162 TECHNOLOGY FOR PREPARATION PROGRAMS
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
A lack of confidence in administrators’ opinions of their ability to adopt technology into
administrative practice successfully is suggested in the literature (Hancock, 2008; LoTi,
2003). For example, the administrator’s version of the Levels of Technology Implementation
Questionnaire (LoTi) was taken by 267 individuals in New Hampshire. The resulting levels
range from Awareness (level 1) to Refinement (level 6). The predominate LoTi level for
administrators was considerably lower than for the teachers who were surveyed (LoTi, 2003).
In another survey given throughout the 2007-2008 academic year (n=125) in five southern
states using a stratified random sample of 25 administrators per state, practicing
administrators were asked several questions relating to their knowledge and use of technology
(Hancock, 2008). The survey was conducted via telephone and face-to-face interviews. In
response to the survey (2008), 97% of administrators were not able to name a state or national
technology standard for administrators; 88% of administrators had not attended technology
training in the last three years; 93% had not received any technology training as part of their
administrator preparation program; 64% did not feel competent in making decisions regarding
the evaluation, purchase and implementation of different technology products and services for
their environment; and 98% felt that their primary professional organization did not meet their
technology training needs.
Similarly, a lack of confidence in professors’ opinions of their ability to adopt technology
successfully into administrative preparation programs is suggested through parallel research.
The aforementioned study was repeated using a slightly modified survey with a sample of 90
current professors of education administration (Hancock, 2008). Survey data was collected at
a national professional conference. Results indicated significant deficiencies in 1) technology
exposure in administrative preparation programs, 2) professor confidence in their ability to
successfully adopt technology, and 3) in-service training opportunities for the professors in
the sample. In response to this survey (2008), 84% of the subjects were not able to name a
state or national technology standard for professors; 78% had not attended technology training
in the last three years; 74% had no technology training as part of administrator preparation
program; 63% did not feel competent in their ability to train administrators to make decisions
regarding the evaluation, purchase, and implementation of different technology products and
services in their districts; and 70% reported that their primary professional organization did
not meet their technology training needs. Additional research in this area is needed as
indicated by the limited amount of data in the literature.
METHODS
The present study involved the application of two common measures of diffusion of
information technology as an innovation to a random sample of 500 teachers and 100
administrators. The study employed the Concerns-Based Adoption Model Levels of Use
(CBAM-LoU) (Hall, Loucks, Rutherford, & Newlove, 1975), and the Stages of Adoption of
Technology (Christensen, 1997; Knezek & Christensen, 1999), based upon the work of
Russell (1995).
The CBAM-LoU questionnaire (Christensen, 1997) describes behaviors of innovation
associated with users during various stages - from orienting, to managing, and finally to
integrating technology. The levels of use are: (0) Non-Use, (I) Orientation, (II) Preparation,