ED 326 203 IR 014 744 AUTHOR Honey, Margaret; Moeller, Babette TITLE · 2013-11-23 · DOCUMENT RESUME. ED 326 203. IR 014 744. AUTHOR Honey, Margaret; Moeller, Babette. TITLE. Teachers

DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 326 203 IR 014 744

AUTHOR Honey, Margaret; Moeller, Babette

TITLE Teachers' Beliefs and Technology Integration:Different Values, Different Understandings.Technical-Report-No. 6.

INSTITUTION Center for Technology in Education, New York, Y.

SPONS AGENCY Office of Educational Research and Improvement (ED),Washington, DC.

PUB DATE Aug 90

CONTRACT 1-135562167-Al

NOTE 16p.

PUB TYPE Reports - Research/Technical (143)

EDRS PRICE MF01/PC01 Plus Postage.

DESCRIPTORS *Adoption (Ideas); Educational Change; ElementarySecondary Education; Instructional Innovation;*Interviews; *Media Adaptation; *Microcomputers;*Program Implementation; *Teacher Attitudes

ABSTRACTThis study was designed to examine how teachers'

beliefs and values influence the successful integration ofmicrocomputers into the curriculum. Semi-structured interviews with20 teachers were conducted in elementary, middle, and high schools inone urban and one suburban district in New York State and responses

were catPgorized into four groups: (1) Progressive Practice and

Successful Technology Integration; (2) Progressive Practice andTechnological Ambivalence; (3) Traditional Practice and Technological

Reluctance; and (4) Progressive Practice and Lack of Opportunity.Each group was examined in terms of classroom practices andeducational objectives, teachers' perceptions of themselves and theirstudents, conceptualizing the relationship between technology andeducation, integrating technology into the curriculum, how teachersgot involved with technology, facilitating factors, deterringfactors, and envisioning future classroom environments. Resultsindicate that unitss teachers are personally ambivalent aboutcomputers or have lacked the opportunity to get involved withcomputer technology, their educational beliefs play an important role

in how they choose to appropriate and make use of technologies in

their classroom:. (14 references) (DB)

Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be madefrom the original document.

U S OEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONOffice of Edo Citron& Re Searcy nd improvement

EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATIONCENTER IERICI

%This document has been reproduced asreceived from the person or organization-r ginating

; Minor changes have been made to ImprovereproduCt100 Qualify

Points of wove of Opinions stated in the doc ument do not necesaanly represent officialOERI position or policy

Teachers' Beliefs and

Technology, Integration:

.Different Values,

Differeiii tindetstandings

Margaret Hone's), arid Babette Moeller:

BANK STREET COLLEGEOF EDUCATION

610 WEST 112th STREET

NEW YORK, NY 10025

0

"PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THISMATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY

Katherine McMillan

TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER IERICI"

FR

.

k4 .`,.::,1,,i,;,'",

's''' 'IT' , s':,"\*;%::,,,,,": f \'''''.., '`''''

,5 ,

Wk\''''Zk`\'''''''''

,Vs'H '''.: .''''''`,'` ',.,,` .,:s .4kk'k''''' \',.

'rr i 1 1 I i

s'lz\' , .,. X ,,,,\

, ':\.,

-,,>. .,,,". .,,s; , ,, ,, ,,,:s'' '`''r i' .'.' .' ''' ,;,:.s.,,,'",,,

I ' 0

\l'... sr's. .;,, ' ',.,' ,,,,:1,,,,0 .r....:,`,., ,'", ,,,,..,,,`v,,A,

:411kA 1

.S.. ,....., ::,..":":7..r. , ,

Margaret Honey and Babette Moeller

INTRODUCTION

The goal of this study was to ex :alore teachers'thinking on how and why :-.ey do or do not._ise information technologies in their class-rooms Are there d iscernible patterns in howteachers talk about their classroom practices

and educational objectives that appear to eitherfacilitate or detract from the integration of technol-ogy into their curricula? What, in turn, can we cullfrom this information that will enable teachers, schools,and districts to integrate technology into educationalenv ironmeots in deep and meaningful ways?

Background

Studies on the effective adaptation of computers intothe curriculum have focused on what teachers need tosuccessfully make use of microcomputer technology(Hess & Miura, 1984, 1986; Martin, 1987; Sheingold,Martin, & Endreweit, 1987). We know, for example,that teachers require training not only in how to usethe technology, but inhowspecificapplicationscanbeintegrated into ongoing curriculum activities

The a:4thors would like to expres their to thr tea, hersand administrators who pa rt icipated in thts tudy

The work upon which this publication is based was suppor tedby the Center for Technology in Education under Grant No 1-135562167-Al from the Office of Educational Research and hn-provement, LI S. Department of Education.

(Hawkins, 1990, Martin, 1987, Schofield & Verban,1988, Watt & Watt, 1986). In addition, we ha ve learnedthat teachers need support from department heads,admin i strators, and district personnel in order to planand schedule lessons and review materials that willhelp them develop and implement successful uses ofcomputer technology (Hawkins & Sheingold, 1986;Loucks & Hall, 1982; Martin, 1987, Wiske, 1987).Finally, we know that teacheN need an array of re-sources ranging from technical support (e.g., how touse hardware and software, how to diagnose equip-ment problems) to adequate information about existingapplications in order to be able to make meaningfuluse of computer-based technologies (Hawkins, 1990).

Al though there have been studies suggesting thatteachers adoptipnovat ions in light of their goals andbeliefs, this research has not been extended to exairunehow teachers' beliefs and values influence the suc-cessful integration of microcomputers into the cur-riculum. For example, there is substantial literature onteachers' pedagogical judgments and decision makingin general (e g , Clark & Peterson, 1986; Shavelson,1983; Shavelsen & Stern, 1981; Shulman, 1987), yet

t tle is known about the role that teachers' pedagogicalbeliefs and values play in shaping their relationship toinformation technologies as they function in the in-structional context. We believe that such an investi-gation is useful in laying the groundwork tor sup-porting new learning practices.

irech. Rep. No. 6 August 1990

METHODOLOGY

Overview

We conducted interviews with twenty teachers whoeither used or did not use computer technologies intheir classroom. The interviews were conducted inelementary, middle, and high schools in two districtsin New York State. One district was urban, located inBrooklyn, with a largely working-class, raciallydiversestudentbody. The otherdistrict was suburban, locatedin affluent Westchester county, with a largely white,upper-middle-class population of students.

Both districts had made special efforts to promotethe use of information technologies in their schools,including hiring district computer coordinators, con-ducting training workshops for teachers, and bri ngingin outside consultants to advise on the development oftheir technology programs. More recently, these dis-tricts have undertaken special efforts to move awayfrom the lab-based computer literacy model of tech-nology, toward the integration of computer applica-tions into the curriculum.

Sample

Our initial contact with both sites was through theirdistrict computer coordinators. We explained that wewere interested in interviewing two groups of teach-ers. First, we wanted to talk to teachers who hadsuccessfully integrat 'el information technologies intothe ongoing work of their classrooms. Our interest inthis group of teachers reflected a particular point ofview concerning the ways information technologiescoulld be most effectively used in educational settingsfor high-quality teaching and learning. While we wereaware that there were practitioners who used infor-mation technologies in a myriad of ways, we wantedto speak with teachers who did not use technology toreplace large segments of their curriculum, but ratherused it as an integral part of their teaching to enhance,supplement, and enlarge what they could do in par-ticular subject areas. Second, we asked to interviewteachers who had had the same opportunities as theircolleagues to get involved with using informationtechnologies but had elected not to do so.

In the suburban district, the computer coordina-tor arranged for us to carry out Interviews in twoelementary schoolsthe junior high and the highschool. In this district, we spoke with three teachers

who had elected not to use computers and six teacherswho were deeply involved in using information tech-nologies. In the urban d istrict, the computer coord Mo-tor arranged for us to contact the principals at twoelementary schools and one junior high school, and itwas through the principals or assistant principals thatwe arranged to interview teachers a, these three lo-cations. In this district, we spoke to six teachers whowere no t using computers in their classrooms and fivewho were.

Our contacts in these districts selected teachersfrom a vthiety of disciplines, including language nts,computerscience, math, biology, social studies, history,art, special education, and media arts.

The teachers were experienced practitioners; therewere only two individuals who had been teaching forless than ten years. The high-tech teachers had beenpracticing an average of 18.2 years, with a range of 6months to 36 years. The low-tech teachers who werenot using information technologies had been practic-ing an average of 18.7 years, with a range of 3 to 32years.

Interview Guide

With both groups of teachers, we used a semi-struc-tured interview format in which they were asked todiscuss a number of questions that fell under fourheadings: (I) general classroom practices and educa-tional objectiN es; (2) the relationship between tech-nology and education; (3) technology in the classroom;and (4) classrooms of the future. All interviews weretape recorded and were approximately 45 minutes inlength.

The interview guides for high-tech and low-techteachers differed only in the questions we asked in thethird section. For those teachers involved with tech-nology, we asked them to describe how they werecurrently using computers in their classrooms, howthey came to be involved with using computers, andwha t factors facilitated or deterred their involvement.With those teachers who did not use computers, weexplored why they had elected not to do so as part oftheir current practices.

Data Analysis

The goal of the data analysis was to determine whetherthere were discernible patterns in teachers' pedagogi-cal beliefs and practices that appeared to either facili-

2

August 1990 Tech. Rep. No. 6

tate or detract from the integration of technology intotheir classroom practices. For this purpose, we paidclose attention to the themes that emerged in differentsegments of the interviews for high-tech versus low-tech teachers. Each interview was transcribed andthemes were recorded and tabulated on a question-by-question basis.

The analyses focused on five general topics. First,we explored whether high-tech versus low-techteachers differed in terms of their general classroompracticesandeducational objectives. Did these teachersemploy progressive educational practices, such as theuse of inquiry and discovery skills, project-orientedwork, and hands-on activities? Or did these teachers'practices reflect a more traditional approach to edu-cation, such as teaching from the textbook or teachingto the test? Second, we looked at teachers' perceptionsof themselves and their students. Did they view them-selves as learners? Did they see teaching as an interac-tive process in which they both conveyed informationto and learned from their students? Had their practiceschanged over time? Third, we examined how thesetwo groups of teachers conc ep tua li zed the relationshipbetween technology and education. Fourth, we lookedat how the high-tech teachers went about integratingtechnology into their curricula and what factors facili-tated or detracted from this process, and we exploredthe reasons why the low-tech teachers opted not to useinformation technologies. Finally, we examined howthese two groups of teachers envisioned future class-room environments. We identified themes in each ofthese topic areas and then examined the data to de-termine whether there was a relationship betweenteachers' general educational objectives and their be-liefs and practices regarding the use of informationtechnologies in their classrooms.

FINDINGS

Based on this analysis, we found that the teachers weinterviewed could be grouped under four generalheadings. First, the high-tech teachers represented afairly homogeneous group with respect to their peda-gogical beliefs and practices. These teachers werefrom both districts and, despite the very differentcircumstances in which they were teaching, they werea group of practitioners who had used their student-centered goals and beliefs (e.g., inquiry methods,collaborative learning, hands-on pr3ctices) to stimu-

late the creative use of computer-based technologiesin their classrooms.

The low-tech teachers, on the other hand, tendedto be more heterogeneous as a group. They could becharacterized by three different orientations towardthe use of information technologies. First, there wereteachers whose educational beliefs were student-cen-tered, like those of the high-tech teachers, but theywere reluctant to use information technologiesbecauseof personal fears and inhibitions. Second, there wereteachers whose classroom practices and educationalobjectives were much more trad i tionally based. Theseteachers were reluctant to use computers for twoprincipal reasons: On the one hand, they feared thatthe technology migh t alter their relationship of controland authority with their students; on the other, theyfelt overwhelmed by the number of city-mandatedrequirements and, thus, that they did not have time tospare for additional activities. Finally, there wereteachers whose practices tended to be student-centeredand who would have liked to use computers in theirclassrooms, but either theequipment was no t availableor they had problems scheduling time in the computerlab.

By paying particular attention to teachers' peda-gogical beliefs, we will profile these four groups ofteachers in separate sections:Progressive Practice andSuccessful Technology Integration; Progressive Prac-tice and Technological Ambivalence; TraditionalPractice and Technological Reluctance; and Progres-sive Practice and Lack of Opportunity.

Progressive Practice and SuccessfulTechnology Integration

Classroom Practices andEducational Objectives

All of the high-tech teachers were skilled profes-sionals who were engaged in quality educationalpractices such as collaboration, project-oriented work,and hands-on activities with their students. They dis-cussed wanting to instill a sense of curiosity and adesire to learn in their students. Several of the teach-ers, particularly those involved in special education,chose to employ methods that were geared toward theneeds of individual studen ts, while others emphasizodcollaborative work. There was uniform agreementamong teachers from both districts that students

Techimaki. 6August 1990

needed to be able to think for themselves and in acritical fashion. These practitioners down played theteaching of facts in favor of e n inquiry-based or dis-covery mode of learning among their students. Forexample, a teacher from the suburban district definedher objectives in the following terms:

Probably our primary goal in both subjectareas [math/science] is to instill a sense ofcuriosity into the kidsto get them to want tofind things out. So a goal would not be to giveout a lot of informationthat's not one of thethings we're after. We're after getting kids towant to find out answers and trying to equipthem with the best possible tools to find thoseanswers.

Teachers' Perceptions ofThemselves and Their Students

This high-tech group of teachers viewed all studentsas potential learners who had different styles of learn-ing and different learning requirements. As one urbanteacher said,

I believe that any child can learn anythingin this world if they set their mind to it. Nochild is limited by his intelligence. A childdoes not necessarily have to learn by onemodality. A child can learn by other modali-ties. If a child cannot learn from a printedpage, they can learn aurally or visually.

These teachers also described themselves aslearners and talked about their teaching practices ashaving changed over time. In particular, they stressthe importance of developinga nd changing i n responseto their students' needs. Many of these teachers dis-cussed abandoning their initialuse of more traditionalmethods, such as teaching from the textbook, in favorof engaging their students in project-oriented andgroun-based activities. In addition, a number of theseteachers pointed out that with experience comes anincrease in self-confidence. As a result, they tended toworry less about creating the "perfect' lesson andplaced more trust in solving problems with their stu-dents. As one suburban teacher said:

How have I evolved as a teacher? I'm notso worried any longer that something is glitch-free. We'll work it out together. The old mewasn't free enough to take that chance.

Conceptualizing the RelationshipBetween Technology and Education

Not surprisingly, these teachers viewed the relation-ship between techno!ogy and education as an ex-tremely viable and proeuctive one. They believed thattechnology was most valuable when thought of as atool that functioned as facilitating resource to sup-port and enhance activities that were currently takingplace in the classroom. In their view, technology andthe curriculum mutually influenced and enhancedeach o ther. One of the ui ban teachers whowas workingwith a number of differ Nit technologiesdescribed therelationship between technology and education in thefollowing te

I don't see technology asa replacement forthe teacher in the front of the room. I usecomputersas part of the curriculum, toenhanceit, to put things together. The camera enhanceswhat's going on . . . to communicate throughmoving pictures. When we put together avideo, we have to mix music, etc. Technologyis used extensively, but it cannot exist by itself.

In addition to regarding technologyas a facilitat:ngtool, many of the teachers in this group spoke abouttechnology as an inevitable fact of contemporary ex-istence; as a result, they strongly believed that in orderfor their students to be competitive in the world thovhad to be comfortable with using information-basedtechnologies. Asa junior high schoolcomputer teacherfrom the urban district said,

I really feel that everybody is going to beusing computers, either in their job or some-how in their life in the future. The youngsterstoday have to be comfortable with that. Theyhave to be able to use these computers to theirbest advantage.

Integrating Technologyinto the Curriculum

Of the five urban district teacherswe interviewed,three had access to two or more computers in theirclassrooms and two took their students to a lab to usethe machines. In the suburban district, three teachershad two or more computers in their classrooms andthree took their classes to computer labs.

Regardless of whether used computers in alab or classroom setting, au if these teachers had

4

August 1990 rit Tech. Rep. No. 6,

worked hard to integrate the technology into theirongoing curriculum. They used technology as an inte-gral part of their regular classroom work, and thesoftware they worked with was designed to enhanceand/or facilitate specific curricular objectives thatwere already in place. For the most part, these teacherswere using tool-based software that enabled theirstudents to undertake creative writing projects, pub-lish newspapers, create magazine covers, explore mathproblems through the use of spreadsheets,and pursuescience questions with microcomputer-based labora-tories.

A special-skills teacher from the suburba n di strictillustrated how she was collaborating with classroomand art teachers to make the computer an integral partof the fifth grade curriculum in her school:

Two of our fifth grades, as part of our localhistory project, have been studying architec-ture and they had the children, along withtheir art teacher, take pictures of their homes.They're making clay models of their homesand then up here [resources room] they'vebeen using Logowriter to draw their homes.They've been creating programs that will atthe touch of a button create their house. Nowthat we have the color printer on loan for aweek, they've been printing them out. Theywrite a paragraph [using the Bank StreetWriter] on the flip side about how their housematches their architectural styles. There are alot of possibilities forextension that we are justbeginning to see and I think we've come a longway in a year.

In another example, a computer resource teacherfrom the urban district ran a class that was designed tohelp students create publications based on work theywere doing in their classes or as part of extra-curricularprojects:

I have a group that meets with me at 8:00in the morning. We're notdue in until 8:40,butI have children who come at 8:00 in themorning. They're learningdesktop publishing.We're publishing a newspaper that one of theother classes is writing, and we are publishinga science bulletin and anything else that stu-dents are writing. We use PageMaker and theMacintosh computer and the LaserWriter tomake a professional publication. These kids

love it...they want extra time and they doenjoy it.

When these teachers used content-based software,they tended to avoid drill and practice or CAI softwareand worked with programs that supported theirpedagogical beliefs. Not surprisingly, the particularsof what they were doing varied depending on thesubject matter they were teaching. For example, in ahigh-school math class the teacher tied the use of thecomputer into helping his students understand theprinciples that underlay quadratic functions. As hesaid:

I tie it [the computer] into discovery. Forinstance, if I was teaching a tenth grade classthe graphing of quadratic functions .. . and Isay let's go to the software and do the graph.Then we look at it and I say, "What seems tohappen?" They notice that it gets fatter andskinnier and so on, and then we work on that.We form generalizations and they draw theirown conclusions.

In at least two instances, teachers chose to usetechnological applications (e.g., The Voyage of the Mimi)that promoted the meaningful integration of technol-ogy across curriculum areas. As one of the urbanteachers explained:

For me the Mimi can be an entire day'slesson. I can do reading, social studies, sci-ence, math. For example, I did Celsius andFahrenheit [today]. We used the computer[the temperature probe] for measuring andwe did the conversion of Celsius and Fahrenheit, we watched the videos, we had thequestions down, we did the vocabulary. Thisis a holistic approach, every subject area isbeing taught within one curriculum frame-work.

In addition to the specifics of what they weredoing with information technologies, there waswidespread belief among teachers from both districtsthat the use of technologies could expand students'horizons and make learning more fun and meaning-ful. They also claimed that using technology hadenabled them to make some desired changes in theirteaching.Specifically, they spoke of having more timeto help individual students; they said that their teachingcould take ona new quality (e.g., more process-orientedthan content-oriented); and they spoke about the fact

S 5

Tech. Re.. No. 6 .0 August 1990

that technology could help them implement desirededucational practices, such as small-group work andproject-oriented activities.

How Teachers GotInvolved with Technology

Although the teachers in this group had receiveddifferent types of support for their involvement withcomputers, ranging from inservice training to univer-sity-taught courses, for the most part they were self-taught. They shared the characteristic of being highlymotivated individuals who were eager to enhancetheir teaching skillsby learningabou t a new technologythat they saw as potentially valuable. All of theseteachers were involved in using computers outside ofschooleither to do additional school-based work oras part of their personal lives.

The more specific reasons why these practitionersbecame involved with compu ters tended to vary acrossseveral dimensions. Four of the teachers, all of whomwere practicing in the suburban district, said theybegan using information technologies in response totheir students' growing interest in computers. Inparticular, they wanted to be informedto be able toprovide their students with knowledgeable answersto theirquestions. A juniorhigh math teacher describedhis experience as follows:

I thought unless I do somethingabout this[about knowing computers), the kids are go-ing to be having questions and I'm not goingto know what's going on. So at the end of theyear, I asked the principal and the district-1said I'd like to learn something about com-puters. They paid me for three weeks. I got acomputer and locked myself in a room andtaught myself. And what happened was therewasn't anybody else in the school who knewanything about it except the math aide.Eventually, the morel learned, the more peopledepended on me and I just sort of evolved intothe person who knew.

Two other teachers from the suburban group de-scribed a situation in which "computers were more orless thrust on" them, but they both said that theyquickly realized what valuable learning tools themachines could be for their students.

The teachers in the urban district had more diverse1.easons for getting involved with information tech-nologies. Two of the teachers spoke of their need to

constantly change and modify what they did in orderto keep their classroom practices exciting and inter-esting. A sixth grade classroom teacher described herinterest in innovations this way:

You have to understand that most old-time teachers are not willing to accept change,and this is where you are going to comeacrossa problem, because most people who havebeen teaching as long as I have do not want tochange. They are thinking in terms of retire-ment, thinking in terms of "I just want to getthrough the next couple of years in the sameway," and I'm thinkingI get bored veryeasily, which is why I change constantly. Iwelcome anything. Every year I try somethingelse for that reason.

These teachers took it upon themselves to approachthe computer magnet teacher in their school and askthat computers be placed in their classrooms.

Two other teachers, also from the urban district,became interested because their own children hadcomputers at home and they saw how excited theywere by them.

Finally, another teacherhad acquired an extensivebackground in a number of different technologies onhis own, including computers, video, video editing,voice synthesizers, and photography. His school ap-plied for and received a gran', to become a magnet siteand he was selected by the local school board to fill themagnet teacher position.

Facilitating Factors

All six of the teachers we interviewed from the sub-urban district talked about the importance of admin-istrative and district-wide support for their technologyprograms. In particular, they mentioned their localteachers' institute, which provided a forum whereteachers could share ideas, take courses, and writeproposals to solicit money for trainingand curriculumdevelopment. In addition, the commitment on thepart of this district to institute a technology programwas exceedingly high, and outside computer expertswere brought in to run a series of workshops andseminars with interested teachers. Oneof these teachersdescribed the district's commitment in the followingterms:

The district went gung ho over [institutingtechnology-related programs]. We said, "We

6

August 1990 Tech. Rep. No. 6

want to do this and we want to do it the rightway." We didn't jump into it and say,"Everybody's getting a machine." We said,"We have a five-year plan." We really didwell, we had goals set up that we wanted toreach and we set a test of the rules. We tried itout on people who were interested, and thenwe spread it out a little bit as people got morecomfortable, and then it sort of grew like alittle monster. And it's still growing!

The suburban teachers also felt that they weretreated as professionalsthey spoke of being given agreat deal of freedom to undertake their own initiatives,of the importance of having a number of resources attheir disposal, including technical support and ad-equate supplies of hardware and software, and ofLeing well-paid.

Teachers in the urban district were again morediverse. Although there clearly was district-widesupport for the use of technology, teachers tended toanswer this question by speaking about the immedi-ate s.:hools they were practicing in, their colleagues, orpersonal reasons. Factors that facilitated their in-volvement tended to vary from having a supportivementor in the school who was available to trouble-shoot and answer questions, to having a supportiveadministration, to simply overcoming personal resis-tance, such as an initial fear of the machine.

One junior high teachcr described her experiencein the following way:

There was a teacher therein the beginning,just to help me outto show me how to usecomputers. But now I go on my own and it'sgreat. And if there's a problem I can feel myway . )und it, I can figure it out.

Deterring Factors

Despite the enthusiasm with which they embraced theuse of information technologies, this high-tech groupmentioned a range of specific factors that acted asdeterrents in their learning about computer technol-ogy. These included having initially to learn on theirown, having to overcome issues of fearand inadequacy,problems with hardware breaking down, a too smallcomputer-to-student ratio, lack of time to developnew applications, and problems with having to pur-chase equipment through the guidelines establishedby New York City's Board of Education.

Envisioning FutureClassroom Environments

Finally, when asked to envision an ideal classroomenvironment, these teachers imagined technology-rich environments in which the resources at theirdisposal would further enhance their students' workand their own teaching practices. Although the subur-ban teachers were more likely than the teachers fromthe urban district to acknowledge that they wereworking under fairly optimal circumstances, they alsomentioned wanting additional resources, includingVCRs, TVs, laserdiscs, and an adequate number ofnetworked computers (preferably one for every stu-dent).

In addition to increased technological resources,the technology-using teachers from the urban districtspoke of other changes they would make, includinglarger classrooms, smaller class sizes, phones in theirrooms, and less bureaucracy.

Progressive Practice andTechnological Ambivalence


There were three teachers who fell into this category:two were from the suburban district where one taughtsocial studies at the junior high school and the othertaught history at the high school; the third teachertaught math to ninth grade students in the urbandistrict.

These teachers sounded very much like those inthe high-tech group when they talked about theirclassroom practices and educational objectives. Forexample, the urban math teacher described his goalsin the following terms:

What I try to do is instill a feeling ofsatisfaction for the work that they've accom-plished, for the work they can accomplish,and a healthy attitude toward learning ingeneral. I really see mathematics as a verysecondary thing that I do in school. My first jobis to instill a feeling for learning, and a com-fortable feeling, and a feeling that success isobtainable.

Similarly, the high school history teacher discussedthe objectives he held for his students:

I ) 7

Tech. Rep. No. 6August 1990

I want them to understand how historyworks, so I get real far away from names anddates and things. I want them to come awaywith the joy of it. I guess I want them to comeaway with a sense of their own power, thatthey can figure out stuff. I want them to knowwhat a historian does, which is different fromknowing what history does.


Like the practitioners in the high-tech group, theseteachers said that their practices had changed andevolved over time. They spoke about becoming morerelaxed and trusting their students; they discussedswitching from more traditional methods to ones thatwere more interactive and interpretive; and theymentioned the importance of learning from theirstudentsand modifying their practices accordingly. Inone case, a teacher made significant changes in hispractices because of a conversation he had had with avalued student:

I had this young man in the class who wasa very interesting kid. . . . At the end of thesecond year he said to me, "You know this hasbeen really wonderful, you can keep five ballsin the air at once. When are you going to teachthe students how to do it?" And that reallymade me thinkit was a moment in my lifewhere! thought, he's right.... So I began to tryto find ways, first of plugging in primarysource material into my classes. . . . I puttogether a bunch of primary source documentson Reconstruction and gave them to the kidsand said, "O.K., what happened?" I brokethem into groups of four and five and each hadto write their history of Reconstruction. Theyall came up with different sorts of interprta-tions. And then I began, at the same time, tomove toward doing more and more simula-tions. I guess I keep finding new things to dowith my teaching.

Teachers' Reluctance toUse Information Technologies

Despite the fact that in terms of their pedagogicalbeliefs these practitioners sounded almost identical tothe high-tech teachers, it became clear in the course of

our interviews that their reluctance to get involvedwith computers stemmed from a deep-seated personalambivalence about the technology itself.

For the math teacher this ambivalence took theform of an outright fear of the technology, along witha sense that he had no point of entry into a culture thatwas foreign to him:

Unfortunately, in my own education, Ipredate all of the technology that's taughttoday. I have absolutely no background incomputers and I'm very frightened of them,quite frankly. I've taken no steps to learnsomething which I feel I should have, but Ihaven't... . It's a whole new language, thereare so many aspects of it which seem so strangeand foreign to me.... I just don't know whereto start at this point. It's a new language, it's anew culture, and I sort of feel like if I close myeyes it's going to go away.

The history teacher gave two reasons for his reluc-tance to get involved with computer technology. Onthe one hand, he felt that he lacked a certain techno-logical know-how, and on the other, his first intro-duction to computers had pi oved to be a very negativeexperience.

First, I think that there must be somethingin my makeup that makes me unable to visu-alize how to play with machines . . . I'm nothandy. I can't change a tire. can't dc al iy ofthat stuff. AnotherI don't know what or.: erthey're in, but they'fe all part of the samepictureis that my first experience here withcomputers was really bad.1A university pro-fessor came here and taught a seminar], it wasall thwretical, we neverdid anything. The ideawas that you would first understand all thetheory.

Finally, despite the fact that for the social studiesteacher word processing would greatly facilitate theprofessional writing that he did, he remained extremelyreluctant to use computer technology.

I write a great deal. I think that there are atleast forty books that I've had published, andof course my publisher wants me to get a wordprocessor. He says, "It will be so good for you,it'll be easier for you." I just can't seem tobelieve that that would be good for me. I justwant to get in front of that typewriter.

8

August 1990 Tech. Rep:No. 6


It was also apparent that the vision these practitionershad concerning the relationship between technologyand education was affected by a lack of adequateexamples concerning the use of computers in theirrespective disciplines. For instance, whereas the socialstudies teacher was enthusiastically involved in usinga variety of low-end" technologies with his stu-dentsincluding slides and prerecorded videos, aswell as music and other recordingshe had not secninteresting examples of how he could use computersin his classes. In his own words:

I find that the greatest thing in the worldis being able to show motion picture eventsthat the kids read in the textbookthey see thepeople themselves and what's going on, howthey dress, how they talk, and how they move.I use these photo aids for practically everytopic. . . . I use a great deal of music of theperiodthe lyrics of songs are a very impor-tant historical source. [These technologies] area very crucial vehicle to teach, but I've neverbeen able to see how I could use a computer.

The high school history teacher, whose character-ization of technology as a "handmaiden" to the edu-cational process sounded very much like the teachersin the high-tech group, had no vision, however, ofhow computers could be used to function in thiscapacity. And the math teacher's ideas concerning asuccessful partnership between technology and edu-cation was limited by his association of technologywith the shop department.


The fact that these teachers did not have adequate orexciting models for how technology could be used intheir classrooms also influenced how they ervisionedan ideal work environment. With the exception of themath teacher, who said, "There would probably becomputers somewhere in the back, but I won't be therefor it, the technology will be available for the kids,"none of the teachers mentioned wanting informationtechnologies in their classrooms. The social studiesteacher was content with what he had, stating that hewas well paid, had more than adequate resources, andwas content to "have an audience four times a day" for

which he could perform. The history teacher talkedabout wanting a larger physical space, as well as chairsthat were mobile and blackboards that covered allfour walls of the room. He also spoke about wantingto have specific low-end technologies, such as slideprojectors, tape recorders, and video, so that he couldcall forth specific historical information.

Traditional Practkes andTechnological Refuscl


There were four teachers who tell into this ca tegory, allof whom were working in the urban district. Two ofthe teachers taught fifth grade, one taught seventhgrade social studies, and one taught ninth grade math.Their pedagogical beliefs and the practices they em-ployed reflected a more conventional philosophy ofeducation. They used traditional methods in theirteaching, such as following the rou tines of the textbookor ut-ing a lecture fc.rmat. A social studies teacherdescribed his work in the following terms:

My purpose is to follow, basically, theroutines of the textbook that's given to us byour administration. I try to follow it as close aspossible to the time schedule, making excep-tions for holidays and stuff like that. We workon that each day and then we'll have some.kind of test at the end of the week and that justreflects if the kids have really followed thelesson and done their homework studying

In addition, these teachers placed less ot n em-phasis ori the process of learning and more on theirstudents' ability to pass city-wide examinations. As afifth grade classroom teacher expl ained

In general I am very structured. I em-phasize discipline first. The first thing teach-ers must have is control. I place stress onreading and math city-wide tests. I try to getkids working at their own level of potential.Those kids who are ix't tor tend to get pushedmore.


Rather than believing in the potential of all students,these teachers also made a distinction between stu-

9

Tech. Rep., No.:6August 1990

dents who wanted to 'earn and thosewho they felt hadbasically given up or had no interest in learning. A.;one teacher phrased the problem:

I've seen that there are some kids, somegroups of kids, that no matter what you do tothem, no matter how much you try to helpthem, they 11 never want to accept the work,they'll never take it seriously. And you canspoon feed it to them, and they still won'tretain anything, or if they do it's so temporaryit's ridiculous.

Finally, in contrast to the other teachers in thisstudy, these pr?ditioners said that there had been nosignificant changes in their teaching practices. Theystarted off teaching a certain wayand theymo re or lessmaintained the same practices over time. When theyspoke about change it was in terms of what they wererequired to teach or the students they -were teaching.As one teacher explained:

I've had to change what I expect of Inly5tudents). If I have a bad class and I give thanan exam and they don't do as well on theexamas I had hoped, I don't blame myself anymore.

Another teacher said:

For the last seven years I've been in aRegents program and 1 fed I've become moleof a high school teacher and it's more of alecture. ... I'm a very structured person andthe kids will say, "You're too straight." I havea certain structure that I've always followedand that hasn't changed.

Teachers' Reluctance toUse Information Technologies

In part, these practitionerswere reluctant to get in-velved with technology }eause theywere a f raid thatit would disrupt their classroom practices. As oneteacher stated:

With 31 children it is not realistic to usecomputers. The kids who are working on thecomputer are missing the class lesson, andwhen am I supposed to make this up? All theydo is play with the computer and miss classinstruction. If they are playing, they are netlearning. The computer is basically a disrup-tion that doesn't really teach anything.

She felt that if computers were to be used at all itshould be in the form of whole-group lessons in a labsetting.

Another teacher talked about her fear that com-puters would alter her relationship of authority to herstudents:

I guess, basically, I'm a fraidl'in afraidtha t I'm going to make a mistake and the kidswill have an upper hand. Kids who don't evenhave computers, they can go in, they can lookat it, and all of a sudden [they get it). I guessI'm trying to get it so perfect, and they're justdoing it naturally.

In addition, the teachers in thisgroup complainedof a lack of time to get involved with computer tech-nology. One teacher explained tha t he was responsiblefor five classes a day and it was virtually impossiblefor him to find the time to review software and figureout how to use it in relation to his curriculum.Similarly,another teacher said:

1 feel there's reaPy no time for me to bringthem to use computers. I just don't see anyspace for it. You're pressed for time to fulfillwhat you have to do and I don't have time forIt.

Conceptualizing the RelationshipBetwcen Technology and Education

The conservativ:- vdagogical beliefs that character-ized thisgroup appeared to influencehow they thoughtin general about the relationship between technologyand education. They did not shale a vision of tech-nology asdeeply integrated into the curriculum. Theywere much more likely than the other teachers tosuggest that the most productive relationship betweentechnology and education existed when technologyfunctioned to reinforce individual children's basicskills oi to boost students' motivation. They tended tosee technology as a "special treat"an add-on to,rather than an enhancer of, the regular curriculum.


Finally, in imagining an ideal teaching environment, anumber of the themes that emerged in other segmentsof the interviews were reiterated. For example, one

10

August 1990 t Tech. Rep. No. 6

teacher talked about wanting an "ideal group of kids,"who

follow all the instructions, and if you tellthem to do homework they'll do homework. Ifyou tell them there's a test on Friday, they'llstudy for the test. That's an ideal group of kidsin my opinion.

These teachers also mentioned wanting bigger,more modern and more comfortable rooms, smallerclasses, and less bureaucracy. Finally, two of theseteachers said that in the future they would like to havemicrocomputers in their rooms. However, when askedwhat they would do with this technology, theseteachers did not have clear ideas and seemed to bed rawing an equationbctween "classroom of a 2 future"

and microcomputers.

Progressive Practice andlack of Opportunity


There were two teachers who fell into this category:one was a fourth grade classroom teacher from thesuburban district, and one taught science in the urbanjunior high school. In terms of their classroom prac-tices and educational beliefs, they sounded very muchlike their colleagues in the other student-centeredgroups. The elementary teacher descnbed how he ranhis classroom:

It's kind of like a forum. It's the concept ofcoming to a town meeting, examining a par-ticular idea for the day, and tossing that around.And then there's a lot of support activities chatgo with ithands-on activities like building.nmething, or working in small groups toanswer some question and report back to thelarge group. It's trying to reach conclusionsand develop concepts.

The science teacher talked about her goalssimilar terms:

It's group activitiesit's always group.... It's really a collabora tion. Everybody workstogether, everybody has a job, and it reallyworks nicely. The kids take over the cla s-roomit's their room, not mine. It's fun. I likeit, they love it.

Teachers' Perceptons ofThemselves and Their Students

Like the other teachers whose beliefs and practiceswere student-centered, these practitioners also saidthat how they taught had changed over time:

I don't see myself as a director anymore,it's more of a facilitator. Just to spark some-thing when there seems to be kind of a lull, topush them a little farther, or to make themreach a little higher. A lot of thishas to do withblind trust. A lot of it's bee» experience.

I like my kids to want to come into theroom, I don't want to have to pull them in. Sothat's changeda better relationship with thekids, more openness in the room. Experienceis the best lesson.


In general, these teachers looked favorably on the useof information technclogies in education, and theclassroom teacher had created his own library of videos,which he used extensively in his teaching. They hadnot been directly involved with using computers be-cause of scheduling problems and a lack of availablemachines. Asa result, they had a limited understandingof how technologies could be incorporated into theirclassroom work. As the science teacher said:

I think in science computers should bemore of a reinforcement than a learning-by-doing. Learning-by-doing in science is hands-on. I have not yet seen a program in sciencewhere the kids will learn and retain what thecomputer is showing them. I think it's more oflet the teacher and let the classroom learn as agroup, then let's go to the computer room andreinforce it.

The chssroorn teacher had similar ideas about thein role that computers might play in his classroom:

Computers are a very valuable assistant.It would be like having another pair of handsor an assistant in the room. I can see it as a toolfor reinforcement. I could never give overtotally and say, "O.K., I'm not going to teachyou that so let the computer do it." I have aproblem with that concept.

11

I .1


However, when it came to imagining the kinds of idealenvironments in which they would like to practice,these teachers generated an array of rich and invitingimages. The classroom teacher said:

The idea of planning a perfect classroomis like a dream come true. I can see whereyou'd ha vea carpeted area with steps so you'dhave a kind of Greek forum. So, if we're talk-ing i t should beacoustically good, there wouldbe carpeting and you'd be able to hear a pindrop. I would like to have an area of the roomthat was totally accessible for video so the kidscould go downand sit in sr all groups in frontof a screen, so that I could have six kids theredoing one thing and have a talk group goingon over here that wouldn't even know thiswas happening. And I'd have an area withcomputers that would have proper lightingand the proper kind of work station. Andinstead of rickety tables, they would havestations where they could store ma tena ls andbe treated like this matters.

The science teacher described her ideal environ-ment as follows:

Very modern, very comfortable. Do awaywith these wooden desks and these woodenchai rs. Colorful and bright, and computersareavailable, and little science corner labs, andlittle ma th centers. Clean running water. Maybecarpeted. I would design a classroom thatwould be like a home to me, where I wouldwant to feel good. It would be cozywhenyou're comfortable you're happy.

DISCUSSION

The findings of this study suggest that for the teacherswe interviewed, there is a relationship between theireducational goals and objectives and the ways inwhich they are able to integrate computer-basedtechnologies into their ongoing classroom practices.Unless teachers are personally ambivalent aboutcomputers or have lacked the opportunity to get in-volved with computer technology, it appears thattheir educa tional beliefs play an important role in howthey choose to appropriate and make use of tech-nologies in their classrooms.

August 1990

As practitioners, the high-tech teachersappear tobe a highly motivated group, and the fact that theycontinue to perceive themsel ves as learners isno doubtan important motivational factor. These teachers wishto continue to grow and develop as professionals, andas a result they seek out new educational opportuni-ties and innovations. They are secure and comfortablein their rolesand are willing to learn from their students.

The high-tech teachers use their student-centeredpedagogical beliefs to facilitate the effective integrationof technology into their curricula. The teachers in thisgroup make conscious and deliberate efforts Zo findapplica tions that support the kindsof student-centeredpractices that prevail in theirclassrooms. Interestingly,these teachers also acknowledge that the technologyhas helped them to teach differently. Specifically, theyhave more time to help individual students, and incertain cases their teaching has taken on a new quality(e.g., more process-oriented than content-oriented).The technology has also helped them to implementdesired educational practices such as small-groupwork and project-oriented activities.

The low-tech teachers in this study represent amore diverse group than the high-tech teachers, andthe rola tionshipbet w een their pedagogical bel iefs andtheir reluctance to get involved with information-based technologies poses a different set of issues.

Those teachers whose practices are also student-centered, but whose relationship to technology is atbest ambivalent, appear to need certain kinds ofsupport services that the high-tech teachers may havewanted when they were first learningabout computers,but managed to do without. While these teachers, likethose in the high-tech group, are also highly moti vatedindividuals who perceive themselves as learners andare willing to develop and grow in relation to theirstudents, their anxiety about compu ters prevents themfrom appropriating the technology. If they wish toovercome their fear, they need to experience the rel-evance of information technologies to the work theydo in their classrooms and to other aspects of theirprofessional and personal lives. Because they have asensethat they are now outside the technoiogyculturesthat have arisen in their schools, they need to besupported in their learning within the context of thesecultures. These teachers need to have individuals whoare available and willing to serve as personal infor-mants and troubleshooters.

Similar support is needed by those teachers forwhom access to technology has been the principal

121 5

obstacle to effective integr.tion. Simply giving themmachines is not enough. Like the other low-tech stu-dent-centered teachers, these individuals carry ontheir work apart from the technology cultures thathave developed in their schools. While these teachersdo not have to overcome a technological phobia, theirinterviews make it cic ir that they would need adviceand support on how to integrate technology into theircurr;cula so that it becomes much more than just an"add-on."

For teachers whose educational beliefs and prac-tices are traditional, there exist different and muchmore complicated barriers for technology interpreta-tion. In order to integrate technology into their curriculaas the high-tech teachers have done, the very nature oftheir practices would have to change. In order to bringabout such change, however, different layers of theeducational system would have (o be effected, rang-ing from changing how assessment is done to helpingteachers rethink hew students learn and develop.

The issues facing teachers who are not using tech-nologies are different today than they were five or tenyears ago. For large numbers of teachers, computersare no longer novel objects, and many schools akeadyhave in place sophisticated technology cultures(Sheingold & Hadley, 1990). If teachers want to useinformation technologies, then the kinds of supportthey need will undoubtedly be different from thekinds of support that were necessary in the past. Hownonusers can be invited into these school-based tech-nology cultures, and how their colleagues can serve asinformants and instructors are issues that schools anddistricts will need to address. We recognize that theproblems are complex and that there is not a singlesolution that will meet the needs of all teachers and allschools. Districts not only need to continue to commitresources (money and people) to their technologyprograms, they also need to adopt strategies that areflexible enough to meet the very different needs ofvery different teachers.

References

Clark, C. M., & Peterson, P. L. (1986). Teachers' thoughtprocesses. In NI. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of researchon teaching (3rd Ed.). New York: Macmillan.

Hawkins, J. (1990). Design experiments: Integrating interactwetechnology into classrooms. Paper presented at the meet-ing of the American Educational Research Association,Boston, MA.

Hawkins, J., & Sheingold, K. (1986). The beginning of a story.Computers and the organization of learning in class-rooms. In J. A. Culbertson & L. L. Cunningham (Eds ),Microcomputers and education. Chicago. The Universityof Chicago Press.

Hess, R. D. dr Miura, I. T. (1984, February). Issues in trainingteachers to use microcomputers in the classroom: Examplesfrom the United States (Report No. 84-C2). Palo Alto, CA:Stanford University, Institute for Research on Educa-tional Finance and Governance.

Loucks, S., dr Hall, G. (1987). Assessing and facilitating theimplementation of innovations: A new approach.Educational Technology, 18-23.

Martin, L. M. W. (1987). Teachers' adoption of multimediatechnologies for science and mathematics instruction.In R. D. Pea & K. Sheingold (Eds.), Mirrors of minds:Patternsof experience in educational computing. Norwood,NJ: Ablex.

Schofield, J. W., & Verban, D. (1988). Barriers and incentives tocomputer usage in teaching (Tech. Rep. No. 1) Pittsburgh,

PA: University of Pittsburgh, Learning Research andDevelopment Center.

Shavelson, R. J. (1983). Review of research on teachers'pedagogical judgments, plans, and decisions. Elemen-tary School Journal, 83(4), 392-413.

Shavelson, R. J , & Stern, P. (1981). Research on teachers'pedagogical thoughts, judgments, decisions, and be-havior. Review of Educational Research, 51, 455-498.

Sheingold, K., & Hadley, M. (1990). Accomplished teachers:Integrating computers into classroom practices. New York:Bank Street College of Education, Center for Technol-ogy in Education.

Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Founda-tions of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57,1-22

Sheingold, K., Martin, L. M. W., & Endreweit, M. (1987).Preparing urban teachers for the technological future.In R. D. Pea & K. Sheingold (Eds.), Mirrors of minds:Patterns of experience in educational computing. Norwood,NJ: Ablex.

Watt, M., dr Watt, D. (1986). Making a difference withcomputers:Successfully integrating computertools intothe school curriculum. International Council for Comput-ers in Education.

Wiske, M. S. (1987). How technology affects teaching (Tech. RepNo. 87-10). Cambridge, MA. Harvard University,Graduate School of Education, Educational Technol-ogy Center.

I 613

Documents

ED 326 203 IR 014 744 AUTHOR Honey, Margaret; Moeller, Babette TITLE · 2013-11-23 · DOCUMENT RESUME. ED 326 203. IR 014 744. AUTHOR Honey, Margaret; Moeller, Babette. TITLE. Teachers