How to Order.vp

The Role of Educational Technology in Educational Leadership Programs 163

(III) Mechanical Use, (IVA) Routine, (IVB) Refinement, (V) Integration, and (VI) Renewal.
Because the CBAM-LoU is a single item survey, internal consistency reliability measures
cannot be calculated for data gathered through it. However, test-retest reliability estimates
have been found generally to fall in the range of .84 to .87 for elementary and secondary
school teachers (Knezek & Christensen, 1999).
The Stages of Adoption of Technology instrument is a single-item survey used to measure
the level of technology adoption and highlight trends over time. It was derived from the work
of Russell (1995) whose research involved assessing adults who were learning to use
electronic mail. Russell's stages included: (1) awareness, (2) learning the process, (3)
understanding the application of the process, (4) familiarity and confidence, (5) adaptation to
other contexts, and (6) creative applications to new contexts. In the Stages of Adoption of
Technology instrument (Christensen, 1997; Christensen & Knezek, 1999) the stage
descriptions are generalized to make them appropriate for any information technology. As
with the CBAM-LoU, the Stages of Adoption of Technology instrument is a single item
survey, thus internal consistency reliability measures cannot be calculated for data gathered
through it. However, high test-retest reliability estimates (.91–.96) have been obtained from
validation studies on Stages of Adoption (Knezek & Christensen, 1999).
Participants were from a large southern school district. A text file of names from each of
the two groups was loaded into a random sampling generator. An email was then sent to the
participants selected with a link to the instrument battery. As a result, this battery was sent to
100 randomly selected principals and 500 randomly selected teachers. These numbers
represented 65% of the total population of administrators within the district (100 out of 152)
and 16% of the total population of teachers within the district (500 out of 3,000). Eighty three
of the 100 principal surveys were completed for a response rate of 83% which represented
54% of the total population of administrators and 294 of the 500 were completed for a
response rate of 59% which represented 9.8% of the total population of teachers for the
district.

FINDINGS

The findings from this study indicate a significant difference in the level of technology
adoption between teachers and administrators within the sample. Teachers outperformed
administrators on both instruments with differences significant at the >.01 level for both
measures along with medium to strong effect sizes.
The mean score for administrators on the Stages of Adoption Instrument was 4.37 versus a
mean score for teachers of a 5.2 on the same instrument. Likewise, the mean score of
administrators on the CBAM instrument was a 4.01 versus a mean score for teachers of a 4.59
on the same instrument. These differences are illustrated in Table 1:

Table 1. Mean Scores for Stages of Adoption and CBAM.

Instrument

Job Role

N

Mean

Std.

Deviation

Std. Error

Mean

Stages of Adoption Administrators 83 4.37 1.454 .160

Stages of Adoption Teachers 294 5.2 .974 .057

CBAM Administrators 83 4.0181 1.33537 .14658

CBAM Teachers 294 4.5952 .99200 .05785