Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Education and Information Technologies 4:2 (1999): 113±128
# 1999 Kluwer Academic Publishers, Manufactured in The Netherlands
Some institutional in¯uences on secondary mathematicsteachers' use of computers
PAUL ANDREWS
School of Education, University of Cambridge, 17 Trumpington St., Cambridge, CB2 1QA, UK
E-mail: [email protected]
This paper discusses the manifestations of both schools' IT policies and available technical support as reported by
thirty-eight secondary teachers from different schools. Two categories of whole school policy were identi®ed. The
®rst insisted that IT should be taught by specialist teachers whilst the second devolved this responsibility to
subject areas. For a variety of reasons both were viewed as problematic. A minority of schools appeared to have no
coherent policy. Departmental policies, which were generally a consequence of the enthusiasms of an individual
or an impending school inspection, were rarely indicative of coherent views on the impact of computers on
teaching and learning. Teachers' computer usage was frequently dependent upon a willing and able IT coordinator
although few such colleagues had suf®cient time to offer support in systematic and consistent ways. A similar
story emerged in respect of IT technicians.
Key words: information technology, schools' IT policies, technical support, professional development, school
management
Introduction
Despite curricular documents urging them to do so there is evidence that fewer teachers
use computers in their teaching than national policies suggest should be the case (Pelgrum
and Plomp, 1993; McDonald, 1993). Indeed, commenting on the Dutch situation, Veen
(1993) observed that most teachers do `̀ little that could be described as exploiting the
overwhelming possibilities of information technology'' (p. 149).
The reasons for low levels of computer use are likely to be several. However, it is this
writer's perception that most can be categorised as either institutional or personal. In
respect of the latter there is evidence, for example, that personal attributes such as attitude
(Johnson, 1993; Brummelhuis and Plomp, 1993; Pelgrum, 1993), previous experience of
computers (Andrews, 1996), conceptions of software (Andrews, 1997a) and pedagogic
beliefs (Robinson, 1995) may in¯uence teachers' responses to calls for them to integrate
computers into their teaching. Unfortunately, successful computer integration requires
more than the acquisition of new skills and approaches, it necessitate teachers' reviewing
their `̀ existing conception of the teaching-learning process and of their pedagogic role
within it'' (Blease and Cohen, 1990, p. 29).
Many teachers appear ambivalent towards computersÐunable to reconcile professional
beliefs concerning the value of teacher-student interactions with perceptions of the
computer as teacherÐand this remains a signi®cant source of inertia (Somekh and
Davis, 1991). As Somekh (1992) notes,
`̀ . . . new technology constitutes an attack upon the self-image and professional values
of some individuals, because, . . . , computers may suggest an inhuman in¯uence in the
classroom and seem to promote pupil isolation'' (p. 157).
There are other, yet equally signi®cant, ideological and pedagogical issues which have
been well described by, for example, Chandler (1990) or Loveless and Longman (1998). In
short, however, a teacher's ability to incorporate computers into his or her teaching may be
susceptible to a variety of complex and frequently dif®cult to mediate personal character-
istics and dispositions.
Institutional in¯uences, also, appear to be many. Access to machines remains a problem
(Zammitt, 1992; Andrews, 1995; Byard, 1995) with widespread variation in the provision
available to individual schools (Watson, 1993). Also, despite government reports showing
continuing growth in the number of machines in schools, such ®gures frequently include a
`̀ long tail of obsolete or almost obsolete computers'' (Stevenson, 1997). Selwood (1988,
p. 3) observed that as teachers become aware of subject-speci®c possibilities `̀ demand for
access to the school's limited supply of computers'' increases. However, access to
computers has been exacerbated by almost all schools placing their machines in dedicated
suites (Wellington, 1987; Zammitt, 1992; Owen, 1992). Indeed, the creation of computer
laboratories has meant that `̀ teachers of non-computing subjects have in fact been denied
access or given only limited access'' (CERI, 1989, p. 20) to the extent that whole
departments have been dissuaded from using their schools' facilities (Wellington, 1988).
Professional preparation appears not to have been well managed (CERI, 1987) although
this may, in part, have been a consequence of the speed at which computers were integrated
into schools (Reinen and Plomp, 1993). Goldstein (1997), summarising recent UK schools
inspectors' reports, suggests that the situation is little improved and argues that `̀ the need
for most teachers to teach themselves how to use or teach IT'' (p. 11) has exacerbated the
problem. For many teachers the computer remains an innovation and a variety of
conditions will need to be met if their practices are to change. Indeed, according to
Phillips (1986) the use of computers will ¯ourish only within schools that encourage it.
Where there are expectations of professional development teachers respond well to new
challenges like computers (Vaughan, 1992). Such conditions require enlightened head-
teachers who advocate collaboration rather than competition between colleagues (Wideen,
1992; Day, 1993). They also necessitate headteachers' supporting the maintenance of
colleagues' professional self esteem during periods of transition (Leithwood, 1992) and
providing adequate time, training and technical support (Wideen, 1992; Veen, 1993).
Indeed, where principals lack insight and understanding, where there are poor attitudes
towards technology, computer integration will be limited (Veen, 1993; Pelgrum, 1993).
Such understanding includes an acknowledgement that teachers require time to adapt to
new ways of working. Too little time is a barrier to computer integration (Sherwood, 1993;
Brummelhuis and Plomp, 1993) whilst a lack of curricular strategy, even for competent
teachers, leads to many failing to use computers in their work (Heywood and Norman,
1988).
The evidence suggests that a teacher's ability, or willingness, to incorporate computers
into his or her classroom practice is susceptible to a variety of contextual, or institutional,
114 ANDREWS
in¯uences that are frequently outside the individual's sphere of in¯uence. It is on some of
these, and their pedagogic and professional implications, that this paper focuses.
Method
Thirty-eight teachers, from different secondary schools, were interviewed about their
experiences of computers in the teaching of mathematics. The schools were drawn from
the ten metropolitan authorities comprising Greater Manchester. It is acknowledged that
such a sample may not be representative of all schools but a range of indicatorsÐthe
annual report of schools' examination results and the 1997 Education Authorities IndexÐ
suggest that they are representative of urban and suburban schools. Interviews were
undertaken over several years and in three cohorts. The ®rst two cohorts, 1992 and 1994,
involved teachers who had volunteered subsequent to a questionnaire survey of mathe-
matics teachers' use of computers. Details of the questionnaire and the sampling
procedures can be found elsewhere. It is important to note that the analysis of the
questionnaires indicated no signi®cant differences between the two samples on any item
and that this justi®ed, in part, a subsequent decision to treat both sets of transcripts as one
(Andrews, 1997b). Eleven teachers were interviewed in 1992=3 and sixteen in 1994=5. In
both cases informants were selected, from amongst those who volunteered, to be
representative of as wide a range of schools as possible. The third cohort, 1997=8, were
also volunteers but interviewed as part of another project concerning factors in¯uencing
mathematics teachers' practices. Details of the questionnaire and sampling procedures
used for this can also be found elsewhere (Andrews and Hatch, 1997). This second study
involved interviews with almost 50 teachers but only the eleven who discussed computer
use are included here. No teacher was interviewed more than once.
The interviews were loosely structured and inevitably those experiences which had
informed informants' perspectives began to emerge. Amongst these were the institutional
constraints and in¯uences reported here. The interview procedures employed and the
means of data analysis have been reported elsewhere (Andrews, 1996). Interviews, which
lasted about thirty minutes, were tape recorded and transcribed. Details of the departmental
and IT responsibilities of informants can be seen in Table 1.
Table 1. The ®gures below show the breakdown by responsibility of the teachers in each of the three samples.
Head of
Department
(HD)
School IT
Coordinator (SC)
Departmental IT
coordinator (DC)
Class
Teacher
(CT)
Deputy Head
Teacher (DH)
1992 4 0 2 5 0
1994 5 1 3* 7 1**
1997 4 0 0 7 0
* One of these teachers is also included in the ®ve heads of department
** A recently appointed former head of mathematics
INFLUENCES ON TEACHERS' COMPUTER USE 115
Results
A range of institutional factors impinging on mathematics teachers' use of computers
emerged from the interviews. It is of some interest that the issues raised by teachers in
1997, despite the continuing increase in the numbers of computers to be found in schools,
appeared no different from those identi®ed in 1992. For example, all informants discussed
the deployment of computers in their schools. Indeed, each school had at least one
dedicated computer room although the number of machines comprising such facilities
ranged between eight and twenty. Also, the evidence indicated that the existence of such
rooms were a consequence of some form of whole-school policy although few informants
seemed to have been overtly involved in the decision-making process. One teacher,
re¯ecting comments of several others, observed that:
`̀ Like all schools you have to make decisions about what you do with your resources
because they're limited . . . . Do you have computers around the school, or do you have
them in a central area? The decision here was presumably to have them in a central
area . . . and we have an IT suite . . . . We have two, but they're used mainly now
exclusively for teaching IT.'' (94=5 male CT)
However, the focus of this paper is not the decisions underpinning the deployment of
machines but two factors which appeared to have a signi®cant in¯uence on mathematics
teachers' ability or willingness to use computers. The ®rst concerns those policies, both
whole-school and departmental, which determine the manner in which IT is taught to
children whilst the second focuses on the technical support available to teachers.
Policies on the curricular integration of IT
Policies concerning computer integration were raised by 31 informants. Two foci were
identi®ed. One at the whole school and the other at the departmental level. The majority of
informants who raised the issue of policies discussed both. The two are presented
separately because their impacts on teachers' professional activity and management
implications appeared substantially different.
Whole school policies
Three approaches to the whole school management of computer integration were
identi®ed. There were schools where IT was mostly taught by IT specialists, there were
schools where IT was mostly devolved to subject areas, and there were schools with no
clear policy at all. Each had different, and wide ranging, implications for teachers of
mathematics.
Whole school policies in which the teaching of IT was undertaken by IT specialists were
described by almost half of all informants. Most comments concerning such policies were
116 ANDREWS
critical, mainly because they were perceived as making access to computers problematic.
As one teacher indicated
`̀ I've got no access to them. I mean we've got two rooms, two suites, with Apple Macs
in and they're just chocker-blocked. They're used all the time for IT so there's not a lot
of cross curricular use of IT.'' (94=3 female CT)
Other criticisms concerned the impact on children's mathematical entitlement. One
teacher suggested that his department was failing to ful®l its National Curriculum
obligations. A second, re¯ecting comments made by others, suggested that although IT
taught by specialists meant that mathematics teachers could avoid computers, such a
situation was unsatisfactory because when `̀ spreadsheet work is delivered by the IT
department. . . it's not delivered in a mathematical context and it doesn't support the
learning of mathematics.'' (94=16 male HD). Another spoke of pupils in her school
receiving lessons on spreadsheets, databases and Logo in year seven and nothing in year
eight; `̀ so come to year nine and they've forgotten it'' (94=6 female HD).
A variation, described by ®ve, entailed the linking of IT to mathematics classes in years
seven, eight and nine. Each class experienced over several weeks and under the direction of
the IT staff around one hour's work per week on, say, databases within a mathematical
context. This would be followed, either later in the same year or subsequent years, with a
similar block on, say, spreadsheets or Logo. Such arrangements acknowledged mathe-
matics teachers' subject-speci®c interests in ways which most IT teaching did not.
However, they also failed to allow for unscheduled use of computers by other teachers.
Whole school policies in which the teaching of IT was devolved to departments were
reported by nine informants and exempli®ed by one who commented that:
`̀ IT is taught within the departments. The IT national curriculum, I can't remember
what's on it, but every time we go to an IT meeting we're made aware of the fact that
maths is in charge of making sure that the database and the spreadsheets go in and
English is in charge of whatever they're in charge of and so on. And the IT department,
basically, oversee it as far as I can see.'' (94=7 female CT)
Reactions to such approaches were mixed. One teacher, the IT coordinator for
mathematics in a technology schoolÐa school which had been successful in a competitive
bidding process for additional technology fundingÐspoke enthusiastically, in respect of
children's learning of both mathematics and IT, of the bene®ts an integrated approach
would bring (92=3 male DC). Others, due to considerations of time-tabling, were less
convinced. This was exempli®ed by one teacher who spoke of her school's tradition of
blocking English against mathematics with the consequence, in respect of using the
computer room, that `̀ there were whole mornings when nobody was in there and then one
afternoon we'd all be trying to get in.'' (94=15 female HD)
Policies advocating devolution spawned several time-tabling devices concerning the
scheduled use of computer rooms by different classes. Indeed, nine teachers talked about
INFLUENCES ON TEACHERS' COMPUTER USE 117
scheduled lessons in computer rooms whilst six spoke of there being no such arrange-
ments. A typical situation was described as follows:
`̀ Each class is timetabled to go in for a particular amount of time. It's about six hours
over the year . . . . Every member of the maths department will take their class in and
will spendÐthe way we do it is we do it on a half term block of one lesson a weekÐso
each class will be time-tabled to go in for a half term, one lesson a week. . .'' (92=3 male
DC).
The situation for other teachers was re¯ected in the comments of one who talked about
poor computer room availability and the fact that only pupils in year eight would gain
access to them and then for just four periods during the course of the year (92=2 male HD).
Another described a situation whereby pupils `̀ . . .in years seven and eight'' received `̀ one
double lesson every week for, I think it's a period of eight weeks. . .'' (94=14 male DC)
A very particular devolved arrangement was described by just two teachers. It was
typi®ed by one who said:
`̀ . . .we've got a teacher for every set, obviously, and then we've also got two assistant
teachers. And one of them does all the computer lessons for year nine. So he takes half
the class separately from the normal teacher. In year eight it's a similar sort of thing.''
(94=7 female CT)
A third devolved approach was described by three others. One, with a departmental
computer room, mentioned that `̀ all of year eight will be scheduled over about three weeks
to swap classrooms with the room where the computers are.'' (97=10 female CT) A second,
however, was critical of such arrangements:
`̀ I found I had two weeks using spreadsheets with a class, that for the ®rst week,
although it was something I suppose mathematical, we weren't getting into any depth
with it as we were just learning how to use it. It was only really the second week that we
started to actually use it for anything worthwhile. And by the time we'd got the hang of
it that was their two week block in the computer room over'' (92=5 female CT).
The ®rst two styles offered weekly lessons, for several weeks, for each class. The third
allowed for a series of consecutive lessons. Irrespective of style there was variation in the
number of weeks or lessons that any one class would receive which re¯ected the
availability of computer rooms within the schools. Those schools in which the mathe-
matics department had its own computer room were most able to offer their pupils regular
computer room experienceÐalthough this seemed to amount to no more than about eight
periods of around one hour's duration each year.
There were teachers critical of each form of management. There was a sense that
computer room carousels wasted many children's timeÐthe thrust of the argument being
that if computers are to be used effectively then learners need to be con®dent and
competent users of them. One teacher explained,
118 ANDREWS
`̀ . . .pupils can only use them for a couple of weeks at a time so that every time you have
them again you spend most of the time re-learning how to use it. And they never
actually get to do anything with it more than just very basic going over what they've
already done and they just go along one stage further. They don't actually use them for
maths then. It's just how to use a computer and how to use a computer program but not
doing anything positive with it'' (97=1 male CT).
Lastly, two teachers denied the existence of a coherent policy. One felt that her
headteacher's lack of technological understanding had manifested itself in a computer
room with just 12 machines which, with classes in excess of thirty, she felt was pointless.
The second commented that:
`̀ One of the problems that we also have is that the Head is not really au fait with IT. He
thinks if you've got six BBCs in one room, six Archimedes in another and you fetch
three Apple Macs in then it's OK, you've got enough for a class. He doesn't understand
the differences between the systems. He thinks you can just link them all up together
and it doesn't matter that they're different. The head of IT's spending a lot of time trying
to persuade him that this isn't the case and you really do need suf®cient machines all of
the same type'' (94=10 female CT).
The two policy styles were almost equally common. The advantage of devolved
approaches was that they facilitated subject-speci®c contextualisation of pupils' learning.
However, both forms appeared unsupportive of unexpected and, in the whole-school sense,
unplanned computer use.
Departmental policies
Informants' comments, in respect of departmental IT policies, were indicative of little
consistency of approach. The majority spoke of there being no coherent policy on the
incorporation of IT into their work whilst a few described well-considered and philoso-
phically justi®ed policies.
At the positive end one teacher, re¯ecting the comments of a small minority of teachers
and who spoke at length of his interest in computer aided learning, commented that
`̀ I've got a complete library of software. It's all referenced and we know exactly which
disk to take outÐit's all on ¯oppy disk at the moment. It may end up on hard disk at
some stage. But there is a maths library there and all references relate to the scheme of
work we use throughout the whole of the school from years eleven to sixteen. . . . And
the other maths teachers throughout the school are now enjoying using computers as a
teaching aid and see a direct relevance for it as well within the classroom. It motivates
the children and does add some essence and enhances the lessons within the maths
framework. But purely as a teaching aid. That's how we use computers within the maths
classroom'' (94=8 male HD).
INFLUENCES ON TEACHERS' COMPUTER USE 119
At the negative end of the policy spectrum indicative comments were `̀ there's nothing
built into the syllabus that says if you were doing this topic this would be a good idea''
(94=2 male DH), or `̀ I don't know if we've got a departmental line on computer use at all''
(97=6 male CT). One teacher spoke of her head of department avoiding the issue. She
mentioned that `̀ I believe the programs are in the head of departments' ®ling cabinet'' and
went on to say:
`̀ The head of department is not very IT orientated. . . . She's not familiar with it. I think
she's quite frightened of computers, she doesn't use them very often.'' (94=10 female
CT)
The IT coordinator of her school, who was also a teacher of mathematics, appeared
unsympathetic to her plight.
`̀ the teacher that's in there is very IT competent so he tends to have his own set of
software, which I think he uses quite regularly because he's based in that room. He's
familiar with the machines, he's familiar with the software. . . . But there isn't a sharing
of resources. . .'' (94=10 female CT)
Two teachers described their departments' expectations of newly quali®ed teachers'
determining the policy. One commented that
`̀ we've got this newly quali®ed teacher who's going to sort things out for us. . . . I don't
think (she) knows that yet. . . . Obviously one of her strengths when she was appointed
was that particular aspect because it's a weakness within the department'' (94=5 male
CT).
Others described the in¯uence of Ofsted. One teacher told how his department's policy
had been prompted by a critical report whilst another suggested that an impending
inspection had precipitated theirs.
Another when asked if there was a policy replied,
`̀ There is now. Because I did one last term at some point when it became apparent that
no-one knew what the situation was. It's only a very general guide to what we're doing
at the moment though, it hasn't got anything about aims for the future'' (94=7 female
CT).
Several spoke of policies whereby all aspects of the mathematics-related IT curriculum
were taught by the same team of specialists from within the department. One teacher talked
of two colleagues who had
`̀ . . .just started taking out a group of year eight and year nine kids, I think it's one
lesson a week, and they are being introduced slowly to using spreadsheets and
databases. But. . . we don't do that it's another teacher who comes in who's got some
120 ANDREWS
spare time who comes in and takes half the class out for two weeks and then returns
them'' (94=3 female CT).
A Head of Department, who had been offered a similar arrangement, argued that
colleagues would bene®t from teaching the lessons themselves. Consequently the offer was
rejected.
Departments with no policy appeared to have Heads of Department who were either
avoiding the issue or waiting for others to develop one. Departments currently developing
theirs had either been prompted by external pressuresÐprovoked by promises of fundsÐ
or contained someone who had unilaterally decided to do something. Departments with
established policies seemed either to be radical and forward-looking or to contain
colleagues with well-developed and exploited skills.
Overall, departmental policies appeared poorly developed. A few had clearly de®ned
strategies for integrating IT into their work but most had none. Justi®cations were driven
more by a desire to satisfy the mathematics-related part of the IT National Curriculum and
avoid inspectors' criticisms than an acknowledgement of the impact of IT on mathematics.
Technical support
Twenty-®ve informants discussed issues of technical support. Comments tended to fall into
two categories. Some talked of the in¯uence of teachers' designated as IT co-ordinators
and some spoke about persons employed as IT technicians. As the discussions unfolded it
became increasingly clear that such persons are signi®cant players in teachers' use of
computers.
The role of the IT coordinator
Six informants, not surprisingly, were IT co-ordinators, either for their schools or for their
departments alone. They spoke con®dently and enthusiastically about computers and
appeared willing to help colleagues. One, the departmental IT coordinator in one of the
technology colleges, outlined the program he had developed to help colleagues incorporate
IT into their teaching. Another, the IT coordinator for his school, described his encoura-
ging, by a variety of methods, colleagues in his school to implement IT within the teaching
of their subjects. Both felt their work had bene®ted both teachers and pupils.
Seventeen informants discussed the efforts of their schools' IT co-ordinators. Most were
supportive of their colleagues' efforts and aware that many of the problems that arose were
frequently outside their control or experience. One, representative of comments made by
two others, spoke positively about the support offered by the teachers responsible for IT.
She commented that
INFLUENCES ON TEACHERS' COMPUTER USE 121
`̀ . . .when I book the computer room I can also book IT support. We have four members
of staff who are not time-tabled, so every period during the day is covered and we can
book the computer room with somebody to help us'' (94=15 female HD).
Another described how her departmental IT coordinator had placed a single computer in
her classroom and provided her with some programs which pupils used, in pairs, for half
an hour at a time. She commented that:
`̀ I ®nd that more useful than running a class together because I'm not, I don't think I'm
competent enough to organise an IT class. . . for the fun of it, really, because it is really
just learning to use the computer. That's the level we're at'' (97=1 male CT).
Others, however, were less satis®ed. One, speaking for three others, spoke of the need
for someone to help her with the technical problems that arise. In particular she said:
`̀ The main problem that I've found is if I buy something new ®nding somebody who's
got time to help me get it into the network and knowing how to run a network and
maintain the network'' (92=6 female HD).
Seven teachers indicated that their schools' IT coordinator had insuf®cient time to do
their jobs adequately. One commented that:
`̀ . . .the head of IT is absolutely brilliant. She spends hours and hours and hours giving
every help she can. But the system isn't managed, there isn't time for her to manage the
system. . . . We're really in the position where we need a technician'' (96=6 female HD).
She catalogued a series of problems that she felt were preventing her and her colleagues
from using computers in their teaching. Another said of her school's IT coordinator, `̀ He's
got a full teaching timetable so, really, if anything went wrong in the lesson, it's just tough.
You're on your own'' (94=10 female CT).
The role of the IT technician
Six teachers commented on the existence of a computer technician and all did so
favourably. A newly quali®ed teacher described the computer technician's role in a
school in which she had completed a teaching practice. He:
`̀ spent the vast majority of his time going between those three rooms. So it was very
easy to go up and use the machines, even if you didn't feel particularly con®dent, or
competent, on them because there was always someone there who could help you out
and ensuring that everything went right with the machines'' (94=10 female CT).
122 ANDREWS
Eight spoke of their schools not having a technician. One commented that:
`̀ There's no technician support at all. In fact. . . the IT teacher was telling me half an
hour ago, he has problems loading software onto his network, the two computer rooms
are networked, and he has lots of little problems that normally a technician would sort
out. But he hasn't got that support. . .'' (96=16 male HD)
A second complained that the lack of funds available for technical support meant that
when the hardware broke down either he had to repair things himself or ®nd the money to
pay the expensive bills of someone else (94=12 male SC). Another, working in a school
with four computer rooms, complained that there was no technical support and `̀ . . .our
system's crashed and we're in a bit of trouble at the moment'' (94=9 male CT).
More positively two teachers commented that the technicians in their school were
frequently involved in the training of staff. One said that:
`̀ We also have a very good technician. He's the technician within the IT area of the
school. He's upstairs in. . . I think it's three labs upstairs full of computers, and I can
book time with him, at any time, for training'' (94=11 female CT).
Without adequate supportÐan expectation that someone will be available to solve
problems as they ariseÐmany teachers appeared unable, or unwilling, to use computers in
their teaching. Their reluctance appeared founded on perceptions of threats to authority
and personal embarrassment precipitated by unexpected and irresolvable technical
dif®culties. In those schools with adequate technical support few such problems arose.
Discussion
Three different groups, interviewed over a period of almost six years, contributed to the
data on which this paper was based. Each teacher represented a different school. It is
conjectured that these 38 schools were, for the most part, representative of English urban
and suburban secondary schools. Informants in both 1992 and 1994 were selected from a
pool of volunteers in order to represent differing lengths of service, quali®cation, gender
and attitudinal dispositions as indicated by their questionnaire responses. It has been
assumed, therefore, that whilst there is no certainty in claims as to their representative of
teachers in general, informants were unlikely to represent particular interest groups. It is
acknowledged, also, that despite the problematics of assertion, there was a sense that
several themes were common to, and constant across, the three groups with the
consequence that generalities could be inferred that might inform future practice.
A decade ago Heywood and Norman (1988) found that a lack of curricular strategy was
a signi®cant reason for teachers' failing to incorporate computers into their teaching. More
recently, Harris (1994) found fewer than 20% of secondary schools had addressed the
relationship between the IT National Curriculum and other curriculum areas. The evidence
INFLUENCES ON TEACHERS' COMPUTER USE 123
of this study suggests, in respect of encouraging teachers of subjects other than IT to use
computers, that little may have changed.
The majority of represented schools had policies for computer integration which, in
general, fell into one of two categories. The dominant one privileged IT being taught by
specialists to the exclusion of teachers of mathematics (and by implication other subjects).
Such approaches met with mixed responses according to informants' attitudinal
dispositionsÐthose who wished to avoid an engagement with computers could do so.
However, such policies tended to ensure that computer use which might support the
teaching and learning of mathematics rarely did so. More favoured, from the mathematics
perspective, were whole-school policies which devolved the teaching of the IT curriculum
to appropriate subject areas. In such instances mathematics departments were in a position
to place a subject emphasis on pupils' learning. Such policies were found in less than a
quarter of represented schools which is closer to the one in ten reported by larger studies
(Harris, 1994; Wolf, 1993) than the majority reported by Yeomans et al. (1995). Neither
policy, however, allowed for computer activity outside that which was planned as part of
the whole-school approach. Worryingly, irrespective of the nature of the whole-school
policy, the evidence indicated that teachers believed that children were too infrequently
exposed to any particular piece of software for them to become pro®cient users of
computers as problem-solving tools. Also, there was a sense that such policies created an
impression, on teachers and learners, of one-off special lessonsÐthe antithesis of
integration (Ball 1987). It is unsurprising, therefore, that many teachers of mathematics
expressed scepticism as to the validity of the policies with which they were expected to
work.
According to Wolf (1993) the attitudes of a headteacher determine the degree to which
computer integration is accomplished and that
`̀ schools whose principals have positive expectations regarding the educational impact
of computers tend to emphasize computer integrated learning more than schools with
principals who are less positive'' (Pelgrum, 1993, p. 209).
A small number of represented schools, despite being required to do so, appeared to
have no coherent IT policy. In such cases informants' comments were suggestive of
headteachers having little grasp of the signi®cant technical issues and a tendency to
prevaricate. They expressed frustration at what they perceived to be a signi®cant manage-
rial inadequacy. Indeed, Owen (1992) notes that `̀ that any abdication of. . . responsibility
by senior management will create a dependency upon the specialist IT department with
continuing user disenchantment'' (p. 36). Also, as Collins (1994) notes,
`̀ . . .doubt centres, not in the value of the technology itself, but in the unwillingness of
those in control to provide the time and resources necessary for the most effective use of
computers'' (p. 33).
Overall there was little sense that schools had developed ¯exible policies which
encouraged spontaneous computer useÐPhillips' (1986) concern that `̀ if all the compu-
124 ANDREWS
ters are kept in a computer room, if they are dif®cult to move, or dif®cult to book, no one
will use them'' continues to resonate. Indeed, the evidence seems to con®rm Papert's
(1994) conjecture that schools defend themselves from curricular threatsÐnot one
informant described a policy which facilitated the exploitation of a school's facilities at
times appropriate to individual pedagogic decisions or perceptions of children's needs.
The overall impression was that mathematics departments had poorly developed
policies. A few had none and were waiting for someone to do it for themÐin some
cases there was an expectation that newly quali®ed teachers would have the wherewithal to
do it. There is evidence, however, that such people are not necessarily better skilled than
serving teachers (Summers, 1990; Monaghan, 1993) and would have neither the experi-
ence nor the status (NCC, 1990) necessary to develop and implement it. Of those that had,
or were developing, policies, several had been encouraged to do so by impending
inspections rather than a desire to move the department forward. Departments with
well-developed and coherent policies appeared forward looking or had an enthusiastic
member who undertook this particular element of curriculum developmentÐthe latter
resonating with the Dutch experience (Brummelhuis and Plomp, 1993). Where they
existed, policies re¯ected informants' perceptions of the place of computers in the teaching
and learning of mathematics. Some spoke positively and described how computers
make accessible areas of mathematics which otherwise might have been considered too
dif®cult. Alternatively several were sceptical, particularly in respect of the investment of
time necessary for learning bene®ts to accrue. Indeed, insuf®cient time to make sense of
the innovation has been a recurrent complaint (Brummelhuis and Plomp, 1993; Zammitt,
1992 and Johnson, 1993). There was also a sense that some teachers, wittingly or
otherwise, were making inadequate time the rationale for their failing to engage with
computers.
Few schools seemed to have coherent strategies for staff development. Indeed, teachers
who spoke positively about their professional development appeared to suggest that their
satisfaction was more a consequence of the interventions of enthusiastic and committed
colleagues than a rationally determined and systematically implemented development
policy. Importantly, such colleagues were praised for acknowledging the personal needs of
trainees and for giving the support necessary, including time beyond that which might
reasonably be expected, for them to begin using computers in their teaching. Indeed, there
were indications that such support was perceived by some as essential to their becoming
classroom computer users. These ®ndings accord with those of Williams and Moss (1993)
that individually focused school-based training is perceived by teachers as more effective
than externally provided in-service and that such training, due to ®nancial constraints, is
usually voluntary (Yeomans et al., 1995). It is interesting to note that not one teacher
alluded to the con¯icts which might arise as a consequence of the co-ordinator's having a
lower subject-speci®c conceptual base than the subject teacher (Burgess, 1990). This may
have been a consequence of such support being of a technical rather than pedagogic
nature. Indeed there seemed to be an assumption pervading informants' comments that
teachers with responsibility for IT, either within a department or for a whole school, were
valued more for their technical competence than any pedagogic insights they may have had
in respect of computers.
INFLUENCES ON TEACHERS' COMPUTER USE 125
There was a sense that too frequently IT coordinators' teaching commitments interfered
with their being able to solve colleagues' problems. Indeed, Owen's (1992) study found
that they received between 12% and 20% non-contact time according to their status within
their school's structure which tends to lead to their becoming concerned `̀ with the
implementation of IT. . . from the technical perspective rather than from the needs of
the users'' (Owen, 1992, p. 38). Indeed, it is conjectured that despite the pivotal role of IT
coordinators, and the recommendation that they should be able to in¯uence a school's
senior managers and, in larger schools, be responsible for both IT managers and
technicians (NCC, 1990), few have the authority to ful®l their roles. It is interesting
that the single informant IT coordinator of this study was a former head of physical
education who, at his headteacher's suggestion, had made a sideways move and which
supports Owen's (1992) ®ndings that the salaries received by most IT co-ordinators were
incommensurate with their responsibilities.
The in¯uence of appropriate technical support in determining the success of computer
integration cannot be overstated (Brummelhuis and Plomp, 1993; Wolf, 1993). The
evidence of this study, however, indicates that few schools have the funds to employ a
dedicated computer technician. This accords with the ®ndings of Owen (1992) that most
schools have fewer than the 10 hours technical support believed to be the minimum
necessary for the maintenance of a school's computer system.
The six teachers who spoke of their school's having a computer technician appeared
more positive about their use of computers than those in schools without, and that this
appeared to be independent of other factors like accessibility and attitudes. They appeared
con®dent, willing to explore the possibilities, and exhibited fewer anxieties about being let
down by technological inadequacies. Also, where schools exploited the technician's skills
to facilitate teachers' work with computers, there seemed to be still higher levels of
satisfaction. Alternatively, several teachers spoke, as a consequence of there being no
technician, of technical problems remaining unresolved for lengthy periods of time.
Indeed, a number suggested that the lack of technical support was suf®cient to prevent
their using their school's facilities. In some respects this con¯icts with Zammitt's (1992)
®ndings that teachers who do not use computers regard technical support as having a lower
priority than, say, the availability of computers, adequate software, time, funds and
training.
The represented schools with full-time technicians tended to be larger with budgets
commensurate with their size. It is conjectured that small schools, unless they were to
engage in strategic reviews of staf®ng, would be unable to afford what, the evidence
suggests, may be an essential colleague. Of the remainder a few had part-time technicians
but most had none. Such inequities emphasise the importance of the departmental
enthusiast who assumes responsibility for ensuring that things happenÐthey seem to
be able to encourage to attempt things which otherwise they might not. Where there are no
such enthusiasts little systematic exploitation of computers by other teachers of mathe-
matics appears to occur.
Lastly, the ®ndings reported above have identi®ed signi®cant concerns for school
managers and curricular authorities. They highlight the need to address more precisely the
role of IT within the wider curriculum and the manner in which it should be delivered. If
126 ANDREWS
teachers of mathematics, and by implication those of other subject areas, are to exploit IT
in meaningful ways then the manner in which schools deploy and manage their computers
needs greater consideration than would seem to be the case previously. Also, this study has
emphasised the fundamentally important role of a full-time and appropriately quali®ed
technician whose role is unambiguously to facilitate teachers' work. Finally, there is
evidence, albeit limited, that the situation reported by teachers in 1997 was little different
from those reported in 1992 and 1994. That is the descriptions and manifestations of
computer integration policies offered by teachers in 1997 appear little different from, and,
sadly, little better developed than, those given by their colleagues in 1992.
References
Andrews, P. (1995) Teachers' perceptions of the availability of computer hardware, Journal of Computer Assisted
Learning, 11, pp. 90±98.
Andrews, P. (1996) The impact of ®rst computer encounters on mathematics teachers' computer competence,
Journal of Information Technology for Teacher Education, 5(3), 301±316.
Andrews, P. (1997a) Information technology in the mathematics National Curriculum: policy begets practice?
British Journal of Educational Technology, 28(4), 244±256.
Andrews, P. (1997b) Computers in secondary mathematics: factors in¯uencing teachers' actions, Unpublished
PhD dissertation, The Manchester Metropolitan University.
Andrews, P. and Hatch, G. (1997) The in¯uence of subject conceptions on secondary mathematics teachers'
pedagogic practices, Paper presented to the British Educational Research Association Conference, University
of York.
Ball, D. (1987) Microcomputers in mathematics teaching, British Journal of Educational Technology, 18(3), 247±
255.
Blease, D. and Cohen, L. (1990) Coping with computers: an ethnographic study in primary classrooms, London,
Paul Chapman.
Brummelhuis, A. T. and Plomp, Tj. (1993) The relation between problem areas and stages of computer
implementation, Studies in Educational Evaluation, 19(2), 185±198.
Burgess, T. (1990) Is it dif®cult to teach information technology skills?, British Journal of Educational
Technology, 21(3), 231±232.
Byard, M. J. (1995) IT under school-based policies for initial teacher training, Journal of Computer Assisted
Learning, 11(3), 128±140.
CERI (1987) Information technologies and basic learning, Paris, OECD.
CERI (1989) Information technologies in education: The quest for quality software, Paris, OECD.
Chandler, D. (1990) The educational ideology of the computer, British Journal of Educational Technology, 21 (3),
165±174.
Collins, J. (1994) Computers in classrooms and college, Computer Education, 77, 30±33.
Day, C. (1993) The development of teachers' thinking and practice: does choice lead to empowerment?, in J.
Elliott. (ed), Reconstructing teacher education, London, Falmer.
Fullan, M. G. and Stiegelbauer, S. (1991) The meaning of educational change, New York, Teachers College Press.
Goldstein, G. (1997) Information technology in English schools: a commentary on inspection ®ndings 1995±6,
London, Ofsted=NCET.
Harris, S. (1994) Schools' IT policies, Slough, NFER.
Heywood, G. and Norman, P. (1988) Problems of educational innovation: the primary teacher's response to using
microcomputers, Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 4(1), 34±43.
Johnson, D. C. (1993) Summary, discussion and implications, in D.M. Watson (ed), The ImpacT report, London,
Kings College and DfE.
Leithwood, K. A. (1992) The Principal's role in teacher development, in M. Fullan and A. Hargreaves (eds),
Teacher development and educational change, London, Falmer.
INFLUENCES ON TEACHERS' COMPUTER USE 127
Loveless, A. and Longman, D. (1998) Information literacy: innuendo or insight?, Education and Information
Technologies, 3(1), 27±40.
McDonald, S. (1993) Information technology: building structures in initial teacher training to develop effective
practitioners, Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 9(3), 141±148.
Monaghan, J. (1993) IT in mathematics initial teacher trainingÐfactors in¯uencing school experience, Journal of
Computer Assisted Learning, 9(3), 149±160.
NCC (1990) Technology: non statutory guidance for information technology, York, NCC.
Owen, G. (1992) Whole school management of information technology, School Organisation, 12(1), 29±40.
Papert, S. (1994) The children's machine: rethinking school in the age of the computer, London, Harvester
Wheatsheaf.
Pelgrum, W. J. (1993) Attitudes of school principals and teachers towards computers: does it matter what they
think?, Studies in Educational Evaluation, 19(2), 199±212.
Pelgrum, W. J. and Plomp, Tj. (1993), The use of computers in education in 18 countries, Studies in Educational
Evaluation, 19(2), 101±125.
Phillips, R. (1986) A microcomputer in every mathematics classroom, in N. Bufton (ed), Exploring mathematics
with microcomputers, London, Council for Educational Technology.
Reinen, I. J. and Plomp, Tj. (1993), Staff development as a condition for computer integration, Studies in
Educational Evaluation, 19(2), 149±166.
Robinson, B. (1995) Teaching teachers to change: the place of change theory in the technology education of
teachers, Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 3(2=3), 107±117.
Selwood, I. (1988) The rise and fall of computer studies, Computer Education, 59, 2±3.
Sherwood, C. (1993) Australian experiences with the effective classroom integration of information technology:
Implications for teacher education, Journal of Information Technology for Teacher Education, 2(2), 167±179.
Somekh, B. and Davis, N. (1991) Towards a pedagogy for information technology, The Curriculum Journal, 2,
153±170.
Somekh, B. (1992) Calling whose bluff? Some responses of initial teacher educators to information technology,
Cambridge Journal of Education, 22(2), 157±162.
Stevenson, D. (1997) Information and communication technology in UK schools: an independent inquiry,
Chelmsford, Anglia Polytechnic University.
Summers, M. (1990) Starting teacher trainingÐnew PGCE. students and computers, British Educational
Research Journal, 16(1), 79±87.
The Education Authorities Index and Annual (1997) Redhill, The School Government Publishing Company Ltd.
Veen, W. (1993) The role of beliefs in the use of information technology: Implications for teacher education, or
teaching the right thing, Journal of Information Technology for Teacher Education, 2(2), 139±153.
Vaughan, G. (1992) Can professional development be achieved through course development?, Developing
Information Technology in Teacher Education, 4, 73±82.
Watson, D. M., ed. (1993) The ImpacT summary: An evaluation of the impact of information technology on
children's achievements in primary and secondary schools, London, DfE and King's College.
Wellington, J. (1987) Computer Study, Times Educational Supplement, March 13th, 1987, p 46.
Wellington, J. J. (1988) Computer education in secondary schools: an electronic survey, Journal of Computer
Assisted Learning, 4(1), 22±33.
Wideen, M. F. (1992) School-based teacher development, in M. Fullan and A. Hargreaves (eds), Teacher
development and educational change, London, Falmer.
Williams. R. V. and Moss, D. (1993) Factors in¯uencing the delivery of information technology in the secondary
curriculum: a case study, Journal of Information Technology in Teacher Education, 2(1), 77±85.
Wolf, R. M. (1993) The role of the school principal in computer education, Studies in Educational Evaluation,
19(2), 167±183.
Yeomans, D., Martin, A. and Williams, R. (1995) From vertical to horizontal? A longitudinal study of information
technology in ten schools, Journal of Information Technology for Teacher Education, 4(3), 329±350.
Zammitt, S. A. (1992) Factors facilitating or hindering the use of computers in school, Educational Research, 34,
57±66.
128 ANDREWS
