Both higher order factorsalbeit less so on the second

This preview shows page 9 - 12 out of 18 pages.

both higher order factors—albeit less so on the second higher-order factor—indicating overlap incontent).Therefore, although the DETAILS Survey clearly has validity as a unidimensional measure ofteachers’ levels of technology implementation, the results of higher-order factor analysis also suggest thatthe DETAILS Survey has validity in capturing five different (though somewhat interdependent)categories of technology implementation.As additional confirmation of the five-factor promaxian solution, oblique, multiple-group,
9principal-components cluster analysis (Harman, 1976) was conducted, whereby items were allowed togravitate to empirically defined dimensions that better accounted for item variance. As Table 1 reveals,the multipleR2values indicate that all but one item fit best within their hypothesized dimension incontrast to the next-best dimension. However, as observed in Table 1, the single item that failed to fit bestwith its hypothesized dimension had a separation of only .09 between its best and next-best dimensionfit—arguably a small enough value to lend support for the DETAILS Survey’s achieved five-factorstructure as a whole.Further confirmation of the DETAILS Survey’s five-factor solution occurred through invariancetesting with random split halves (n= 1,885) as well as three random subsamples (n= 1,200,n= 1,100,n= 1,000) derived from the full participant group (N= 3,770). Table 3 reveals the results of invariancetesting, which clearly indicates that the five-factor solution is replicable across multiple randomsubsamples of teachers who previously completed the original LoTi Survey.Conclusions and Next StepsGiven that the new DETAILS Survey contains five reliable and valid constructs, teachers nowhave a powerful empirically based tool for better understanding and prioritizing their professionaldevelopment needs and concerns regarding their classroom technology implementation.In terms of the DETAILS Survey’s empirical outcomes, the domains that did emerge asstatistically reliable and valid fall within one of two general categories: (a) confirmation of three of theoriginal LoTi Survey categories (Loti Level 0, Personal Computer Use and Current InstructionalPractices); and (b) establishment of two new conceptual frameworks for helping teachers understand theirtechnology implementation practices. Regarding the two newly established constructs (Factor 1: UsingTechnology for Complex Student Projects Requiring Problem Solving, Critical Thinking and Real WorldApplicability; and Factor 4: Dependence on Resources and Assistance to Increase Comfort Level in UsingTechnology), there are both empirical implications and practical realities to consider. As suggested by itsname, Factor 4 should certainly be used to help teachers better understand and more directly address their
10discomfort with using technology for instructional purposes. However, Factor 1 is of greatest importanceempirically, given its highly homogenous item content and resulting unidimensional structure—meaning

Upload your study docs or become a

Course Hero member to access this document

Upload your study docs or become a

Course Hero member to access this document

End of preview. Want to read all 18 pages?

Upload your study docs or become a

Course Hero member to access this document

Term
Fall
Professor
NoProfessor

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture