Valente, 2000). By utilizing various types of
technologies within the classroom, teachers are better able to meet the learning needs of
more students, as well as keep them engaged in the lesson. Teacher education programs
should require technology courses for their students, so when they enter the classroom,
they are competent in the uses of various technologies. It is also important to look at the
access and use of technology students are exposed to both in school and at home. This
knowledge will help teacher education programs better prepare their pre-service teachers
with resources such as the Kentucky Teacher Standards (Appendix A).

Objective 5 & 6
From the findings, we can see that there is a substantial relationship between
computer literacy and the use of technology, while there was a moderate relationship
between access to technology and use of technology. These relationships tell us several
things about FCS Education. First, teachers have a basic understanding of computer
logistics, such as terminology and navigation of programs. This knowledge helps
teachers have more confidence when they actually decide to use technologies in their
classrooms. Second, teacher preparation programs need to require that their students take
a technology class if one is not already required. Technology classes will help the
students gain a better understanding not only on how to use technology, but also in how

36
to interpret the more technical aspects of the technology (i.e., manual, programs). By
properly teaching the new FCS Education teachers how to use and understand
technology, they will be better able to utilize various technologies when teaching their
students. The students can then take what they have learned about technology in the FCS
classes and apply it to their other classes and assignments. Finally, access to technology
is not always adequate. Many teachers reported that they did not have adequate
technology for the number of students in their classes. This limits what they can have
their students do, so they may be more apt not to even use technology to teach their
lessons. By providing technology grants to teachers, this problem will hopefully one day
be a thing of the past.

Implications and Recommendations for Future Research

One of the issues that was encountered during the course of the research was the
issue of class names as reported by the teachers who participated in the study. Often
times, the identity of FCS is unclear and “not branded” because of the inconsistency in
what teachers call the classes they teach. When the course names were first evaluated,
there were 52 different course titles. These were then condensed into 22 categories,
based on the Kentucky Valid Course List, which was retrieved from the Kentucky
Department of Education. Further research is needed to determine how Kentucky FCS
Education teachers determine what their class names will be, why they chose names that
are not on the Valid Course List, and how they determine what curriculum will be taught.
Another issue that was encountered dealt with the questionnaire itself. After the
pilot group returned their questionnaires, each section was evaluated for reliability using
Cronbach’s alpha. The reliability rates were lower than anticipated with use at .80,
computer literacy at .77, and access at .88. It is recommended that the instrument needs
to be reevaluated and tightened for the purpose of replication.
Further research is also needed to compare the computer literacy, use, and access
to technology of FCS teachers in Kentucky and nationally with other CTE teachers and
academic core teachers. This could help to assist schools in equalizing resources and
access to technology between their teachers and school buildings. They would also have

37
a better grasp as to what types of trainings they may want to offer as professional
development to help improve the teacher’s competencies in relation to technology.
Based on the research, the following recommendations for future research can be
made:
1. Further research is needed to determine how Kentucky Family and Consumer
Sciences Education teachers determine what their class names will be, why they
chose names that are not on the Valid Course List, and how they determine what
curriculum will be taught.
2. A study of how other state’s FCS teachers name their courses and select their
curriculum would be useful to address the “branding” issue that continues to
plague the FCS profession.
3. A comparison of technology literacy, use, and access of FCS teachers in
Kentucky and nationally with other CTE teachers and academic core teachers
may assist schools in equalizing resources and access to technology.
4. As technology continues to develop at a fast pace, research on systems of resource
allocation in schools for purchasing technology tools and professional
development on literacy for those tools may provide information on how to better
serve teachers in the use of new and innovative technologies.
5. Research on teacher education programs for FCS and CTE on what technology
competencies are taught across states and nationally may assist in determining
where the advances are and where the pre-service teachers are already proficient.
6. Research on what level of literacy, use, and access secondary students have in
their home and school may assist teacher education programs to develop high
levels of these skills in their future teachers to keep up with their students.
7. Reevaluate and tighten the instrument for replication.
As you can see, there are a lot of areas for further research that can be applied to both
FCS education, CTE, and academic core areas. By promoting technology through
teacher preparation programs and through professional development, teachers will be
better able to use various types of technology to promote learning within their
classrooms.

38
Appendices

Appendix A
Kentucky Teacher Standards
1. Operates a multimedia computer and peripherals to install and use a variety of
software.
2. Uses terminology related to computers and technology appropriately in written
and verbal communication.
3. Demonstrates knowledge of the use of technology in business, industry, and
society.
4. Demonstrates basic knowledge of computer/peripheral parts and attends to simple
connections and installations.
5. Creates multimedia presentations using scanners, digital cameras, and video
cameras.
6. Uses the computer to do word processing, create databases and spreadsheets,
access electronic mail and the internet, make presentations, and uses other
emerging technologies to enhance professional productivity and support
instruction.
7. Uses computers and other technologies such as interactive instruction,
audio/video conferencing, and other distance learning applications to enhance
professional productivity and support instruction.
8. Requests and uses appropriate assistive and adaptive devices for students with
special needs.
9. Designs lessons that use technology to address diverse student needs and learning
styles.
10. Practices equitable and legal use of computers and technology in professional
activities.
11. Facilitates the lifelong learning of self and others through the use of technology.
12. Explores, uses, and evaluates technology resources: software, applications, and
related documentation.
13. Applies research-based instructional practices that use computers and other
technology.

39
14. Uses computers and other technology for individual, small group, and large group
learning activities.
15. Uses technology to support multiple assessments of student learning.
16. Instructs and supervises students in the ethical and legal use of technology.

40
Appendix B
Questionnaire

July 23, 2007

Dear Kentucky FCS teacher,

You are invited to participate in a research project seeking to determine if a relationship

exists between computer literacy and use of technology, as well as if a relationship exists
between teachers’ access to technology and their use of technology in Family and
Consumer Sciences Education classrooms in the state of Kentucky. The project is being
conducted by Dana Jenkins, graduate student from the University of Kentucky,
Department of Community and Leadership Development. The results of this
questionnaire will be presented in my master’s thesis.

All you need to do is complete this short questionnaire, which should take approximately
5 minutes. Your participation is voluntary and you may chose to skip any questions
within the questionnaire. If you do not wish to participate, simply discard the
questionnaire. Responses will be completely anonymous; your name will not appear
anywhere on the survey. Completing and returning the questionnaire constitutes your
consent to participate.

Keep this letter for your records. If you have any questions regarding the research,
contact Dana Jenkins at [email protected] or (573) 578-9678. You may also contact
Dr. Cheryl Mimbs at [email protected] or (859) 257-1210. If you have any
questions about your rights as a volunteer in this research, contact the staff in the Office
of Research Integrity at the University of Kentucky at 859-257-9428 or toll free at 1-866-
400-9428.

Thank you again for your help.

Sincerely,

Dana Jenkins Cheryl Mimbs Tracy Kitchel

Graduate Student Assistant Professor Assistant Professor
FCS Education FCS Education Agricultural Education

41
Computer Literacy, Access and Use of Technology in
the Family and Consumer Sciences Classroom

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study is to determine if a relationship exists between Family and
Consumer Sciences Education teachers’ computer literacy and their use of technology
in the classroom, as well as if a relationship exists between Family and Consumer
Sciences Education teachers’ access to technology and their use of technology in the
classroom.

Dana R. Jenkins
Graduate Assistant
University of Kentucky
College of Agriculture & School of
Human Environmental Sciences
N-8 Ag North Building
Lexington, KY 40546-0091
Phone: 573.578.9678
[email protected]
Instructions

42
For the following statements, please respond by circling the response that best describes
your opinion of each item.

Sample Question

Strongly Disagree

Slightly Disagree

Strongly Agree
Slightly Agree
Disagree

Agree
Item
Circle your responses

1. My computer is up-to-date. 1 2 3 4 5 6
This respondent indicated that they slightly agree with the above
statement.

43
Part I: Use of Technology

Occasionally
Frequently

Frequently
Not Very

Always
Rarely
Never
Item

Very
Circle your responses
1. I use email on a regular basis. 1 2 3 4 5 6
2. I utilize word processing to develop materials for 1 2 3 4 5 6
class.
3. I use presentation software (Microsoft Word, 1 2 3 4 5 6
PowerPoint, etc.) to develop lessons/units.
4. I use presentation hardware (Projector, Smart Board, 1 2 3 4 5 6
etc.) to present lessons/units.
5. I keep track of grades using a computer. 1 2 3 4 5 6
6. I utilize various Internet research tools. 1 2 3 4 5 6
7. I create multimedia presentations using a scanner. 1 2 3 4 5 6
8. I create multimedia presentations using a digital 1 2 3 4 5 6
camera.
9. I create multimedia presentations using a video 1 2 3 4 5 6
camera.
10. I use the computer for word processing. 1 2 3 4 5 6
11. I use the computer to create databases. 1 2 3 4 5 6
12. I use the computer to create spreadsheets. 1 2 3 4 5 6
13. I use the computer to access email. 1 2 3 4 5 6
14. I use the computer to access the Internet. 1 2 3 4 5 6
15. I use the computer to create presentations. 1 2 3 4 5 6
16. I use various technologies to support classroom 1 2 3 4 5 6
instruction.

44
Part II: Computer Literacy

Moderately Disagree

Moderately Agree
Strongly Disagree

Slightly Disagree

Strongly Agree
Slightly Agree
Item
Circle your responses
1. I have a basic knowledge of computers. 1 2 3 4 5 6
2. I have avoided computers because they are unfamiliar 1 2 3 4 5 6
to me.
3. I have a working knowledge of computer terminology. 1 2 3 4 5 6
4. I understand the technical aspects of computers. 1 2 3 4 5 6
5. I feel secure about my ability to interpret a computer 1 2 3 4 5 6
manual.
6. I feel confident about using computers. 1 2 3 4 5 6
7. I know there are different Internet research tools 1 2 3 4 5 6
(Google, Yahoo, etc.) available to use.

Part III: Access

Moderately Disagree

Moderately Agree
Strongly Disagree

Slightly Disagree

Strongly Agree
Slightly Agree
Item
Circle your responses
1. I have access to a television. 1 2 3 4 5 6
2. I have access to DVD/VCR. 1 2 3 4 5 6
3. I have access to a projector. 1 2 3 4 5 6
4. I have access to a digital camera. 1 2 3 4 5 6
5. I have access to a full page scanner. 1 2 3 4 5 6
6. I have access to a laser printer. 1 2 3 4 5 6
7. I have access to a desktop computer. 1 2 3 4 5 6
8. I have access to a laptop computer. 1 2 3 4 5 6
9. I have access to presentation software. 1 2 3 4 5 6
10. I have access to the internet in my school. 1 2 3 4 5 6
11. The internet is reliable at my school. 1 2 3 4 5 6
12. I have an adequate amount of technology for the 1 2 3 4 5 6
number of students in my classes.
13. I have access to effective instructional software for the 1 2 3 4 5 6
courses I teach.

45
Part IV: Demographics
Please circle or write in the appropriate responses to the following demographic
questions.

1. What is your age?

a. 20-25
b. 26-30
c. 31-39
d. 40-49
e. 50-59
f. 60 and over

2. What is your gender?

a. Male
b. Female

3. How many teachers are in your Family and Consumer Sciences program?
__________

4. How many years have you taught Family and Consumer Sciences Education as of
the 2006-2007 school year? ________
5. What is your highest degree received?
a. Rank III
b. Rank II
c. Rank I
d. Other: ____________________

6. What courses will you teach in 2007-2008?

7. At which institute did you receive your initial certification?

a. Eastern Kentucky University
b. University of Kentucky
c. Morehead State University
d. Western Kentucky State University
e. Murray State University
f. Berea College
g. Northern Kentucky University
h. Other: __________________________________

46
If you have any additional comments, please write them in the space provided.

Thank You

I would like to take this time to thank you for choosing to participate in this
study. The results of this study will be used to determine what relationships
might or might not exist between the Family and Consumer Sciences Education
teachers’ computer literacy and their use of technology in the classroom, as well
as whether or not there is a relationship between Family and Consumer Sciences
Education teachers’ access to technology and their use of technology in the
classroom.

47
Appendix C
Instrument Items and Sources
Use of technology
• I use email on a regular basis (Peake, Briers, & Murphy, 2005; Alston, Miller, &
Williams, 2003)
• I utilize word processing to develop materials for class (Peake, Briers, & Murphy,
2005)
• I use presentation software to develop lessons/units (Peake, Briers, & Murphy,
2005)
• I use presentation hardware to present lessons/units (Peake, Briers, & Murphy,
2005)
• I keep track of grades using a computer (Croxall & Cummings, 2000)
• I utilize various Internet research tools (Mason & McMorrow, 2006)
• I create multimedia presentations using a scanner (KY Teacher standards)
• I create multimedia presentations using a digital camera (KY Teacher standards)
• I create multimedia presentations using a video camera (KY Teacher standards)
• I use the computer for word processing (KY Teacher standards)
• I use the computer to create databases (KY Teacher standards)
• I use the computer to create spreadsheets (KY Teacher standards)
• I use the computer to access email (KY Teacher standards)
• I use the computer to access the Internet (KY Teacher standards)
• I use the computer to create presentations (KY Teacher standards)
• I use various technologies to support classroom instruction (KY Teacher
standards)

Computer literacy
• I have a basic knowledge of computers (Mason & McMorrow,2006)
• I know there are different Internet research tools available to use (Mason &
McMorrow, 2006)

48
• I have a working knowledge of computer terminology (Mason & McMorrow,
2006)
• I understand the technical aspects of computers (Lokken, Cheek, & Hastings,
2003)
• I feel secure about my ability to interpret a computer manual (Lokken, Cheek, &
Hastings, 2003)
• I feel confident about using computers (Lokken, Cheek, & Hastings, 2003)
• I have avoided computers because they are unfamiliar to me (Lokken, Cheek, &
Hastings, 2003)

Access
• I have access to a television (Alston, Miller, & Williams, 2003)
• I have access to DVD/VCR (Alston, Miller, & Williams, 2003)
• I have access to a projector (Alston, Miller, & Williams, 2003)
• I have access to a digital camera (Alston, Miller, & Williams, 2003)
• I have access to a full page scanner (Alston, Miller, & Williams, 2003)
• I have access to a laser printer (Alston, Miller, & Williams, 2003)
• I have access to a desktop computer (Alston, Miller, & Williams, 2003)
• I have access to a laptop computer (Alston, Miller, & Williams, 2003)
• I have access to presentation software (Peake, Briers, & Murphy, 2005)
• I have access to the internet in my school (Alston, Miller, & Williams, 2003;
Croxall & Cummings, 2000; Peake, Briers, & Murphy, 2005)
• The internet is reliable at my school (Redmann & Kotrlik, 2004)
• I have an adequate amount of technology for the number of students in my classes
(Redmann & Kotrlik, 2004)
• Availability of effective instructional software for the courses I teach (Redmann
& Kotrlik, 2004)

49
Appendix D
Frequencies and Percentages for Computer Literacy Statements

1 2 3 4 5 6
Statement f % f % f % f % f % f %
I have a basic knowledge of computers. 1 1.1 1 1.1 9 9.6 31 33 52 55.3
I have avoided computers because they
5 5.3 5 5.3 4 4.3 9 9.6 15 16 56 59.6
are unfamiliar to me.
I have a working knowledge of computer
1 1.1 2 2.2 3 3.2 25 26.9 45 48.4 17 18.3
terminology.
I understand the technical aspects of
6 6.4 9 9.6 12 12.8 34 36.2 25 26.6 8 8.5
computers.
I feel secure about my ability to interpret a
4 4.3 6 6.4 18 19.1 33 35.1 25 26.6 8 8.5
computer manual.
I feel confident about using computers. 9 9.6 16 17 40 42.6 29 30.9
I know there are different Internet research
tools (Google, Yahoo, etc.) available to 1 1.1 2 2.1 15 16 76 80.9
use.

50
Appendix E
Frequencies and Percentages for Access to Various Types of Technology

1 2 3 4 5 6
Statement f % f % f % f % f % f %
I have access to a television. 1 1.1 93 98.9
I have access to DVD/VCR. 1 1.1 1 1.1 92 97.9
I have access to a projector. 3 3.2 1 1.1 1 1.1 5 5.3 7 7.4 77 81.9
I have access to a digital camera. 2 2.1 1 1.1 2 2.1 5 5.3 6 6.4 78 83
I have access to a full page scanner. 18 19.1 1 1.1 11 12 8 8.7 4 4.3 50 54.3
I have access to a laser printer. 10 10.9 5 5.4 5 5.4 10 10.9 62 67.4
I have access to a desktop computer. 2 2.1 2 2.1 90 95.7
I have access to a laptop computer. 11 11.7 2 2.1 4 4.3 8 8.5 7 7.4 62 66
I have access to presentation software. 3 3.2 3 3.2 7 7.4 13 13.8 68 72.3
I have access to the internet in my school. 4 4.3 88 95.7
The internet is reliable at my school. 1 1.1 4 4.4 10 11.1 17 18.9 58 64.4
I have an adequate amount of technology
13 14 17 18.3 10 10.8 14 15.1 13 14 26 28
for the number of students in my classes.
I have access to effective instructional
8 8.7 10 10.9 23 25 23 25 28 30.4
software for the courses I teach.

51
Appendix F
Frequencies and Percentages for Access to Various Types of Technology

1 2 3 4 5 6
Statement f % f % f % f % f % f %
I use email on a regular basis. 2 2.1 28 29.8 64 68.1
I utilize word processing to develop
1 1.1 10 10.9 27 29.3 54 58.7
materials for class.
I use presentation software (Microsoft
Word, PowerPoint, etc.) to develop 1 1.1 6 6.5 22 23.9 29 31.5 34 37
lessons/units.
I use presentation hardware (Projector,
9 9.8 6 6.5 10 10.9 20 21.7 30 32.6 17 18.5
Smart Board, etc.) to present lessons, units.
I keep track of grades using computers. 1 1.1 7 7.6 84 91.3
I utilize various internet research tools. 1 1.1 2 2.2 18 19.8 30 33 40 44
I create multimedia presentations using a
20 21.5 13 14 31 33.3 20 21.5 3 3.2 6 6.5
scanner.
I create multimedia presentations using a
15 16.5 12 13.2 21 23.1 24 26.4 13 14.3 6 6.6
digital camera.
I create multimedia presentations using a
25 26.9 13 14 30 32.3 19 20.4 3 3.2 3 3.2
video camera.

52
1 2 3 4 5 6
Statement f % f % f % f % f % f %
I use the computer for word processing. 1 1.1 3 3.2 21 22.6 68 73.1
I use the computer to create databases. 13 14.3 18 19.8 3 3.3 23 25.3 19 20.9 15 16.5
I use the computer to create spreadsheets. 12 13.2 15 16.5 14 15.4 19 20.9 16 17.6 15 16.5
I use the computer to access email. 9 9.8 83 90.2
I use the computer to access the internet. 2 2.2 11 11.8 80 86
I use the computer to create presentations. 4 4.3 4 4.3 4 4.3 18 19.4 22 23.7 41 44.1
I use various technologies to support
4 4.3 23 24.7 38 40.9 28 30.1
classroom instruction.

53
References
Alston, A., Miller. W.W., & Williams, D.L. (2003). Use of instructional technology in
agricultural education in North Carolina and Virginia [Electronic Version].
Journal of Career and Technical Education, 20(1), 23-35.

Ary, D., Jacobs, C.J., & Razavieh, A. (2002). Introduction to research in education (6th
ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thompson Learning.

Bradley, G. & Russell, G. (1997). Computer experience, school support, and computer
anxiety [Electronic Version]. Educational Psychology: An International Journal
of Experimental Educational Psychology, 17(3), 267-284.

Budin, H. (1999). The computer in the classroom [Electronic Version]. Teachers College
Record, 100(3), 656-669.

Cohen, N.L., Beffa-Negrini, P., Cluff, C., Laus, M.J., Volpe, S.L., Dun, A.T., &
Sternheim, M.M. (1999). Nutrition science online: Professional development of
secondary school teachers using the internet. Journal of Family and Consumer
Sceinces Education, 17(1), 25-33.

Croxall, K. & Cummings, M.N. (2000). Computer usage in family and consumer sciences
classrooms [Electronic Version]. Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences
Education, 18(1), 9-18.

Daulton, M. (1997). Microcomputer adoption by family and consumer sciences teachers:

An historical perspective [Electronic Version]. Journal of Family and Consumer
Sciences Education, 15(2), 55-60.

Davis, J.A. (1971). Elementary survey analysis. Englewood, N.J.: Prentice Hall.

Dillman, D.A. (2000). Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method. New York:
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Dooley, L.M., Metcalf, T., & Martinez, A. (1999). A study of the adoption of computer
technology by teachers [Electronic Version]. Educational Technology & Society,
2(4).

Eisenberg, M.B. & Johnson, D. (1996). Computer skills for information problem-solving:
Learning and teaching technology in context. ERIC Clearinghouse on Information
and Technology, Syracuse, NY. Retrieved April 2, 2007 from ERIC Document
Reproduction Service ERIC No. ED392463.

Evans, R. (1999). Serving modern students in a modern society at the community college:
Incorporating basic technological literacy. T.H.E. Journal, 27(3), 102-104.

54
Geoghegan, W.H. (1994). What ever happened to instructional technology? 22nd Annual
Conference of the International Business Schools Computing Association.

Hasselbring, T.S. (1991). Improving education through technology: Barriers and

recommendations [Electronic Version]. Preventing School Failure, 35(3), 33-37.

Keane, K. (2002). Computer applications in the field of family and consumer science
[Electronic Version]. Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences Education,
20(2), 37-44.

Kentucky Department of Education. (2006). Kentucky family and consumer sciences

education teachers list.

Kentucky Education Professional Standards Board. (1999). New and returning teacher
standards for preparation & certification. Retrieved February 8, 2007, from
http://www.kyepsb.net/index.asp.

Krejcie, R.V. & Morgan, D.W. (1970). Determining sample size for research activities.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 30, 607-610.

Lokken, S.L., Cheek, W.K., & Hastings, S.W. (2003). The impact of technology training
on family and consumer sciences teacher attitudes toward using computers as an
instructional medium [Electronic Version]. Journal of Family and Consumer
Sciences Education, 21(1), 18-32.

Lu, C. & Miller, L.E. (2002). Instructional technology competencies perceived as needed
by vocational teachers in Ohio and Taiwan [Electronic Version]. Journal of
Vocational Education Research, 27(3), 319-329.

Manley, K.S., Sweaney, A.L., & Valente, J.S. (2000). Internet usage among family and
consumer sciences professionals [Electronic Version]. Journal of Family and
Consumer Sciences Education, 18(2), 24-31.

Martin, R.E. & Lundstrom, K. (1988). Attitudes of vocational home economics teachers
toward computers. Journal of Vocational Education Research, 13(1), 83-93.

Mason, J. & McMorrow, R. (2006). YACLD (yet another computer literacy definition)
[Electronic Version]. Journal of Computing Sciences in College, 21(5), 94-100.

McCracken, J. D., (1998). Agricultural Education 885 Research Methods: Course Notes.
Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University.

McFadden, J.R., Croxall, K.C., & Wright, C.B. (2001). The place of computers in family
and consumer sciences classrooms [Electronic Version]. Journal of Family and
Consumer Sciences Education, 19(2), 11-18.

55
National Association of State Boards of Education. (2003). Policy update: Teacher’s use
of technology. Policy Information Clearinghouse, 11(3).

Peake, J.B., Briers, G., & Murphy, T. (2005). Relationships between student achievement
and levels of technology integration by Texas agriscience teachers [Electronic
Version]. Journal of Southern Agricultural Education Research, 55(1), 19-32.

Redmann, D. H. & Kotrlik, J. W. (2004). Analysis of technology integration in the

teaching-learning process in selected career and technical education programs
[Electronic Version]. Journal of Vocational Education Research, 29(1), 3-25.

Roblyer, M.D., Castine, W.H., & King, F.J. (1993). Article #3, computer applications
have “undeniable value,” research shows. In T.R. Cannings &L. Finkel (Eds.),
The technology age classroom, 66-69. Wilsonville, OR: Franklin, Beedle &
Associates.

Rogers, E.M. (1962). Diffusion of innovations. New York: The Free Press of Glencoe.

Rogers, E.M. (1995). Diffusion of Innovations, 4th ed. New York: The Free Press.

Rogers, E.M. & Shoemaker, F.F. (1971). Communication of innovations: A cross-

cultural approach. New York: The Free Press of Glencoe.

Rogers, N., Thompson, C., Cotton, M., & Thompson, D.E. (1993). Computer-aided
instruction in secondary clothing and textiles courses. Journal of Vocational
Home Economics Education, 11(2), 22-29.

Russell, A.L. (1995). Stages in learning new technology: Naïve adult email users.
Computers & Technology, 25(4), 173-178.

Sandholtz, J.H., Ringstaff, C., & Dwyer, D.C. (1997). Teaching with Technology. New
York; Teachers College Press.

Schofield, J.W. (1995). Computers and classroom culture. Melbourne, Australia:

Cambridge University Press.

Smerdon, B., & Cronen, S. (2000). Teacher’s tools for the 21st century: A report on
teacher’s use of technology. U.S. Department of Education.

Taylor, D., Torrie, M., Hausafus, C., & Strasser, M.J. (1999). Interactive technology-
based television delivery. Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences, 17(2), 31-
38.

Tornatsky, L.G. & Klein, K.J. (1982). Innovation characteristics and innovation
adoption-implementation: A meta-analysis of findings. IEEE Transactions on
Engineering Management, 29(1), 28-45.

56
Trotter, A. (1998). A question of effectiveness. Education Week, 18(5). Retrieved April
03, 2007 from the Academic Search Premier database.

U.S. Department of Education. (2005). Toward a new golden age in American education:
How the internet, the law and today’s students are revolutionizing expectations.
National Education Technology Plan.

Way, W.L. & Montgomery, B. (1995). Hypermedia technology: Tools for implementing
critical science-based curricula in family and consumer education. Journal of
Family and Consumer Sciences Education, 13(1), 1-15.

57
VITA
Dana Renee’ Jenkins
Born on September 13, 1982 in Rolla, Missouri

Education

University of Kentucky; Expected graduation May 2008

M.S. in Career, Technical and Leadership Education; Emphasis in Family and Consumer
Sciences Education

University of Missouri-Columbia; May 2006

B.S. in Family and Consumer Sciences Education
GPA: 3.5/4.0 scale- Cum Laude

East Central College; May 2003

Associate of Arts in General Studies

Certification

Certified to teach Family and Consumer Sciences Education B-12 in Missouri

Professional Experience

Family and Consumer Sciences Instructor; Fatima High School 2007 – Present

Graduate Assistant-UK College of Ag. Student Services (2006-2007)

Student Teaching Internship- Boonville, Missouri (2006)

Child Development Lab- University of Missouri-Columbia (2005)

Society, Community and Education: The School and The Community, School Culture, and Organizational Leadership Is One of
No ratings yet
Society, Community and Education: The School and The Community, School Culture, and Organizational Leadership Is One of
10 pages
Export Document
No ratings yet
Export Document
11 pages
Usage of New Technological Equipment Its Repercussion On Humss Readiness For College
No ratings yet
Usage of New Technological Equipment Its Repercussion On Humss Readiness For College
23 pages
Factors in Advancing Teenagers To Use Gadgets
No ratings yet
Factors in Advancing Teenagers To Use Gadgets
23 pages
Hussain Fathah Project
No ratings yet
Hussain Fathah Project
56 pages
Final Research
No ratings yet
Final Research
35 pages
Chapter 3
No ratings yet
Chapter 3
11 pages
The Impact of Technology On Families: January 2012
No ratings yet
The Impact of Technology On Families: January 2012
20 pages
Tu Thesis in Health Education
100% (2)
Tu Thesis in Health Education
6 pages
Sample PR2
No ratings yet
Sample PR2
18 pages
Hussey K Sum 2018
No ratings yet
Hussey K Sum 2018
52 pages
Digital Life Together: The Challenge of Technology for Christian Schools
From Everand
Digital Life Together: The Challenge of Technology for Christian Schools
David I. Smith
No ratings yet
Chapter II RRL
No ratings yet
Chapter II RRL
17 pages
Robbins Zhou
No ratings yet
Robbins Zhou
7 pages
Project-English 12th Class
No ratings yet
Project-English 12th Class
35 pages
Information and Computer Literacy of High School Students: Milan Kubiatko
No ratings yet
Information and Computer Literacy of High School Students: Milan Kubiatko
8 pages
What Is A Background of The Study
No ratings yet
What Is A Background of The Study
14 pages
Correlation of Technology Literacy and Academic Research Skills
No ratings yet
Correlation of Technology Literacy and Academic Research Skills
62 pages
Dissertation
No ratings yet
Dissertation
106 pages
Impact of Computer Interaction in The Life of Selected Grade 12 Students at Sto. Tomas Integrated High School
No ratings yet
Impact of Computer Interaction in The Life of Selected Grade 12 Students at Sto. Tomas Integrated High School
44 pages
THE IMPACT OF TECHNOLOGY Final
No ratings yet
THE IMPACT OF TECHNOLOGY Final
17 pages
Thesis Topics For Public Relations
100% (2)
Thesis Topics For Public Relations
8 pages
Jhaycop Practical
No ratings yet
Jhaycop Practical
22 pages
Review of Related Literature and Studies: On Technology
No ratings yet
Review of Related Literature and Studies: On Technology
4 pages
Thesis Topics For Information Technology 2013
100% (3)
Thesis Topics For Information Technology 2013
5 pages
RES-2
No ratings yet
RES-2
63 pages
Submitted in Partial Fulfilment For The Award of The Degree of
No ratings yet
Submitted in Partial Fulfilment For The Award of The Degree of
35 pages
CONCEPT PAPER
No ratings yet
CONCEPT PAPER
12 pages
Thesis It Guys 1
No ratings yet
Thesis It Guys 1
49 pages
Parmer Assignment 1
No ratings yet
Parmer Assignment 1
8 pages
1628769067Kiran-Written-PTE Writing Practice Test 21
No ratings yet
1628769067Kiran-Written-PTE Writing Practice Test 21
3 pages
EJ1097142 Agaga
No ratings yet
EJ1097142 Agaga
17 pages
PR2 Final
No ratings yet
PR2 Final
37 pages
Chapter 1-2-3
No ratings yet
Chapter 1-2-3
45 pages
Mini Thesis Topics
100% (3)
Mini Thesis Topics
8 pages
G12 Ict PR
No ratings yet
G12 Ict PR
18 pages
Thesis Topic For Information Technology
100% (2)
Thesis Topic For Information Technology
7 pages
Kindergarten Thesis Topics
100% (2)
Kindergarten Thesis Topics
8 pages
THesis Body
No ratings yet
THesis Body
95 pages
Thesis Topics Related To Information Technology
100% (2)
Thesis Topics Related To Information Technology
6 pages
Thesis Topics For Instrumentation
100% (2)
Thesis Topics For Instrumentation
4 pages
Use of Information Communication Technology (Ict) in The Teaching and Learning of Financial Accounting
100% (1)
Use of Information Communication Technology (Ict) in The Teaching and Learning of Financial Accounting
63 pages
Thesis Topic Ideas in Education
100% (3)
Thesis Topic Ideas in Education
6 pages
Background of The Study
No ratings yet
Background of The Study
4 pages
The Relationship Between Technology and Ethics From Society To Schools
No ratings yet
The Relationship Between Technology and Ethics From Society To Schools
8 pages
It Related Thesis Topics
100% (3)
It Related Thesis Topics
7 pages
Human Happiness
No ratings yet
Human Happiness
10 pages
PR2-FINAL
No ratings yet
PR2-FINAL
37 pages
Reserch Proposal PR 1
No ratings yet
Reserch Proposal PR 1
15 pages
Bicol Training and Technological College Inc. Mora St. Barangay 13, Bacacay Albay SY 2023-2024
No ratings yet
Bicol Training and Technological College Inc. Mora St. Barangay 13, Bacacay Albay SY 2023-2024
20 pages
Study of Computer Literacy Among Secondary School Students
50% (2)
Study of Computer Literacy Among Secondary School Students
86 pages
Contentment of Senior High School Students
No ratings yet
Contentment of Senior High School Students
9 pages
Living-in-the-IT-Era-1
No ratings yet
Living-in-the-IT-Era-1
35 pages
SASTRE Preliminaries Edited 1
No ratings yet
SASTRE Preliminaries Edited 1
12 pages
Current State of Technology Thesis Example
100% (2)
Current State of Technology Thesis Example
6 pages
Digital Literacyof Non ITStudentsby MTorres
No ratings yet
Digital Literacyof Non ITStudentsby MTorres
9 pages
Ocon John Rollin C.
No ratings yet
Ocon John Rollin C.
41 pages
CST 426s - Research Paper
No ratings yet
CST 426s - Research Paper
21 pages
1.1 Background To The Study
No ratings yet
1.1 Background To The Study
5 pages
Are Children Academically Smarter Because of Internet?
100% (1)
Are Children Academically Smarter Because of Internet?
26 pages
The Reliability of Technology Relating To Students' Academic Success in The Grade 12 Students at The Philippines College of Criminology
No ratings yet
The Reliability of Technology Relating To Students' Academic Success in The Grade 12 Students at The Philippines College of Criminology
22 pages
Computer Literacy Program Thesis
No ratings yet
Computer Literacy Program Thesis
113 pages
IS IN: What Learned Computer Club?
No ratings yet
IS IN: What Learned Computer Club?
13 pages
CHAPTER2 Thesis Ryan Computer Enhancement
No ratings yet
CHAPTER2 Thesis Ryan Computer Enhancement
21 pages
Computer Literacy Among Students of Zahedan University of Medical Sciences
No ratings yet
Computer Literacy Among Students of Zahedan University of Medical Sciences
7 pages
Financial Accounting & Decision Making Lesson Plan TI AY 2024-25 - FC19
No ratings yet
Financial Accounting & Decision Making Lesson Plan TI AY 2024-25 - FC19
2 pages
Chapter 1-3 Mentor Leader
No ratings yet
Chapter 1-3 Mentor Leader
1 page
Burberry Dual Market Strategy
100% (1)
Burberry Dual Market Strategy
82 pages
NLC Newsletter 1ST Week
No ratings yet
NLC Newsletter 1ST Week
2 pages
Social Justice Lesson Plan
No ratings yet
Social Justice Lesson Plan
5 pages
Officialtranscript
No ratings yet
Officialtranscript
3 pages
Adding Three 1-Digit Numbers Having Sums Up To 18
100% (9)
Adding Three 1-Digit Numbers Having Sums Up To 18
4 pages
Rubric For Assessing Teacher Intern'S Daily Demonstration Teaching Performance Name of Teacher A: - Jenica Alexandria Mae C. Regencia
No ratings yet
Rubric For Assessing Teacher Intern'S Daily Demonstration Teaching Performance Name of Teacher A: - Jenica Alexandria Mae C. Regencia
2 pages
Final Exam For TM
No ratings yet
Final Exam For TM
3 pages
Accomplishment Report IPCRF
No ratings yet
Accomplishment Report IPCRF
7 pages
Star Observation Form
100% (1)
Star Observation Form
3 pages
En3Wc - Iii-J-2.6
No ratings yet
En3Wc - Iii-J-2.6
7 pages
What Is A Public Private Partnership (PPP) ?
No ratings yet
What Is A Public Private Partnership (PPP) ?
2 pages
Yogesh Singh: Key Skills and Knowledge Personal Info
No ratings yet
Yogesh Singh: Key Skills and Knowledge Personal Info
2 pages
Imran Alam: Career Objective
No ratings yet
Imran Alam: Career Objective
2 pages
Uses Project Proposal Project Read
No ratings yet
Uses Project Proposal Project Read
5 pages
READING and LITERACY1 Q1 W1 MATATAG DLL
No ratings yet
READING and LITERACY1 Q1 W1 MATATAG DLL
6 pages
Dalubhasaan NG Lunsod NG San Pablo Brgy. San Jose, San Pablo City
100% (1)
Dalubhasaan NG Lunsod NG San Pablo Brgy. San Jose, San Pablo City
3 pages
CBSE - Senior School Certificate Examination (Class XII) Results 2024
No ratings yet
CBSE - Senior School Certificate Examination (Class XII) Results 2024
1 page
Slac Proposal February
No ratings yet
Slac Proposal February
3 pages
PDF Shopping for Lunch Susan Blackaby download
100% (4)
PDF Shopping for Lunch Susan Blackaby download
40 pages
Modified Early Registration Form
No ratings yet
Modified Early Registration Form
1 page
Revised ASSESSMENT 2 SYLLABUS 2023 2024 1
No ratings yet
Revised ASSESSMENT 2 SYLLABUS 2023 2024 1
21 pages
Career Objective: Bio-Data
No ratings yet
Career Objective: Bio-Data
3 pages
Reflection On Reconstructionism and Education
100% (2)
Reflection On Reconstructionism and Education
2 pages
Noss Preschool Teaching
No ratings yet
Noss Preschool Teaching
100 pages
Unit 11 - Review
No ratings yet
Unit 11 - Review
11 pages
Striking a Balance: A Comprehensive Approach to Early Literacy 5th Edition, (Ebook PDF) download pdf
100% (4)
Striking a Balance: A Comprehensive Approach to Early Literacy 5th Edition, (Ebook PDF) download pdf
55 pages
Civil List of IAS Officer GP10000 +
No ratings yet
Civil List of IAS Officer GP10000 +
93 pages

Computer Literacy Access and Use of Technology in The Family and

Uploaded by

Computer Literacy Access and Use of Technology in The Family and

Uploaded by

University of Kentucky

COMPUTER LITERACY, ACCESS AND USE

COMPUTER LITERACY, ACCESS AND USE OF TECHNOLOGY IN THE FAMILY

KEYWORDS: Use, Technology, Computer, Literacy, Access

Dana Renee’ Jenkins

Dana Renee’ Jenkins

Dr. Cheryl Mimbs

Dr. Tracy Kitchel

Dr. Randy Weckman

Dana Renee’ Jenkins

The Graduate School

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the

Dana Renee’ Jenkins

Copyright © Dana R. Jenkins 2008

I would like to express my sincerest appreciation for those who supported,

Table 3.1, Davis Conventions for Correlation Coefficient ............................................... 22

Dana Jenkins Thesis.pdf……………………………………………………………376 KB

Access- the right to obtain or make use of or take advantage of something

Computer literacy- consists of two components: an awareness component that requires an

Educational technology- the use of technology in education to improve learning and

Innovativeness- the degree to which an individual is relatively earlier in adopting new

Innovators: often considered “techies”; they grab on to new technology as soon as it is

Instructional technology- instructional technology is the systemic and systematic

Limitations of the Study

Significance of the Problem

Technology Use in the Classroom

Davis Conventions for Correlation Coefficient

Purpose of the Study

Years of Teaching Experience and Number of Teachers in the Program

Computer Literacy as Perceived by FCS Education Teachers in the Study

Teachers Access to Various Types of Technology as Reported by FCS Education

FCS Education Teachers Use of Various Types of Technology

Correlations among Computer Literacy, Technology Use, and Access

Implications and Recommendations for Future Research

July 23, 2007

Dear Kentucky FCS teacher,

You are invited to participate in a research project seeking to determine if a relationship

Thank you again for your help.

Dana Jenkins Cheryl Mimbs Tracy Kitchel

Purpose of the Study

Part III: Access

1. What is your age?

2. What is your gender?

6. What courses will you teach in 2007-2008?

7. At which institute did you receive your initial certification?

Daulton, M. (1997). Microcomputer adoption by family and consumer sciences teachers:

Hasselbring, T.S. (1991). Improving education through technology: Barriers and

Kentucky Department of Education. (2006). Kentucky family and consumer sciences

Redmann, D. H. & Kotrlik, J. W. (2004). Analysis of technology integration in the

Rogers, E.M. & Shoemaker, F.F. (1971). Communication of innovations: A cross-

Schofield, J.W. (1995). Computers and classroom culture. Melbourne, Australia:

University of Kentucky; Expected graduation May 2008

University of Missouri-Columbia; May 2006

East Central College; May 2003

Certified to teach Family and Consumer Sciences Education B-12 in Missouri

Graduate Assistant-UK College of Ag. Student Services (2006-2007)

Student Teaching Internship- Boonville, Missouri (2006)

Child Development Lab- University of Missouri-Columbia (2005)

You might also like