Upload
vuongcong
View
216
Download
1
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Technology Adoption and Integration: A Multiple Case Study of Rogers' Diffusion of Innovation Theory in Kuwait
Randa Fouad Abdelhafiz Abdelmagid
Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and
State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy In
Curriculum and Instruction
John K. Burton, Chair Barbara B. Lockee Kenneth R. Potter
Ann D. Potts Abdulmuhsen A. Alqahtani
March 4, 2011
Blacksburg, Virginia
Key words: perceived attributes of innovations, user characteristics, Kuwait,
female teachers, primary public schools
Copyright 2011, Randa Fouad Abdelhafiz Abdelmagid
TechnologyAdoptionandIntegration:AMultipleCaseStudyofRogers'DiffusionofInnovationTheoryinKuwait
RandaFouadAbdelhafizAbdelmagid
Abstract
Theadoptionand integrationof technology is limited inK‐12contextsworldwide,
including in the Middle East. Based on the work of Everett Rogers (1995) and his
disciplines, studies in the United States indicate that teachers’ perceptions towards the
attributes of technology (relative advantage, compatibility, complexity, trialability and
observability) reflect the extent by which technology is used. Furthermore, teachers’
characteristicsandthesupportenvironmentprovidedcanpotentiallyencourageorinhibit
the adoption of technologies. This multiple case study was designed to show the
applicabilityofRogers’diffusionofinnovationtheoryinKuwaitpublicschoolsystems.The
studywasconductedwitheightfemaleKuwaititeachersintwoprimarypublicschools.A
qualitative methodology was employed using interviews, participant observations, and
physicalartifactsforcollectingdata.
ThestudyrevealsthatRogers’threeattributesrelativeadvantage,compatibilityand
observability (result demonstrability) contributed to use, while complexity and
observability (visibility) limited use. Prior experience and practice,motivational support
provided by the school administration and department head, and teachers’ voluntary
decisions on the type of technologies to use encouraged use. Anxiety from lack of
functionality of devices and extra time and effort in preparing materials, centralized
decision‐making on technology purchases, budget constraint, and limited access to
technologyandclassroomsinwhichdevicesarelocatedwerefactorsthatlimitedteachers’
use. The study showed that Kuwaiti teachers’ acceptance of technology varied along the
continuum,where some teacherswere early adopters and somewere laggards. Support
initiativesareneededfromtheMinistryofEducationandschooladministration,inorderto
facilitatetechnologyadoptionanduseinKuwaitischools.
iii
Dedication
TothepeopleIlovemost
Myparents;Sedkimyhusband;Abdelhafiz,Abdelwahab,andAhmedmybrothers;Ibraheem,
Yousuf,andHebamychildren;andmylatebelovedgrandfatherAbdelhafiz.
iv
Acknowledgements
ForemostIamgratefulandthankfultoAllah(God),whoistheOnetobepraisedand
thankedforgivingmetheguidance,strength,andpatience,throughoutmyPhDprogram.I
wouldliketothankmyadvisorDr.JohnBurtonwhoIwasveryfortunatetoworkwith.Dr.
Burtoninspiredmewithhiscontinuoussupport,patience,respectandappreciationtomy
ideas, my work, and my traditions, allowing me to reach to this stage in my academic
progress.Iwilltrulyremaingratefultohim.Iwouldliketoalsothankmyothercommittee
members Dr. Barbara Lockee, Dr. Ann Potts, Dr. Kenneth Potter, and Dr. Abdulmushen
Alqahtani,whom I amgrateful to for their researchguidance, experienceandcomments.
Special thanks to Dr. Alqahtani who supported me while in Kuwait and assisted me in
carryingoutthisresearchstudy.
IwouldalsoliketothankDr.FahadAlkhezziwhowasabletoobtainpermissionfor
me to visit the Kuwaiti schools and Ms. Aisha Almajed, who contacted the schools and
accompaniedmeduringmostofmyfieldworktofacilitatecommunicationswiththeschool
administrationandtheteachers.Itistobenotedthattheauthortookallphotospresented
in this document. Special thanks also to Ms. Amel Alsaleh, one of my participants, who
helpedmewithsearchingforresources,assistedmewithtranslations,andwhocontinued
to provide guidancewhenever needed. Many other people have also contributed to the
successofthisdissertationindifferentways.ThankstoalltheIDTprofessorswho provided
mewithknowledge,andexperienceneededtocompletethis journey.Iwouldalsoliketo
thank my special friends Afraa, Riham, Nora, and Yasmine for their continuous
encouragementandassistance. Iwouldalso like to thankmycousinOsmanandhiswife
v
Samahfortheircontinuousprayers.Iwouldliketothankmyin‐lawsHayam,andNariman
whotookcareofmydaughterduringmyexamsandhertransitionfromEgypttotheStates.
FinallyveryspecialthankstomymotherwhostayedlatenightswhenIwasyoung
to ensure that I did well in school and always encouraged me to develop and enhance
myself as well as advised me always to never give up on my goals and beliefs. I am
especially thankful to my lovely husband, Dr. Sedki Riad, for his concrete and moral
support andwho shared themany challenges and sacrifices for completingmy doctoral
program.Todadthankyouforalwayscheeringmeupwhenindistress,andforyourhard
work, which allowed me to complete my education and reach to this level. I am also
gratefultomydaughterHebawhowithstoodthestressfuldaysandnotbeingwithherall
thetimeduringthecompletionofthisdocument.Tomybrothersandstepsons,especially
AhmedandIbraheem,thankyouforbeingthereandforyourcontinuousenquiriesabout
myprogress.
vi
TableofContents
ChapterOne:Introduction‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 1 StatementoftheProblem ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 4
PurposeStatementandResearchQuestions ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 6SignificanceofStudy ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 7OrganizationoftheStudy ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 7
ChapterTwo:LiteratureReview ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 9Teachers’AdoptionandUtilizationofTechnology‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 9 Teachers’AttitudesandBeliefs‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐10 ChallengesofTechnologyAdoptionandUtilization‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐12 TheProcessofAdoption ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐19 Summary‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐29RelatedDiffusionPerspectivesandCommonalities ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐30ContributionsandCriticismsofDiffusionResearch ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐35ApplicationofRogers’PerceivedAttributesinEducationalSystems ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐37 StudiesinHigherEducation ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐37 StudiesinK‐12SchoolSystems‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐40
Summary‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐42BackgroundonKuwait’sPublicEducationalSystemandPrimaryLevel‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐43 Summary‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐52
ChapterThree:Methodology‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 53PurposeStatementandResearchQuestions ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐53ResearchDesign‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐54PilotStudy ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐56TheStudyPopulation ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐56 ProcedureforEstablishingtheSample ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐58 DescriptionsoftheSchoolsandParticipants‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐59 SummaryoftheStudyPopulation ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 68DataCollection ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐69 DataStrategyandAnalysis ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐72 ValidatingtheResultsandFindings ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐75 SummaryofDataCollection ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 79DelimitationoftheStudy‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐80
ChapterFour:ResultsandFindings ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 81
vii
ChangeProcess‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐81 TransitionandAdjustment‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐81TechnologyUse‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐85 EmployingTechnologyinTeachingandAdministrativeTasks ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐86PriorKnowledgeandExperience‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐95
ExperienceandPractice ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐96AdministrationSupport ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐97
SupervisionandManagement(MotivationalSupport) ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐97Decision‐Making ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 102 DirectandIndirectInvolvement ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 102BudgetConstraints ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 105
RelativeAdvantageandCompatibility‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 107 InformationAccessandSharing‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 107 OrganizationoftheLesson ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 109 FacilitationoftheLearningProcess ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 110 DisseminationofInformation‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 112Complexity ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 115 DifficultyofUseofDevicesandApplications ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 115 DealingwithMalfunctions‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 117Observability‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 122 VisibilityandAccessibility‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 122 TangibleResults ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 126Trialability‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 130 ProfessionalDevelopment‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 130Summary‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 134
ChapterFive:DiscussionandConclusion‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐136DiscussionoftheFindings ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 136 ResearchQuestionOne‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 136
ResearchQuestionTwo ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 144 AssociatingtheFindingswithRogersandFarquharandSurry ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 148
ConclusionsandRecommendations ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 152ImplicationsforFutureResearch ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 156AreasforFurtherStudies‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 157
References ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐158AppendixA:InvitationLetter ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 167AppendixB:SampleSelectionQuestionnaire‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 168
viii
AppendixC:IRBApprovalLetter ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 169AppendixD:KuwaitiMinistryofEducation(MOE)ApprovalLetter‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 170AppendixE:InterviewQuestions‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 174AppendixF:Technology‐relatedLearningProgramsQuestionnaire ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 177AppendixG:ObservationsofPhysicalArtifacts ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 178AppendixH:OrganizationalStructureoftheKuwaitiMinistryofEducation ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 179AppendixI:DefinitionsofTermsandAbbreviations‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 180
ix
ListofFiguresFigure1.Theinnovation‐decisionprocessmodel ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐24Figure2.Adoptercategorizationonthebasisofinnovativeness‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐25Figure3.Variablesdeterminingtherateofadoptionofinnovations‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐27Figure4.TheSocialstudiesclubforgrades4and5attheI.S.School ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐91Figure5.TheSciencelabattheI.S.School‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐94Figure6.TheSocialstudiesclubforgrades1,2and3attheI.S.School ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐99Figure7.UsingtheDatashowtoteachEnglishattheA.E.School ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 101Figure8.DiagramofkineticandstaticmovementusedduringAbeer’sfifth‐gradesciencelesson ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 114Figure9.TheSocialstudiesclubattheA.E.School ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 123Figure10.TheIslamicstudiesclubattheA.E.School‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 123Figure11.TheDatashowroomattheA.E.School‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 124Figure12.TheEnglishclubattheA.E.School ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 125Figure13.SupportinitiativesfromtheMOEandschooladministration‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐155
x
ListofTables
Table1:NumberofstudentsenrolledintheA.E.School,March2010‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐60Table2:NumberofstudentsenrolledintheI.S.School,March2010‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐65Table3:Descriptionofstudyparticipants‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐68Table4:Individualandorganizationalattributesaffectingtechnologyuse‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐152
1
CHAPTERONE‐INTRODUCTION
Therapidemergenceoftechnologyanditscurrentroleindevelopingandenhancing
learning have made educational practitioners and instructors strive to adopt new
technological innovations to meet the growing needs within their school systems and
higher educational institutions. In the field of instructional technology, research on new
innovation has focused on the diffusion and adoption process. Diffusion refers to the
spreadoftechnologytogeneraluse,andadoptionreferstotheselectionofatechnologyfor
usebyindividualsororganizations.Thestudyofdiffusiontheoryispotentiallyvaluablefor
instructional technologists for three reasons. First, by being knowledgeable of the
problems that face technology adoption, the impeding or facilitating factors are better
predicted, explained and taken into consideration. Second, being knowledgeable in
innovationprocesses and theorieswillmakeworkingwith clients andpossible adopters
moreeffective.Third,acquiringknowledgeaboutdiffusiontheory,diffusionandadoption
models can be generated that would lead to innovations that are valuable and
pedagogicallyappropriate(Surry,1997).
Studiesshowthatgeneraldiffusiontheorieshavebeenemployedtobuildtheories
specifictoinstructionaltechnology.Surry(1997)dividesdiffusiontheoriesintotwobroad
categories, which are general diffusion theories that are applicable to a wide range of
organizations, and instructional technology (IT) related diffusion theories that dealwith
specificinnovationsinspecificinstructionalsettings(Alias&Zainnudin,2005).Numerous
diffusiontheoriesexist,butfortheneedsofthisresearchstudy,themainfocuswillbeon
Rogers’ Diffusion of Innovation Theory (DOI) developed in 1962 and Adoption Analysis
(AA),amicro‐levelITdiffusiontheorydevelopedin1994byFarquharandSurry.Rogers’
2
DOI theory (2003) describes the process by which an innovation is adopted and gains
acceptance bymembers of a certain community. It postulates that the diffusion process
involves fourmainelements: the innovation,communicationchannel, timeandthesocial
system.TheAAmodelfocusesontheadoptionofaspecificinnovationbyaspecificgroup
of potential adopters (Farquhar & Surry, 1994). It involves both the individual and
organizationalattributes.
RogersDOItheory(2003)emphasizesthatseveralvariablesinfluencetheadoption
of an innovation. One of these variables is perceived attributes of an innovation. The
principle of perceived attributes is that potential adopters judge an innovationbasedon
their perception in regards to five characteristics of the innovation, which are relative
advantage, compatibility, trialability, observability, and complexity. That is, the rate of
diffusionwill increase if the potential adopter perceives the innovation to have relative
advantage to other innovations, is compatiblewith existing practices and values, can be
tried on a limited basis, offers observable results and is not complex in terms of usage
(Rogers, 2003). Moore and Benbasat (1991) further separated observability into two
dimensions: result demonstrability and visibility. Result demonstrability deals with
tangibleresultsthatemergefromusingtheinnovationandvisibilityreferstothephysical
presenceoftheinnovationinthesetting.Studieshaveshownthatitisnotonlythevisibility
ofthetechnologythatmatters,butalsomakingitaccessibleintermsoflocation,quantity
andavailabilityencouragesuse(Oncuetal.,2008;Rogers,1999).Furthermore,personality
variables,socioeconomiccharacteristicsandcommunicationbehaviorimpactthedecision
ofpotentialadoptersonwhethertoadoptorrejectaninnovation(Rogers,2003).Potential
adopters need to have the knowledge or skill to effectively adopt an innovation.How‐to
3
knowledge, which consists of information needed to use an innovation properly, and
principles‐knowledge, which consists of functioning principles underlying how an
innovationworksareimportantfactorsforadoption
Similarly,theAAmodel(Farquhar&Surry,1994)examinestheusercharacteristics
oftheadopters,whichisthe“psychological,physical,affectiveandcognitivecharacteristics
thatmakeuptheadopterpopulation”(p.21).Theusercharacteristicsincludetheadopter’s
traitssuchasknowledge,priorexperience,skilllevel,anxiety,andmotivation.Inaddition
touserscharacteristics, themodelshowsthatperceivedattributes,physicalenvironment
and support environment play a role on whether an innovation will be rejected or
effectivelyutilized.Boththephysicalandsupportenvironmentareorganizationalaspects
that includes the “hardware, knowledge, attitudes and skills that exist within the
organizationinwhichtheinnovationistobeimplemented”(p.21).TheAAisutilizedasan
additional tool for the development of successful instructional products pertinent to the
users.Itassistsinanalyzingthefactorsandsolvingproblemsduringtheadoptionprocess,
thusincreasingtheadopters’chancesofutilizingtheproduct.Thisstudywillembracethe
instrumentalist or adopter‐based philosophy that highlights that the end users of an
innovation are the individuals who bring about the desired change and therefore it is
consideredessentialtounderstandthesocialcontextinwhichtheinnovationwillbeused
andthefunctionthatitwillserveforthem(Surry,1997).
StudieshaveshownthatRogers’DOI(2003)hasbeenappliedtovariouseducational
sectorsintheUnitedStates,wheretheperceivedattributesofaninnovationhaveshownto
predict therateofadoptionof innovations.Rogers(2003)emphasizes“the firstresearch
on attributes of innovation and their rate of adoptionwas conductedwith farmers, but
4
teachers and school administration suggested that similar attributes predict the rate of
adoption for educational innovations” (p. 223). However, studies show a substantial
variation between countries on the prediction of technology use (Usluel, Aşkar, & Baş,
2008). Furthermore, Moore and Benbasat (1991) emphasize that adopters perceive
innovation attributes in differentways. These perceptions determine towhat extent the
technology is used.Thus it is important to identify theneeds andwants of thepotential
adoptersanddevelopproductsthatmeettheirneeds(Farquhar&Surry,1994)tofacilitate
the adoption process. Therefore, it is important to study each culture individually as it
wouldbemorevaluable(AlSenaidi,2009).
ThestateofKuwaitislocatedintheMiddleEastborderingthePersianGulfbetween
IraqandSaudiArabia.Education isviewed inKuwaitasakeystone fordevelopmentand
progress forboth individualsandsociety.Likemanymoderncountries,Kuwaithasgiven
greatattentiontoeducationinordertokeepitssocietyeconomicallyandculturallystrong
(Al‐Sahel, 2005). Oil profits have allowed Kuwait to build a broad‐based educational
systeminwhichtheliteracyrateis93%,accordingtoKuwait’s2008nationaleducational
report.EqualaccessofeducationisgiventoallthecitizensofKuwaitregardlessofgender
andsocioeconomicstatusasstatedbythe1962constitutionofKuwait,whichassertsthat
“education is the right forKuwaitis and that it is compulsory and free at its preliminary
stages”(p.11).Nevertheless,Kuwait’s2008nationalreportemphasizesthateducationin
Kuwaitfacesseveralchallenges,includingbothcognitiveandtechnologicalchallenges.
StatementoftheProblem
Studieson technologyadoptionandusehave shown that teachers’ perceptionsof
5
whether technology shouldbeused in theirprofessionand in student learning, relieson
theirviewofhow learningshould takeplaceandon theirability togo througha change
process.Technologycanprovidesupporttoteacherstoeffectivelyandefficientlymanage
their school activities and tasks; however most teachers neither use technology in
classroom instruction nor integrate it into the curriculum (Bauer&Kenton, 2005; Zhao,
Pugh,Sheldon&Byers,2002).Forexample,DashtiandBehbhani(2005)establishedthat
teachers’useofcomputersandothertechnologiesinteachingEnglishislimitedinKuwaiti
publicschools.Individualswhenconfrontedwithnewinnovationswouldshowreactionsof
anxiety and resistance at first beforemaking their final decision as towhetherornot to
adopt(2003).However,teacherswilladoptandintegratetechnologymoresmoothlyifthey
perceivethatitisrelevanttotheirpedagogicalneeds(Yates,2001).
Studieshavealsofoundthat“conflictingideasandadviceonthevalueoftechnology
leadstoaconfusionontheteachers’behalfregardingitseducationalvalue”(Zhao&Frank,
2003,p.809)and,accordingly,tardinessinacceptanceandusage.Thusthereisaneedfor
moreempiricalinvestigationsontheuseoftechnologyasameansofbridgingthegapthat
existsregardingitsuse.Despitetheexistenceofsomeresearchstudiesontechnologyuse
inKuwait, thesestudies tend to focusmoreonhighereducationand institutions thanon
school systems. In addition, diffusion studies have been implemented in various sectors,
butnotintheschoolsystemswithinKuwaitandmoststudiescarriedoutintheMiddleEast
andKuwaitarequantitativeinnaturewhilequalitativeresearchislimited.Thisstudywas
thereforedesignedtoexpandandaddtotheexistingresearchbyexploringteachers’useof
technologyinK‐12Kuwaitischoolsystemsusingqualitativemethodology.
6
PurposeStatementandResearchQuestions
Thismultiple‐casestudywillusetheperceptionsoffemaleKuwaititeacherstoward
technologythatmayhavecontributedtoorlimitedtheiradoptionofitinordertoshowthe
applicabilityofRogers’DOItheory,withintwoKuwaitiprimarypublicschoolcontexts.The
studyseekstoanswerthefollowingspecificquestionsandsubquestions:
1. TowhatextenthavetheKuwaititeachersadoptedandintegratedtechnology?
a. Howdo teachers’ characteristics (priorknowledgeandexperience,motivation,
andanxiety)affectthewaytheyperceivetechnologyuse?
b. What are the support environments that facilitate or impede their use of
technology?
2. InwhatwaydotheattributesoftechnologyaffecttheperceptionsofKuwaititeachers’
towardstechnologyadoptionanduse?
a. Howistechnologyusefulandbeneficialtoteachersintheirprofession?(relative
advantage)
b. Is the technology used consistent with the teachers’ pedagogical beliefs and
needs?(compatibility)
c. What are the challenges that teachers face when working with technology?
(complexity)
d. Whatopportunitiesdoteachershavetoexperimentwiththetechnologybefore
becomingpotentialadopters?(trialability)
e. Whatdoteachersexperiencewhenusingtechnology?(observability)
i. Whattangibleresultsdoteacherswitness?
ii. Howdovisibilityandaccessibilitycontributetouse?
7
SignificanceofStudy
This research study is significant from an educational and diffusion research
standpoint. From an educational standpoint, this studywould serve as a framework for
both public school administrators and policy makers in Kuwait and the Arab Gulf
Cooperation Countries (GCC) countries to understand and determine how to effectively
integratetechnology.Thisstudywillalsocontributetotheadoptionanddiffusionresearch
field, as itwouldpresent issuesandprovide results that reflect theMiddleEastern (ME)
culture and accordingly bridge the gap in literature in this regard. Ali (2004) indicated
“ThereisverylimitedITadoptionrelatedresearchinthecontextoftheMiddleEast”(p.2).
Furthermore,Farag(2005)emphasizedthatthereisalackofstudiescarriedoutregarding
theuseoftechnologyineducationandinschoolsintheGCCandtheME.
OrganizationoftheStudy
Chapter 1 provides an introduction and the need of the study, statement of the
problem, significanceof the studyandorganizationof the study.Chapter2discusses the
contributing and challenging issues pertaining to teachers’ adoption and utilization of
technology, an overview of Rogers’ DOI theory, including its application in various
education systems, criticisms of the theory and related diffusion theories. In addition
background informationonKuwait’spubliceducationalsystemandprimary levelwillbe
discussedincludingproblematicissuesfacingtheprimaryschools.
Chapter 3 present a description of the research design employed, the study
population, aswell as thedata collectionproceduresanddataanalysis strategy thatwas
followed. This chapter also includes a description of how the validation of results and
8
findingswasattained.Chapter4providesthefindingsgeneratedfromboththeinterviews
andparticipantobservation.Chapter5presentsadiscussionofthefindings,theconclusion
andtherecommendationofthestudy.Areasforfurtherresearchwillalsobehighlighted,
includingthelimitationsofthestudy.
9
CHAPTERTWO:LITERATUREREVIEW
Thischapterwilldiscusstheissuespertainingtoteachers’adoptionandutilization
oftechnology;theadoptionprocessthatfocusesprimarilyonRogers’DOItheory,including
the contributions and criticisms of the theory; related diffusion perspectives and
commonalties;andanoverviewofhowthe theoryofperceivedattributeswasapplied in
various educational systems. Background information on Kuwait’s public educational
system and primary level will also be discussed, including issues facing the primary
schools.
Teachers’AdoptionandUtilizationofTechnology
Theadoptionandutilizationoftechnologyisabroadtopicthatinvolvesnumerous
facets;however,fortheneedsofthisresearchstudy,thefocuswillbeontheadoptionand
utilization of technologywithin school systems.Technology, in this context, refers to all
toolsusedbyteachersintheirprofession.Thereisanincreasedinterest inandemphasis
onhowtechnologyshouldbeintegratedintoteaching(Hofer&Swan,2008),asseenbythe
promotionofsuchinitiativesbyeducationalpractitioners(Dashti&Behbhani,2005;Safar,
2001). Oncu et al. (2008) described technology integration as being composed of three
aspects: teachers’ attitudes, conditions affecting technology adoption, and the process of
adoption. Although other factors such as age, experience, gender, suburban vs. urban
location, and grade level impact technology use, for this study reference is made to
challenges thatwere discussed numerous times in the literature, were identified by the
literatureasmost influential, andwere “findings inempirical researches” (Hew&Brush,
2007,p.225).
10
Teachers’AttitudesandBeliefs
Teachershavediversewaysofusingtechnology,and,basedonhowit isused, the
learning outcomes vary. Onemethod of teaching is didactic pedagogy,wherein students
passively receive knowledge from teachers (Tiene& Ingram, 2001). This type ofpassive
teaching approach is “unlikely to cultivate in learnersanalytical, reasoning, and problem-solving
skills that are most desired and are useful beyond the classroom setting” (Gwayi, 2009, p. 76).
Teachers also tend to rely on individualisticlearningprocessesandusedrillsorrepetitionof
information (Wenglinsky, 2005) to solve students’ learning problems. In addition,
concentration is on students’ memorization and recitation, and the attainment of basic
knowledge (Aldhafeeri, Almulla, & Alraqas, 2006). A second method of teaching is the
constructivistapproach(Taylor&Duran,2006;Wenglinsky,2005),whereinteachersallow
students to think abstractly by illustrating concepts in real‐world contexts and employ
various learningtechniques(Wenglinsky,2005).Throughthisapproach,studentstendto
develop their problem‐solving and critical‐thinking skills (Niederhauser, Lindstrom, &
Strobel, 2006). In addition, constructivism promotes collaborative learning (Grainger &
Tolhurst,2005;Venezky,2004;Zhaoetal.,2002)andincreasesstudentconcentrationon
coursecontent(Oncuetal.,2008;Hennessyetal.,2005).
Agreement does not exist regarding whether these teaching approaches are
applicableinallschoolsystemsorwhethertheyhavethesameeffectonstudents’learning.
Itstandstoreasonthatinstructionaltechnologycanservetosupporteitherpredominant
teachingapproach.Technologycanbebeneficialwhenutilizedinamannerthatrelatesto
the need of the teachers and students. For instance, Safar (2001) discusses teachers
becoming more creative with preparing lesson plans, finding ways to make learning
11
effective and efficient to the students, as well as becoming encouraged to use other
advanced computer‐related applications when they are left to utilize technology in a
mannerthatisappropriatetothem.ZhaoandFrank(2003)arguethattechnologydirectly
benefits teachers when they use it for their own profession, but it does not necessarily
apply to students unless teachers themselves facilitate student use of technology. This
shows thatnotonly is teachers’usean importantcomponentof technologyuse,butalso
that an assessment of the real outcomes related to students’ learning is another key
component.
Despite the promotion of using technology in schools and studies that show how
technologycanassistinteachingandstudents’ learning,aconsiderablebodyofliterature
indicatesthatschoolteachershavenoteffectivelyusedtechnology(Keengwe,Onchwari,&
Wachira, 2008; Culp, Honey, &Mandinach, 2005). Zhao and Frank (2003) indicate that
“someofthetechnologiesarejudgedtobemoreuseful,orfitforthetask,thanothers,and
they survivewhile others perish that are judged to be less fit” (p. 812). This judgment
arisesfromteachers’beliefsabouthowandwhattechnologycanachieveforthem.Studies
haveshownthatteachers’beliefsandattitudestowardsacertaintechnologyinfluenceits
integrationinschools(Oncuetal.,2008;Wozney,Venkatesh,&Abrami,2006).Theextent
towhichtechnologyisuseddependslargelyontheteachers’choiceandbeliefonwhether
technologycanbeasolutiontoimprovingstudentlearning(Hermans,Tondeur,vanBraak,
&Valcke,2008; Sugar,2002).When technology is compatiblewith teachers’pedagogical
orientationorbeliefs,theytendtointegratetechnologymoresmoothly(Zhaoetal.,2002)
andviceversa,thustheydecidewhatkindandhowmuchtechnologyistobeusedintheir
classroom settings (Oncu et al., 2008). Furthermore, teachers are reluctant to adopt a
12
technology that seems incompatible with the norm of a subject culture (Hew & Brush,
2007;Hennessyetal.,2005).Subjectculturereferstothecommonjointpedagogicalbeliefs
thatteachersofthatgroupholdregardinghowasubjectareaoughttobetaught.Hennessy
etal.(2005)refertoitasthe“communityofpractice”(p.160)associatedwithsubjectarea.
John and La Velle (2004) summarize it well by saying that “teaching and learning are
influencedbyteachers’beliefsaboutthesubjectmatterandsubjectculturaltraditions,as
well as personal theories and relatedpedagogical styles” (p. 309). They argue that prior
teachers’ roles,values,andbeliefsshape theircurrentunderstandingofhowto integrate
technologyandhowtheyperceiveitschallenges.Asaresult,thereisaneedtounderstand
themainissuesthathaveanimpactonteachers’useornon‐useoftechnology.
ChallengesofTechnologyAdoptionandUtilization
Numerouschallenges,barriers, andconstraintsplaya role in technologyadoption
anduse.Bythesametoken,authorssuchasEly(1999)useareverselogic,andinsteadof
lookingatbarriers,helooksattheaspectsthatfacilitateintegration.Thesechallengingor
facilitating aspects are described in the literature as internal or external components.
Ertmeretal. (2006)divides technologychallenges into thoserelated to teachersdirectly
(intrinsic)versusthosethatexternallyimpactusage(extrinsic).Shearguesthat“intrinsic
enablers”aremoreimportantthan“extrinsicenablers”becauseteachersarethedecision‐
makersabouthowtointegratetechnologyinmeaningfulways,regardlessofthetypeand
amountoftechnologyavailable(p.55).Thissupportsthenotionthat“mostfactorsdonot
directlyinfluencetechnologyusersinalinearfashion;rathertheirinfluenceismediatedor
filtered by teachers’ perception” (Zhao& Frank, 2003, p. 817). Someof these challenges
13
and/orfacilitatorsareintertwined,andinmanysituationsoverlapeachother.Ely(1999)
states,“Themixofpersonalandinstitutionalcharacteristicsissometimesconfusing.There
isanoverlapandinterrelationshipamongtheconditions,yetisitverydifficulttoseparate
them”(p.8).
Oneofthemajorissuesfacingteachersiseducationalchangeandwhethertheyhave
the readiness and openness to adopt and integrate technology into their profession and
classroompractice(Hennessyetal.,2005;Byrom&Bingham,2001).Fabry&Higgs(1997)
talked about how “teachers would need to change their teaching ideologies and this
transition usually is more difficult than using technology itself” (p. 388). Moore (2007)
emphasizes that real change involves uncertainty, which leads to anxiety. This anxiety
tends to lead to a failure of change to take place. Some authors argue that if individual
characteristics suchas age, yearsof teachingexperience, and training (Moore,2007) are
put intoperspective during the adoption and integrationprocess, changewill takeplace
smoothly.BaylorandRitchie(2002)emphasizethatteacherscanadjusttochangethrough
professionaldevelopmentandasupportiveschoolculture,butmoreimportantly,teachers
need to have “an open‐to‐change attitude and positive perception of the benefits of
technology”(p.3).Otherauthorsdiscussthatchangeonlyoccurswhenanindividualsense
of innovativeness emerges and there is an awareness of the need for innovation and a
positiveattitudetowardschange(VanBraak,2001).ThissupportsEly’s(1991)condition
of dissatisfaction with the status quo when individuals perceive technology and related
processesasineffectiveandinefficientandthusstrivetochange.
Anotherproblematicissueisteachersnothavingsufficientknowledgeandskillsto
work with technology. First, teachers need to have complete awareness of the type of
14
technologies thatwouldbebeneficial for teaching theirsubjectarea.Studieshaveshown
that the subjector contentarea taughtby teachersdetermineswhether technologiesare
used and what technologies are used. For example, studies showed that computer use in
English and Social studies is higher than Math, Science and Foreign language (Cuban,
Kirkpatrick & Peck, 2001). Furthermore, Alkhezzi and Alqahtani (2007) found that the use of
spreadsheets was used by teachers in the science department and not by those in the art
department. Second, teachers need to have the expertise and knowledge about the topic
being taught (content) and how to design a learning experience (pedagogy) for their
students(Hofer&Swan,2008)throughtheuseoftechnology.AsindicatedbyHennessyet
al.(2005),thereisaneedfor“teacherstohaveboth‘technologicalpedagogicalknowledge’,
which is utilizing certain strategies to guide students in using a certain technology, and
‘technologicalcontentknowledge’,which isbeingawareofwhetherthecontentprovided
can be taught by technology” (p. 181). Third, teachers need to have knowledge of the
enablingconditionsfortechnology,or“technologyproficiency”(Zhaoetal.,2002),whichis
“knowingwhatisnecessarytouseaspecifictechnologyinteaching,”(p.389).Forexample,
inorder tohavea computervideoconference for students, teacherswouldneed toknow
how to install the necessary software and acknowledge the need to have high‐speed
Internetanddigitalcamerasforsuccessfulimplementation.
The next major challenge for technology adoption and use is the importance for
teachers to have technology‐related classroom‐management knowledge and skills,which
arecrucialforproperintegrationoftechnologyintheclass.Teachersneedtobeequipped
withclassroommanagementskillsonhowtomanagetechnology‐based lessons,organize
theclasseffectivelysothatstudentshaveequalopportunitiestousetechnologytools,and
15
beabletoassistthemwithtroubleshootingissues(Hew&Brush,2007).Exposuretoand
acquisitionofsuchskillswould lead teachers toacomfortablezone,whichwouldenable
them to build their confidence in utilizing technology in the best possiblemanner. This
aspectsupportsthetrainingandskilldevelopmentconditionraisedbyEly(1999),whichis
oneofthefacilitatorsfortechnologyintegration.
Scarcityoftechnologicalresourcesisalsoconsideredachallengeforteachers.Hew
andBrush(2007)includethelackoftechnicalsupportandlackoftimetolearntechnology
under this category. The literature shows that schools still lack sufficient computers,
peripherals,andsoftware(Karagiorgi,2005;O'Mahony,2003),despitetheNationalCenter
for Education Statistics 2006 report, which showed that 97% of schools and 94% of
instructional rooms in the United States had computers with Internet access in 2005
(Belland,2009).Additionally, thegrowingnumberof schoolshasplacedpressureon the
need formore teaching tools and technologies tobemade available, thus leading to this
shortage.Ely’s(1999)conditionadequateresourcetalksabouthowimportantitistohave
adequateresourcessuchashardware,software,money,andpersonnelforanyinnovation
to be successfully implemented. Furthermore, even with the technologies available in
schools,teachersstillfinditdifficulttohaveaccessatalltimesbecauseoflimitedamounts
andlocationsinwhichtheyareplaced(Hew&Brush,2007).
The lackof technical support is another challenge for teachers.Teachersoftendo
notreceivethetechnicalsupportneededforthemtousetechnologyeffectively(Ertmeret
al., 1999; Rogers, 1999), due the fact that some schools employ a limited number of
technical supportpersonnelwhoareoftenoverwhelmedby teacher requestsanddonot
respondswiftlyoradequately(Hew&Brush,2007).Otherschoolsdependonoutsourced
16
technical support,and, thus, techniciansarenotavailableatall times,whichslowsdown
usebyteacherswhenamalfunctionoccurs.Inherstudy,Nyirongo(2009)foundthatonly
30.1% of facultymembers believed thatMzuzuUniversity inMalawi provided sufficient
technical support to help them integrate electronic technology in teaching and learning.
The rest thought that technical supportwasnonexistent, or thatwhere it existed, itwas
mostlyinsufficient.Thestudyshowedthattechnicalsupportwasratedasakeycomponent
tothesuccessfuluseofelectronictechnologiesforteachingandlearning.
Time is alsoanother challengingaspect for teachers (Ertmeret al., 1999;Seavers,
2002),sincemanyteachershavenotimetolearn,embed,andimprovetheirtechnological
skillsduetooverloadofworkresponsibilitiesatschools.ZhaoandFrank(2003)arguethat
simpletechnologiesthat“requirelittlechangeand[do]notrequirereconfiguringteaching
practices, [and]cost less in termsof timeandenergyareusedmost frequently”(p.821).
Ely’s conditionofavailability of time indicates that individualsneed time to learn, adapt,
integrate,andreflectontheiractionstobeabletounderstandandbecapableofadapting
the innovation to suit their situation. For instance teachers learn to use an interactive
whiteboardinamannerthatassiststheminconveyingtheinformationtothestudents.
The lackofprovisionof incentivestoteacherswhousetechnologyalsochallenges
theiruse.Ely(1999)emphasizedthatrewardsorincentivesfacilitatetechnologyadoption.
When teachers are provided with rewards or any form of incentives, they become
encouraged and stimulated to act. A study by Mosley (2005) showed that the use of
incentives to promote teacher participation in the technology‐mentoring program was
deemedimportantbytheparticipants.Rewardsmayhelpimplementerstohavesomething
to look forward to and, hence, facilitate successful implementation of the innovation
17
(Nyirongo,2009).Overall, it isevident that the lackof resources,whether in the formof
technologies,technicalsupport,time,orincentivesisduetofundingissues(Rogers,1999).
Nothavingsufficientfundsorinappropriateallocationoffundsbyinstitutionscanactasa
majorobstacleforadoptingtechnology.
Another challenge that teachers face is the issueof assessment, inwhich teachers
measure students’ learning progress. Formative assessmentsmeasure students’ ongoing
learningprogress,butsummativeassessmentsarerelatedtonational testscores(Hew&
Brush, 2007; Williams & Easingwood, 2007), and, thus, are considered very critical by
teachersandschooladministrators.Studieshaveshownthatteachersoftenfaceaconflict
between trying to use technology tools and needing to conform to the external
requirementsofstandardizedtestsandassessmentinstruments(Hew&Brush,2007).For
example, teachers may face the difficulty of assessing the efforts of students who have
drawngraphsbyhandversusthosewhohaveproducedthemonacomputer,astheofficial
assessmentmaybeontraditionalmanualskillsandnottechnologyskills(Hennessyetal.,
2005).Thus,teachersmayneedtochangethewaytheyassesstheirstudentswhenusing
technologytoaddressthenewkindofskillsandknowledgedevelopedthroughtheuseof
technology(Pierson,2001).
The lackofplanningandleadership inschools isalsoaproblemfacingtechnology
use.School leadersneed toprovide thepropersupportandencouragement,andaddress
concerns of potential adopters, aswell as serve as rolemodels for using the innovation
(Ensminger & Surry, 2008). This is similar to Ely’s (1999) leadership condition.
Furthermore,administratorsandsupervisorsneedtohaveplanningstrategiestofacilitate
the adoption and integrationprocess.A clear visionof the achievable goals and tangible
18
outcomesexpectedfromintegratingtechnologiesmustbedevelopedandcommunicatedto
the teachers. Studies have shown that when administrations do not cooperate with
teachers and provide leadership and planning strategies, the use of technology does not
extend beyond that point (Hew & Brush, 2007). This discussion of leadership in
technology use brings us to the issue of commitment.Commitment (Ely, 1999) is a very
important component needed by those who are involved in the technology adoption
process.Nyirongo(2009)foundthatthelargestportionofthestudyrespondentsidentified
that the commitment of Mzuzu University’s (Malawi) leadership provided an enabling
environmentfortheintegrationofelectronictechnologiesforteachingandlearning.
Anotherproblemisthelackofteachers’collaborationandcommunication.Oncuet
al. (2008)emphasize thathavingpersonalandprofessional relationshipswithcolleagues
who use technology provides encouragement and reassurance for teachers. Through
collaboration,teachersareabletolearnfromothersabouttechnologiesthatareunfamiliar
or that they have never considered using in their classrooms. This supports Ely’s
participation condition, which calls for involving all concerned parties in planning and
decision‐making issues. Despite the fact that collaboration is important because it
encourages teachers to create technology‐integrated lesson plans andmaterials, authors
havearguedthatcollaborationinitselfcanbedifficulttoachieveduetoteachers’workload
atschools.
Thestructureandfacilityofaschoolinfluencewhichtechnologiesareinstalledand
usedinschools.Schoolattributessuchasthesizeandlayoutoftheclassrooms,aswellas
havingtheappropriatefacilitiesandutilitiesthatallowfortheinstallationoftechnologies
such as computers and Internet connectivity, encourage teachers’ use. Elmasry (2007)
19
emphasizes, “learning environments is directly correlated with the pedagogical models
takingplace”(p.123).Teachers’perceptionsregardingtheirlearningenvironmentimpact
howtheyperforminitanddeterminetheteaching–learningactivitiesthattakeplaceand
their preferences on the type of learning technologies that are used (Elmasry, 2007). In
addition, the insufficient number of classrooms in some schools limits the quantity and
types of technologies installed and, accordingly, the availability for teachers. Fabry and
Higgs (1997) state that the lackof access to the right typesof technology inappropriate
locationsisakeychallengetotheintegrationoftechnologyintheclassroom(Keengweet
al., 2008).For instance, studies show that laptops are beginning to be used in schools due to
limited computer availability atschools, or if available constraints in scheduling for computers in
advance and students unequalaccess to computers at home (Warschauer, 2007)
TheProcessofAdoption
The literature has identified manymodels of technology adoption such as Davis’
(1989)TechnologyAcceptanceModelTAM&Rogers’(2003)DiffusionofInnovation(DOI)
theory,butduetoitsimportancetothepresentstudy,Rogers’theorywillbeindependently
described in detail. However, the commonalities between Davis’ (1987) andMoore and
Benbasat’s(1991)researchthataddedconstructstoRogers’DOItheorywillbediscussed,
andreferencewillalsobemadetoIT‐relateddiffusiontheories.
RogersDiffusionofInnovation(DOI)Theory
Rogers’ DOI theory is a general diffusion theory that is well established and has
been utilized in both educational and non‐educational contexts. It has also been used
20
extensively with modifications and extensions when investigating various types of
innovations.Rogers’seminalworkhasbeenoneofthemostcomprehensivetreatmentsof
adoptionanddiffusion,and,publishedfirstin1962,itiscurrentlyinitsfifthedition(Surry
&Ely,2002).Surry(1997)emphasizedthatRogers’theory“isthemostsynthesizedwork
doneofallofthesignificantfindingsandcompellingtheoriesrelatedtodiffusionandthe
closestanyresearcherhascometopresentingaunifiedtheoryofdiffusion”(p.3).Diffusion
is “the process by which an innovation is communicated through certain channels over
timeamongthemembersofasocialsystem”(Rogers,2003,p.11).Thetheoryisconsidered
asocialchangemodelinwhich“alterationoccursinthestructureandfunctionofasocial
system”(Rogers,2003,p.6).Thissocialchangeoccursduetotheprocessesthattakeplace
whennew innovationsare introduced,diffused,and theneitheradoptedorrejected.The
mainelementsinthediffusionofnewideasareinnovation,communicationchannels,time,
andthesocialsystem.
Innovation
Aninnovationis“anidea,practiceorobjectthatisperceivedasnewbyanindividual
oranotherunitofadoption”(Rogers,2003,p.12).These individualsorunitsofadoption
make the final decision onwhether to use it or not.Manydifferent types of innovations
exist that require different levels of commitment. New innovations are not always
necessarily viewed as progress or important to all individuals (Rogers, 2003).
Furthermore, thecharacteristicsof the innovation influence thespeedatwhichpotential
userswilladoptit.Thecharacteristicsorattributesofaninnovation,aswillbediscussed,
subsequently play a very crucial role in the adoption process. Innovations in one social
21
systemmaynotbedesirableforothersinthesamesocialsystem,andthisalsoimpactsthe
rateof adoption.The conceptof reinvention (Rogers, 2003) is an aspect of innovation in
whichindividualschangetheinnovationintheprocessofitsadoptionandimplementation.
Userstendtousereinventiontoensuretheinnovationfitstheiruniquesituation, leading
diffusiontotakeplacemorerapidlyandadoptionlikelytobesustained(Rogers,2003).
PerceivedAttributesofInnovations
Rogers’ (2003) theory suggests that individuals are inherently more or less
predisposedtoinnovativebehavior.Teachersarethekeytothediffusionofanyinnovation
in the classroom, and their perception level of the attributes of an innovation defines
whetheritwillbeadoptedandused(Moore,2007).Thetermperceivedattributerefersto
“the opinions of potential adopterswho base their feelings about an innovation on how
theyperceivethatinnovation”(Surry&Ely,2002,p.186).Theseperceivedattributesmake
them acceptable to some individuals and not to others. Moore and Benbasat (1991)
emphasizethatadoptersperceiveinnovationattributesindifferentwaysand,accordingly,
behaviors differ too. These behaviors determine towhat extent technology is used. Five
attributesweredefinedbyRogers(2003):
1.relativeadvantage,
2.compatibility,
3.complexity,
4.trialability,and
5.observability.
22
The first characteristic, relative advantage, is the degree to which an individual
perceives an innovation to be superior to previousmethods. Economic advantage, social
prestige,convenience,andsatisfactionareimportantfactors.However,anindividualmust
perceivetheinnovationasadvantageous,evenifitisnotthecase.Next,compatibilityisthe
degree to which an individual perceives an innovation to be consistent with his or her
existing values, past experiences, andneeds. Third, complexity is the degree towhich an
innovationisperceivedasdifficulttounderstandanduse.Fourth,trialabilityisthedegree
towhichan innovationwillbe triedona limitedbasis,whichhelpsreduce theadopters’
uncertainty toward the use of the innovation and, accordingly, its adoption. Fifth,
observability is the degree to which the results of an innovation are visible to other
individuals. Insummary, innovationsperceivedby individuals tohavegreateradvantage,
compatibility,trialability,observability,andlesscomplexityareadoptedmorequicklythan
other innovations (Rogers, 2003). Moore and Benbasat (1991) emphasize that the
“perceptionsofusingtheinnovationisofinterestratherthantheinnovationitself,sinceits
useispredictedbyhowtheseindividualsperceivetheinnovationattributes”(p.194).
CommunicationChannels
Communicationisthe“processthatindividualsusetocreateandshareinformation
toachieveamutualunderstanding”(Rogers,2003,p.18).Thiscommunicationallowsfora
better decision‐making process to take place concerning the innovation (Moore, 2007).
Twoformsofcommunication,massmediaandinterpersonalchannels,areusedtotransmit
information(Rogers,2003).Theformerisconcernedwiththetransmissionofinformation
through mass media formats such as radio, television, journals, newspapers,
23
telecommunications,etc.Informationdistributedinthismannerusuallyoccursrapidlybut
lacks credibility and trustworthiness when transferring information. Interpersonal
channels are used when the information is exchanged face‐to‐face. This method is
considered much slower than mass media, but it is more effective because of human
interactionandtheabilityofindividualstoexchangeandcommunicatenewideastoeach
other.Rogers(2003)emphasizedthatwheninformationisexchangedbetweenindividuals
who are homophilous—who have common attributes whether in regards to education,
socioeconomic status, or beliefs—communication tends to be more effective. This
effectiveness comes in terms of knowledge gain and attitude formation about the
innovation.Thiseffect is reversedwhen thegroup isheterophilous, as thesepartieshave
differentattributesthatnegatively influencetheachievementofeffectivecommunication.
Despitethisfact,somedegreeofdifferenceisneededfornewinformationtobeexchanged
(Rogers,2003).Thisdegreeofdifferenceisneededasitallowsfornewideastospreadto
otherindividualsofsocioeconomicstatus,educationandtechnicalexpertiseconnectedina
close‐knitnetwork.
Time
Timeisthefactorthatreferstohowlongindividualstaketogothroughtheprocess
of either accepting or rejecting an innovation (Moore, 2007). Three related events take
placeduringthediffusionprocess(Rogers,2003)asshownbelowinFigure1:
1. theinnovation‐decisionprocess,
2. theinnovativenessoftheindividual,and
3. theinnovation’srateofadoption.
24
1Figure1.Theinnovation‐decisionprocessmodel(Rogers,2003).
During the innovationdecision process, as shown in Figure 1, the individual first
acquirestheknowledgeneededtolearnandunderstandabouttheinnovation.Anattitude
is then formed about the innovation during the persuasion stage, which leads to either
favorableorunfavorableopinions concerning it. In thedecision stage, an individualwill
seekadditional informationaboutthe innovation, trythe innovation,anddecidewhether
to adopt or reject the innovation. The implementation stage occurs when an individual
decides toadopt thenew innovationandputs it intouse. In the laststage, the individual
confirmsthedecisionandseeksreinforcementofthedecisiontoadopttheinnovation.The
individualrecognizesthebenefitsofusingtheinnovation,integratestheinnovationintoa
continuous routine, and promotes the innovation to other individuals. However, an
individualmay reversehisorherdecisionanddiscontinue the innovation if “exposed to
1 Source:DiffusionofInnovations,5thEditionbyEverettM.Rogers(5.1,p170).Copyright©1962,1971,1983byTheFreePress,aDivisionofSimon&Schuster,Inc.Usedwithpermissionofthepublisher.Allrightsreserved.
25
conflicting messages about the innovation thus effort is exerted to avoid a ‘state of
dissonanceorreduceitifoccurs’”(Rogers,2003,p.189).Implementationofaninnovation
inanorganizationismorecomplexthanforanindividualbecausetheindividualswhouse
theinnovationareusuallyadifferentsetofpeoplefromthedecision‐makers.Thereforean
organization may decide to adopt an innovation, but implementation may not always
follow,sincedecisionstoimplementinvolveotherindividuals(Gwayi,2009).
Thesecondissuerelatedtotimeisinnovativeness,whichisthedegreetowhichan
individualisrelativelyearlyinadoptingnewideascomparedtoothermembersofasocial
system.Rogers (2003)groupedadopters into five categoriesof a social system inabell‐
shapedcurvebasedontheirdegreeofinnovativeness,asshowninFigure2.
2Figure2.Adoptercategorizationonthebasisofinnovativeness(Rogers,2003).
Innovatorsarethefirstpeopletoadoptanewideaintheirsystem.Theyrepresent
the first 2.5% of the individuals to adopt an innovation. These people can cope with
uncertainlyathigherlevelsconcerninganinnovation,haveahighlevelofmediaexposure,
understand and apply complex technical knowledge, have interpersonal networks, and
2 Source:DiffusionofInnovations,5thEditionbyEverettM.Rogers(6.1,p222).Copyright©1962,1971,1983byTheFreePress,aDivisionofSimon&Schuster,Inc.Usedwithpermissionofthepublisher.Allrightsreserved.
26
usually control substantial financial resources that help in losses from unprofitable
innovation(Rogers,2003).Earlyadoptersareanintegratedpartofthelocalsocialsystem
and represent the next 13.5% to adopt a new idea. They serve as opinion leaders from
whomotherindividualsobtainadviceandinstructionbeforeadoptinganewideaandare
respectedbytheirpeers(Rogers,2003).Theearlymajorityrepresentsthenext34%ofthe
adopters. They adopt innovations before the average member of the social system and
interactwiththeirpeersbutseldomareopinionleaders.Theyprovideanimportantlinkin
the social process between the very early and the late majority, since they provide
interconnectednessinthesocialsystem’snetwork(Rogers,2003).
Latemajorityadoptersmakeupthenext34%themembersofthesocialsystem.The
latemajorityareskepticsanddonotadoptnewideasuntilthemajorityofthemembersin
their social system have done so. However, they usually adopt an innovation due to
economicnecessityandincreasingpressurefromtheirpeersintheirnetwork.Theyhave
scarceresources,and,thus,mostoftheuncertaintyabouttheinnovationmustberemoved
beforetheyfeelitissafetoadopt(Rogers,2003).Laggardsarethelast16%toadoptanew
idea inasocialsystem.Theyusuallyarenotopinion leaders,have limitedresources,and
make certain that a new ideawill be successful before theywill adopt it. Their point of
reference is in thepastandwhathasbeendonepreviously.Theyhave traditionalvalues
andaresuspiciousofinnovationsandchangeagents(Rogers,2003).
The third aspect related to time is the rate of adoption. The rate of adoption is
definedas“therelativespeedwithwhichaninnovationisadoptedbymembersofasocial
system”(Rogers,2003,p.23).Whenthenumberof individualsadoptingan innovation is
plottedonacumulativefrequencyovertime,anS‐shapedcurveisformed.Initially,onlya
27
fewinnovatorsadoptthenewidea.Itwillthenhaveaperiodofrapidgrowththatwilltaper
offandbecomestable,theneventuallydecline.Severalvariablesaffecttherateofadoption
of innovation. The rate of adoption differs for the same innovation in different social
systems.This isdue to the fact that “rateofadoption ismeasured foran innovation ina
systemratherthanforanindividualasaunitofanalysis”(Rogers,2003,p.23).Inaddition,
attributesof innovations that arehighlyperceivedby individualswill haveamore rapid
rate of adoption. Other variables that play a role as seen in Figure 3, are the perceived
attributes of innovations, the communication channels, the type of innovation‐decision
takingplace,andtheeffortsexertedbychangeagentstopromotetheinnovation.
3Figure3.Variablesdeterminingtherateofadoptionofinnovations(Rogers,2003).
3Source:DiffusionofInnovations,5thEditionbyEverettM.Rogers(7.3,p281).Copyright©1962,1971,1983byTheFreePress,aDivisionofSimon&Schuster,Inc.Usedwithpermissionofthepublisher.Allrightsreserved.
28
TheSocialSystem
Asocialsystem“isasetofinterrelatedunitsthatengageinjointproblemsolvingto
accomplish a common goal” (Rogers, 2003, p. 23). Members of a social system can be
individuals, informal groups, or organizations. The diffusion of an innovationwithin any
social system is dependent upon social structure, norms, opinion leaders, and change
agents; types of innovation‐decisions; and consequences of innovation (Rogers, 2003). A
social structure explains how members of a social system interact and live together,
predictinghowtheywillbehave.Notonlydoesindividualbehaviorcount,butalsonorms
oftheindividualswithinthatsocialsystem.Normsarethe“establishedbehaviorpatterns
forthemembersofasocialsystem”(Rogers,2003,p.26).Systemnormsaffectdiffusionin
that they provide a guide on the behavioral patterns that are shared and established by
membersofthesamesocialgroup.Iftheinnovationalignswellwiththenormsofthesocial
system, there is a high probability that it will be adopted; otherwise, it will be rejected
(Rogers,2003).Yates(2001)emphasizedthatteachersinteractmorefrequentlyandmore
freelywitheachother,and,thus,ifsometeachersadoptaninnovation,otherswillpursue
thesamegoal(Gwayi,2009).
Withinthissocialsystem,opinionleadersandchangeagentsalsoplayaroleinthe
diffusion process. The opinion leader is an individual who is influential in changing the
attitudesofotherstowardtheinnovation(Rogers,2003).Opinionleadershipisearnedby
technicalcompetence,socialaccessibility,andconformitytothesystem’snorms.Achange
agent is“anindividualwhoinfluencesclients’ innovationdecisionsinadirectiondeemed
desirable by a change agency” (Rogers, 2003, p. 27). A change agent usually seeks to
promote theadoptionofnew ideasbutmayalso try toslowdowndiffusionandprevent
29
adoption of undesirable innovations. Furthermore, change agents bridge the
communication gap between a change agency and the potential clients. Decision‐making
regarding innovations are either optional innovationdecision, inwhich individualsmake
theirdecisiontoadoptorrejectaninnovationindependentofthemembersofthegroups;
collective innovationdecisions, which aremade based on the consensus of the group; or
authority innovationdecisions, which are made by people who have power, status, or
technicalexpertise.Changesoccurtoanindividualortoasocialsystemresultingfromthe
adoptionorrejectionoftheinnovation(Rogers,2003).
Three dimensions categorize consequences: direct consequences that occur in
immediateresponsetoaninnovation;indirectconsequences,whichoccurinresponsetothe
effectsofdirect consequences; andanticipated orunanticipatedconsequences,whichare
changesthatarerecognizedorunrecognizedrespectivelybymembersofasocialsystem.
Insummary,asocialsystemconsistsofvariousaspectsthatareallimportanttotakeinto
considerationduringthediffusionprocess.
Summary
Three dimensions that involve technology adoption and integration have been
discussed in the literature: teachers’beliefs andattitudes, the challengesandconstraints
facingteachers,andtheadoptionprocess.Aslightshift intechnologyacceptanceanduse
by teachers is seen despite the challenges and constraints. Teachers are becomingmore
awareoftheimportanceofpromotingtechnologyintegrationinschools,regardlessofhow
theyareused,forwhatpurposes,andinwhatcontext.“Pedagogicalevolutiondoesappear
tobetakingplace.Thereisagradualbutperceptibleshiftinsubjectpracticeandthinking,
30
involving both pupils and teachers developing new strategies in response to new
experiencesandtheliftingofexistingconstraints”(Hennessyetal.,2005,p.186).
Rogers’ DOI theory (2003) offers a valuable framework for understanding why
innovations are accepted or rejected. The four elements of the diffusion process are the
innovation,howinformationabouttheinnovationiscommunicated,time,andthenatureof
thesocialsystemintowhichtheinnovationisbeingintroduced.Therateofadoptionofan
innovation is influencedbyperceivedattributesof an innovation, the typeof innovation,
communicationchannels,natureofthesocialsystem,andtheeffortsexertedbythechange
agentsinpromotingtheinnovation.
RelatedDiffusionPerspectivesandCommonalities
Studies show that several attempts have been made to use general theories of
diffusiontodeveloptheoriesspecifictothefieldofinstructionaltechnology(IT)inorderto
increasetheadoptionofinstructionaltechnologies.Surry(1997)statesthattheapplication
ofdiffusiontheoriestothefieldofITisdividedintotwomajorcategories:macroandmicro
theories. Macro theories deal with restructuring and reform of organizations and are
referredtoassystematicchangetheoriessincethey“involvetheadoptionofawiderangeof
innovative technologies and practices” (p. 4). A shift and development in the extent of
computer usage is presented in recent articles (Niederhauser, et al., 2006; Sutherland, et al.,
2004) which shows that studentsare using productivity tools like web browsing to access and
download information, email, wordprocessing, desktop publishing as well as making websites.
Microtheories,alsoknownasproductutilizationtheories(Surry,1997),focusonadoption
and utilization of instructional products and tend to focus on specific innovations as
31
appliedinspecificenvironments.Some studies have shown thatPDAs (hand-held computers)
are used for multimedia activities and context based tutorial system when learning foreign
languages like English (Wishart, 2008).AnumberofmacroandmicroITdiffusiontheories
havebeendeveloped, suchasBurkman’smodeluser‐oriented instructionaldevelopment
model(UOID)developed in1987,HallandHord’smodelconcernsbasedadoptionmodel
(CBAM)alsodeveloped in1987,andFarquharandSurry’sadoptionanalysismodel (AA)
developedin1994(Alias&Zainnudin,2005).
Two predominant philosophical viewpoints have been discussed regarding how
technologyisviewed:determinist(developer‐based)andinstrumentalist(adopter‐based)
perspectives(Surry,1997).Thedeterministphilosophyviewstechnologyasautonomous,
revolutionary,andtheprimarycauseofsocialchangebeyondhumancontrol.Thetechnical
characteristicsofaninnovationaredeemedimportant,and,therefore,successfuladoption
anddiffusion takesplacebasedon an innovation's technological superiority.Despite the
physical limitation on using the PDAs due to “screen sizes, limited audiovisual quality,
restrictive keyboard for dataentry, the need of SD cards for extra memory and limited battery
life” (Wishart, 2008, p. 349), teachers haverecognized its usefulness in regards to managing and
presenting information efficiently, internet browsing, word processing, sharing information
through beaming files, audio recordings andtaking photos and videos for learning purposes.The
instrumentalistphilosophyviewsthegrowthoftechnologyasanevolutionaryprocess, in
whichhumancontrolovertheinnovationisakeyissueandthecausesofchangearebased
on the social conditions andonhuman’s aspiration for change and improvement (Surry,
1997).Studieshaveshownthatusingemailoverletterwritinghasproventobemorerapid
32
andefficientincommunicatingwithothersandthereforeisbeingmoreutilizedbyteachers
whencommunicatingwithparentsatschool.
Thedebatebetweenwhetheraninstrumentalistoradeterministphilosophy(Surry,
1997) should be followed shows a consensus that technological superiority alone is not
enoughandthataninstrumentalistapproachisneededtomaximizethepotentialbenefitof
diffusiontheorieswhenusedbyinstructionaltechnologists.Atthesametime,technologists
also need to have a determinist viewpoint on “how to improve society by improving
instructional technology” (Surry, 1997, p. 11). Clearly, an understanding is needed by
instructional technologists on the issues pertaining to the adopters and the surrounding
social system before pursuing either of these philosophies. This will ensure that the
adoption and diffusion process is successful and technological improvement is really
occurring.
Despite each model being conceptually different from the other, the similarity
betweenRogers’ (2003),Moore andBenbasat’s (1991),Davis’ (1987), andFarquhar and
Surry’s(1995)theoriesisthatallfouremphasizetheimportanceofindividuals’perception
towardstheattributesofaninnovationduringtheadoptionprocess.Throughtheadoption
analysisapproach(Farquhar&Surry,1994),abroaderperspectiveofbothuser‐perception
and organization attributes is taken into consideration, resulting in the adoption of
technologythat isrooted inanorganizationalcontextandaddresses issuesofconcernto
theintendeduser.Adoptionanalysisisa“processthatcallsforathoroughexaminationof
boththecontextinwhichaninstructionalproductwillbeusedandofthepeoplewhowill
use the product” (Surry & Farquhar, 1995, p. 594). This model focuses on both the
individual and the organizational factors that have an impact on whether or not the
33
productinadopted.Individualfactorsarethe“skills,attitudes,perceptionsandknowledge
possessedby thepeoplewhowill use the technology” (Surry&Farquhar, 1995,p. 596),
which includesboth “usercharacteristics”and“perceivedattributes.”Usercharacteristics
include the adopter’s traits such as knowledge, prior experience, skill level, anxiety, and
motivation, while perceived attributes deal with how the innovation is perceived by the
adopters,asdiscussedpreviouslyinRogers’theory(2003).Organizationalfactorsinclude
“all of the personnel, expertise, attitudes, hardware, software, facilities and services
available within or to an organization” (p. 596). They consist of both the physical
environment and the support environments. The physical environment includes “how
technology is utilized, available classroom facilities and existing hardware and software
while the support component include production services, technical support, ongoing
monetarysupport,andstoragesupport”(Surry&Farquhar,1995,p.596).
Similarly, Rogers’ DOI theory shares some common featureswith the Technology
AcceptanceModel(TAM)proposedbyDavis(1989).DavisdevelopedtheTAMtoexplain
thebehavioralintentionandactualbehaviorofaperson’scomputerusage.TheTAMmodel
definesPerceivedUsefulness(PU)as “thedegree towhichapersonbelieves thatusinga
particular system would enhance his or her performance” and Perceived Ease of Use
(PEOU)as“thedegreetowhichapersonbelievesthatusingaparticularsystemwouldbe
free of effort” (p. 320). We see a similarity to Rogers’ (2003) concepts of “relative
advantage”and“complexity,”whichrefertoteachers’beliefthatusingtechnologyintheir
classroomswouldenhancetheirteachingperformanceandtotheirbeliefthattheywillbe
abletoutilizethetechnologywithease,respectively.TAMproposedthatPUandPEOUare
affected by various external variables such as user characteristics and organizational
34
factors (Al‐Senaidi, 2009). It is important to identify the perceptions of the potential
adopters as well as their needs and wants to develop products that meet these needs
(Farquhar& Surry, 1995) in order to facilitate the adoptionprocess. “In ameta‐analysis
studyonTAMwith88publishedstudies,KingandHe(2006)concludedtheTAMisavalid
androbustmodel”(AlSenaidi,2009,p.10).
Rogers’(2003)fiveattributesofperceivedattributeswerefurtherrefinedbyMoore
& Benbasat (1991). Relative advantage was decomposed into two constructs: relative
advantage and image. Image is defined as “the degree to which use of an innovation is
perceived to enhance one’s image or status in one’s social system” (Moore & Benbasat,
1991,p.175).Roger’sviewpointisthatimageispartofrelativeadvantage,butMooreand
Benbasat’s (1991) research found it tobe independentof relative advantage.Moore and
Benbasat (1991) also divided observability into two constructs—visibility and result
demonstrability.Visibility is“theextenttowhichpotentialadoptersseetheinnovationas
being visible in the adoption context” (Moore & Benbasat, 1991, p. 203). The construct
resultdemonstrabilityisdefinedas“tangibilityoftheresultofusinganinnovation”(Moore
&Benbasat,1991,p.203).
An additional construct was generated through this study, called voluntariness.
Voluntariness of use is defined as “thedegree towhichuseof innovation is perceived as
beingvoluntaryorfreewill”(Moore&Benbasat,1991,p.195).Accordingtotheauthors,
technology acceptance is not only influenced by a person’s perception but also by a
mandatefromsuperiors.AgarwalandPrasad(1997)indicatedthatthisconstructwasnot
partoftheinnovationcharacteristicsbyRogersbuthasshownthatpotentialadopterscan
perceivevaryinglevelsofchoiceintheadoptionofinnovations.Theconstructsimageand
35
voluntariness show the extent towhich teachers are affected by these constructs rather
thantheirownself‐interestinusingthetechnology.Inhisstudy,Gwayi(2009)foundthat
although TALULAR (Teaching and Learning Using Locally Available Resources) is not
strictlymandatory, science teachers generally perceived using the innovation to be less
voluntary. Their perception that theywere required to use the innovation tended to be
associatedwithincreasedlevelsofuse.
ContributionsandCriticismsofDiffusionResearch
Diffusionresearchstudieshavecontributedtootherresearchstudiesbuthavealso
drawn criticism. Rogers (2003) emphasized that diffusion studies are relevant to many
disciplines, especially to social sciences. Studying behaviors of individuals and
organizationspaintsanaccuratepictureofthesocialchangeprocessthattakesplaceover
timeandleadstoresultsthatprovideindividualswithsolutionsinsimilarsituations.The
growthofdiffusionstudiesleadstoempiricalevidencefromwhichscholarscangeneralize
results and apply it to specific cases. Diffusion studies also reflect clear research
methodologies,wheredata isnotdifficult togatherandthemethodsofdataanalysisare
well laid out. Yates (2001) indicated that through Rogers’ seminal work on diffusion of
innovation,researchersareabletounderstandthereasonsbehindindividualsadoptingor
rejecting a technology, come up with ways to introduce new hardware and software
componentstotheusers,anddevelopseveralmodelsthatcanbeusedinsimilarstudies.
Beginning in 1970, criticism started to take shape among the diffusion scholars
(Rogers,2003).Fourissuespertainingtothesecriticismswillbediscussed.Thefirstisthe
proinnovationbias,whichimpliesthataninnovationisadoptedbyallthemembersofthe
36
socialsystemandthattheinnovationshouldbeneitherreinventednorrejected.Theissue
thenbecomes that “researchersareunable to lookatdiffusionof innovationsholistically
and fail to learn certain important issues such as end‐users’ ignorance about new ideas,
discontinuance, and other anti‐diffusion programs aimed at preventing undesirable
innovations” (Gwayi, 2009, p. 26). Successful diffusions have the data, which could be
retracedbydiffusionresearchers,whileunsuccessfuldiffusionsdonotleavemuchtotrace
for reconstruction (Ozaygen, 2005). The second criticism is the individualblame bias, in
which there is a tendency to hold an individual responsible rather than the systems of
whichtheindividualisapart.“Diffusionstudiestendtotakesidewithchangeagenciesthat
promoteinnovationratherthanwiththeindividualswhoarepotentialadopters”(Rogers,
2003,p.118).
The third criticism is the recall problem, which may lead to inaccuracies in time
(period)as towhen the individualadoptedanew idea.Ozaygen(2005)emphasized that
participantsfailtogivetherightanswersregardingwhentheyadoptedaninnovation,and
onlysnapshotsarecollected.This isduetothe fact thatmostdiffusionprocesses involve
aspectsthatextendintimeandevents.Thefinalcriticismistheissueofequality,whereby
thespreadofnewideascausesasocioeconomicgapbetweenthehigherandlowerstatus
segments of a system. Studies have shown that if “communication strategies are used
effectivelyinnarrowingthesocioeconomicbenefitsgap,thensocioeconomicstructurewill
no more become a major barrier to diffusion of innovations for those who are
disadvantagedinthepopulation”(Rogers,2003,p.134).Inunderstandingthesecriticisms,
researchers can help to provide solutions that improve the field of diffusion studies.
However,with all the criticisms, diffusion researchhas lead to the formationof theories
37
explainingtheimpactofnewinnovationsonsocieties(Rogers,2003).
ApplicationofRogers’PerceivedAttributesinEducationalSystems
Despite the variations in findings regarding Rogers’ (2003) propositions, studies
haveshownthatsomeattributesareconsistentpredictorsintheadoptionprocess(Gwayi,
2009). Below is a description of some of the studies that were carried out in higher
educationandK‐12schoolsintheArabGulfStates,theMiddleEast,Africa,andtheUnited
States.TheArabGulfStatesareSaudiArabia,Qatar,Oman,Bahrain,Kuwait,andtheUnited
ArabEmirates;thesestatescomprisetheGulfCooperationCountries(GCC).
StudiesinHigherEducation
A quantitative study by Al Senaidi (2009) explored the factors influencing
InformationandComputingTechnology (ICT) adoption forOmani facultymembers from
SultanQaboosUniversity.ConsistentwithRogers’(2003)model,thisstudyfoundthatthe
number of faculty members in the five‐adopter categories were close to a normal
distribution. Approximately 86% of the faculty members classified themselves in the
innovator,earlyadopter,andearlymajoritycategories(whichincludedthelaggardgroup).
SignificantgroupdifferencesofICTusesandskills,perceptionofbarriers,andperception
ofICTattributes intheadoptercategoryshowedthattheearlyadoptersusedtechnology
more, had ahigher level of technological skills, perceived fewerbarriers in the adoption
process, and recognized higher values of technology attributes than the later adopters.
Compatibility between ICT and job duties or personal style, ease of use, and relative
advantage regarding job efficiency accounted collectively for68%of the varianceon the
38
perception scale. In contrast, the study showed that other constructs such as trialability,
image, voluntariness, demonstrability, and visibility, which are valid inWestern culture,
didnotholdinOmaniculture.
Uslueletal.(2008)investigatedtheimpactsofICTfacilities(i.e., inclassroom,lab,
and office) and ICT attributes (i.e., relative advantage, compatibility, ease of use, and
observability)onICT instructionalandmanagerialusesby834facultymembers from22
universities inTurkey.The study showed that theuseof ICT is becomingwidespread in
higher education and that the faculty members use ICT mostly as a means of
communicationandfordoingresearchaboutthecoursethroughtheInternet.TheyuseICT
less frequently for publishing their lecture notes and announcements concerning the
course (e.g., assignments,projects)on the Internet. Furthermore, this study investigated
theunderlyingrelationshipbetweenICTfacilities,perceivedattributes,andICTusagefor
highereducation,showingthattheuseoftheICTusingRogers’DOImodel(2003)hasbeen
tested andvalidated andall thehypotheseswere supported.The studyprovided further
evidence of the appropriateness ofDOI tomeasure the ICTusage in higher education in
Turkey.
AstudybyAlmobarraz(2007)examinedfactorsleadingtothedecisiontoadoptthe
Internet in the academic environment as perceived by faculty members of Imam
MohammedBinSaudUniversity,inSaudiArabia.ItfoundthatattributesofRogers’stheory
(2003) and those in Moore and Benbasat’s study (1999) influenced faculty members’
adoptionoftheInternet.AlmobarrazshowedthatusingtheInternetforacademicpurposes
wascompatiblewithallaspectsoffacultymembersinregardstotheirprofessionaswellas
fortheirpersonalneeds.Relativeadvantagewasthesecondstrongestpredictor,followed
39
by image, ease of use, result demonstrability, trialability, visibility, and voluntariness,
respectively.Inregardstorelativeadvantage,facultymembersusedtheInternetbecauseit
enabled them to accomplish academic tasks faster and it enhanced their efficiency in
completing theacademic tasks.Complexity (easeofuse)alsowasa factor in that faculty
membersfoundthatlearningtooperatetheInternetwaseasyforthem.Thisstudyshowed
thattrialabilityisaweakpredictoroffacultymembers’Internetadoption.Thereasonfor
this result is due to the lack of training available for using Internet applications and
services. Lastly, observability (result demonstrability and visibility) showed that the
results of using the Internet are apparent to the facultymembers and that an increased
numberofInternetServicesProviders(ISPs)andthespreadofInternetcafesthroughthe
majorcitiesmademorepeopleawareoftheInternet’suses.
Al‐Asmari(2005)carriedoutastudytoinvestigatetheuseofInternetbyteachersof
EnglishasaForeignLanguage(EFL)inSaudiArabianCollegesofTechnologyusingRogers’
DOItheory(2003).Thestudyshowedthattheteachershadpositiveperceptionsaboutthe
Internet as a tool for EFL instruction since it “[saved] time and effort in obtaining
information and materials needed for class, [lessened] the using of traditional delivery
methods and added an element of interest and joy to the teaching/learning process” (p.
142).However,severalissueshinderedteachers’Internetuse.Themainissuewastheneed
for financial support to enable the purchase of more computers and better Internet
connections.Limitedaccesstocomputers inclassroomand limitedopportunities to train
on the use of the Internet reduced teachers’ interest in implementing the Internet in
teachingEFL.Inregardstoattitudesandappropriateness,teachershadtwoconcerns.The
firstwasthattheSauditeachersdidnotwanttochangetheirtraditionalwaysofdelivering
40
instruction and resisted using the Internet. The secondwas that they had apprehension
about the negative values and moralities that the Internet might have on the students.
Furthermore, the study showed that external factors were a stronger predictor in
comparisontopersonalfactorswhenitcametotheuseoftheInternetinteachingEFL.
StudiesinK12SchoolSystems
AstudybyGwayi(2009)wascarriedoutwithsecondaryschoolscienceteachersin
Malawi, investigating the relationship betweenperceptions of usingTALULAR (Teaching
andLearningUsingLocallyAvailableResources)andthe levelof its implementation.The
study used perceived attributes characteristics derived from Rogers (2003), Moore and
Benbasat (1991), and Compeau, Meister, and Higgins (2007). The study revealed that
relative advantage, ease of use, compatibility with prior experience, others’ use,
communicability, measurability (observability), and trialability were significantly and
positivelyrelatedtothe implementationofTALULAR,whilevoluntarinesswasnegatively
related. The study showed that level of education, school type, and training attendance
were significantly related to implementation, while no significant association wasmade
with gender, teaching experience, or length of innovation training. Teachers were also
concerned about certain issues that included “time limitation to use the innovation,
ineffectivenessoftheinnovationinsomecases,needfortraining,andscarcityofsomelocal
resourcestofacilitatetheuseoftheinnovationforteaching”(Gwayi,2009,p.181).
Moore (2007) carried out a study with Virginia secondary technology education
teachers to determine to what extent are they implementing STL (Standards for
Technological Literacy), to what extent each standard was being implemented, and the
41
relationshipbetweentheindividualstandardsimplementedandrespondents’perceptions
according to Rogers’ (2003) innovation attributes. The study showed that 20% of
respondents, having adopted STL, perceive them to be an advantage to their teaching,
compatiblewiththeirlifeexperiences,easytotryonalimitedbasis,easytoobserve,and
nottoodifficulttounderstandandapply.Thestudyshowedthattheteachersunderstood
howtheindividualstandardswerecompatiblewithwhattheywerecurrentlyteachingin
theirclassroomandwerewillingtotryimplementingindividualstandardsseparately.For
someof the individualstandards, teachershadadifficult timetryingonlyportionsof the
standardsorbeingable toobservesomeoneelseusing them,andmanyof the individual
standardswereviewedasbeingtoocomplextouseandimplement.Thestudyshowedthat
there were variations of perceived attributes of the individual standards due to the
extremerangeoftopicscovered;nevertheless,itwasevidentfromthestudythatstronger
relationships with Rogers’ (2003) perceived attributes and the individual standards are
neededasthesecouldincreasetherateofadoption.
A study was carried out by Martins, Steil, and Todesco (2004), investigating the
factors that influencedtheuseof the Internet in languageschools inBrazilusingRogers’
(2003)perceivedattributes.Thestudyshowedthatobservabilityandtrialabilitywerethe
twovariablesthatappearedasthetwomostsignificantones,whilerelativeadvantageand
complexity exerted little influence in the study. Trialability was an important indicator
because the teachers who attended training programs applied the Internet skills they
acquiredintheclassroom.Internetavailabilityandadoptioninthisstudywasintrinsically
related to training. Observability was also a strong variable since the results and the
benefits of its use were visible to the teachers. When an innovation is perceived to be
42
explicitandvisible,favorableattitudesconcerningtheinnovationaremorelikelytooccur
(Martinsetal.,2004).
A studywas conducted in Trinidad andTobago in elementary schools, examining
the relationship between teachers’ attitudes towards computers and Rogers’ (2003)
perceived innovation characteristics and their satisfaction and use of computers
(Sooknanan,Melkote,&Skinner, 2002).The study showed that the individuals’ attitudes
andperceptions on the innovationsweredetermining factors in its implementation, and
satisfactionconstructswererelatedtoreliabilityandaccuracy,learningtools,networking
tools,andutilizationconstructofeducationandnetworking. ByapplyingRogers’ (2003)
theory, the study showed that relative advantage, compatibility, and observability
influenced teachers’ adoption and use of computers. Relative advantage was applicable
since teachers perceived that computers enabled quicker access to information, helped
overcome administrative delays, and improved the storage and retrieval of students’
records. Compatibility in this study was divided into two types: compatibility with
classroom instruction and compatibility with classroom needs. Teachers had a positive
perceptiontowardthecompatibilityofcomputers to theircurriculumgoalsbecause they
perceived that computers were reliable and accurate, met their information needs, and
made up for limited classroom time. No relationship was found between the perceived
complexityinusingcomputersandthedegreeofimplementation.
Summary
TheapplicationofRogers’DOItheory(2003)aswellasotheradoptiontheoriesin
worldwide higher education and school systems to determine the factors that influence
43
technology adoption and integration has shown a common perspective between various
cultures.Thiscommonperspectiveistheneedtostartatthelevelofthepotentialadopters
by addressing their characteristics in the environment in which they will be using the
technology. Studyingteacher’sphilosophiesandpersonal interpretationsofwhetherit is
valuabletousetechnologyleadstoanunderstandingofhowtechnologyisdiffusedeasily
and rapidly and what kind of adaptation takes place and is needed in the educational
contextinwhichthetechnologywillbeutilized.
BackgroundonKuwait’sPublicEducationalSystemandPrimaryLevel
The state of Kuwait is located in the Middle East, bordering the Persian Gulf
between Iraq and Saudi Arabia. Kuwait is a constitutional, hereditary emirate, ruled by
princes (Amirs) who have been drawn from the Al Sabah family since the mid‐18th
century. The capital is Kuwait City, and the state has 178 kilometers (120 miles) of
coastlineontheArabianGulf.Oneofthesmallestcountriesintheworld,Kuwaitoccupies
only 17,818 square kilometers (6,880 square miles). The total population of Kuwait in
2005was2,991,189,outofwhichonly992,217(45%)werenativeKuwaitis(TheNational
Mid‐DecadeReportonEducationforAllintheStateofKuwait,2002–2006).
Islamistheofficialreligion,andtheShari’ah,whichincludestheHolyQuranandthe
teachingsofProphetMuhammad,isthefoundationfortheKuwaitsocietyandgovernment
(Al‐Enezi,2002).MostKuwaitisareSunniMuslims,andabout30%areShi’aMuslims.Non‐
MuslimswholiveinKuwaitarefreetopracticetheirownreligionswithinthecountry’slaw
(Alqahtani, 2006). The official language is Arabic, but English is widely spoken and is
taught inschools.Beforethediscoveryofoil in1936,Kuwaitdependedonseatradeand
44
pearlexports;petroleumbecamethemainandthesoleeconomicproductbeginninginthe
20th century, whichmade Kuwait a classicwelfare countrywith one of the highest per
capitaincomesintheworld.Kuwaitisconsideredthefifth‐largestoilreserveintheworld
afterSaudiArabia,Canada,Iran,andIraq.Kuwaitisalsoatax‐freecountryinwhichhealth,
housing,andpublicservices,suchasbuildingroads,arefree(Alqahtani,2006).
Despite its oil, Kuwait is not considered a developed country, according to the
International Monetary Fund (IMF) World Economic Report in 2010; rather, it is
consideredanemerging,developingcountry.TheIMFclassificationsystemisbasedonper
capita income level, export diversification (oil exporters that have high per capita GDP
wouldnotmaketheadvancedclassificationbecausearound70%ofitsexportsareoil),and
degreeofintegrationintotheglobalfinancialsystem(IMFWorldEconomicOutlook,2010).
Developingcountriesare,ingeneral,countries,thathavenotachievedasignificantdegree
of industrialization relative to their populations,whereas developed countries have self‐
sustaining economic growth in both the service industry and knowledge (intellectual)
sectoroftheeconomyandhavehighmaterialstandardsofliving.TheWorldBank’smain
criterion for classifying economies is Gross National Income (GNI) per capita, and high‐
income countries have (GNI) above $12,196, putting Kuwait and the rest of the GCC as
developinghigh‐incomecountries.CriticismsaboutusingtheWesternmodelofeconomic
development as an indication of certain countries being developedwhile others are not
havebeen raisedbymany. Perkins (2003) emphasized “Eastmond (2000)uses the term
lowtechnologycountriestoidentifycountriesinNorthandWestEurope,theMiddleEast
andNorthAmericathatlackorarelackingeducationalortechnologicalresources”(p.7).
The philosophical framework for the national vision of education in Kuwait is
45
“visualizingthefutureandenvisagingwhatthecitizen'scharactershouldbelike,inorder
tocopewiththisfutureimage,withitsspiritual,mental,cultural,psychological,social,and
technological dimensions, while preserving the national identity” (The National Report:
Development of Education in the State of Kuwait, 2004–2008, p. 23). The Kuwaiti
government worked productively to enhance the educational stages, starting from
kindergartenthroughuniversity,andhavespentmore than12%of itsannual incomeon
education (Ebrahim, 2004). Kuwait has employed the “financial resources that were
produced from the enormous rise in state revenues to carry out ambitious plans to
promotepubliceducation”(Alqahtani,2006,p.15).
There are three formal educational systems in Kuwait: public (government),
qualitative (religious), and private education (The National Report: Development of
Education in the State ofKuwait, 2004–2008). The educational structure is two years of
kindergarten(agesfourtosix),fiveyearsintheprimarystage(agessixto10),fouryearsin
theintermediatestage(ages11to14),andthreeyearsinthesecondarystage(ages15to
17).Subjectareas taught inpublicschoolsarebasedon thenationalcurriculumguideof
Kuwait. Due to Islamic beliefs, public education is segregated, except for kindergarten,
which is coeducational; in addition, faculty and staff members are of the same gender
“except for a fewmale elementary schools that have female faculty and staff due to the
abundanceoffemaleeducatorsinKuwait”(Al‐Enezi,2002,p.15).
Historically,mostschoolsinKuwaitwerebasedonreligiouseducation,inwhichthe
mosques and Quranic schools, called Al‐Katatib, played the largest role in educating
youngsters.ThemaincurriculumwastheHolyQuran,mathematics,reading,andwriting.
Between 1911 and 1921, two formal public schools were established. In 1936 oil was
46
discovered,whichledtocomprehensiverevitalizationintheKuwaitisocietyeconomically,
socially,andeducationally,andaBoardofEducation(Da’eratAlmaarif)wasfoundedand
theeducationsystemwastakenoverandfinancedbythegovernment(Ebrahim,2004;Al
Ahmad, 2000). Da’erat Almaarif had an important role in developing and organizing
education. Initially, the new schoolswere for primary level, but between the 1940s and
1950s,differentgradelevelswereadded.Formaleducationforwomenstartedin1937.
With the increase inschoolsbeingestablished,Da’eratAlmaarifapproachedother
ArabcountriestoprovideteachersforKuwait,whichresultedinaninfluxofteacherswho
weremainlyfromEgypt.Overtime,educationbecameinfluencedbytheEgyptianmodelin
regardstoteachers,curriculum,andtextbooks(AlAhmad,2000).Thisissuewasaconcern
for many Kuwaitis, and after Kuwait’s independence, the work of Da’erat Almaarif was
transferredtotheMinistryofEducation(MOE)ofKuwaitin1962,throughwhichallpublic
educational institutions became centralized and operated by the MOE, including the
operationofprivateschoolstoensurethatqualityeducationisprovided(Al‐Enezi,2002).
In1965,educationwasmadecompulsoryforeveryKuwaitichilduptheageof18;
since then, education has been free to every Kuwaiti from kindergarten until university
level, including vocational andprofessional education. With the expansion of education,
theMOEadoptedfiveeducationalareas(Al‐Jahra,AlAhmadi,AlFarwania,Hawally,andAl
Aseema) in the 1980s. By forming these five educational areas, the MOE appointed
decentralized administrators to work on their behalf and implement their goals by
overseeingthetechnicalandadministrativeaspectsofeachschoolinthedistrictaswellas
supervise,evaluate,and follow‐uponeducationalserviceswithin thedesignatedarea(Al
Ahmad,2000).Recently,anothergovernate,MubarakAlKabeer,wasadded.
47
TheMOE is responsible fordetermining thecurriculumand its implementation. It
provides the schools with annual budgets, which are subsidized by the government of
Kuwait,tofinanceschoolequipment,teachingmaterials,andresources.Thereforesalaries
arerelativelyuniformfromschooltoschool,andtherecruitingofteachersisdonethrough
theministryitself.“TheultimatestaffingdecisionsandfundingiscarriedoutbytheMOE,
which equally provides both human and technological resources without any
differentiation” (Alkhezzi & Alqahtani, 2007). The disadvantage is that decision‐making
regardingbudgetarysupportand theneedsofeachschoolare taken forgrantedwithout
awareness of each school’s conditions. This situation causes lack of consistency in the
provisionofwhateachschoolreallyneeds.
Funds provided by the MOE are divided into capital (more than one year) and
operational (onlyoneyear) funds.The formerdealswith expenditures suchas furniture
and equipment, audiovisual equipment, overhead projectors, and library books and
materials, while the latter deals with aspects such as textbooks, workbooks, and other
student materials (Al‐Enezi, 2002). The MOE provides schools with a budget, which is
distributed between the content area departments and administrative needs. The
departmentsusethebudgetforstationeriessuchasink,photocopypaper,etc.Theschool
administration uses the allocated budget on stationeries, maintenance of devices,
workshops, etc. (N. Aleteki, personal communication, April 6, 2010). The MOE is also
responsible for renovation, remodeling, and major maintenance of the school premises.
Furthermore,theMOEreceivesothersourcesoffundingfromcharitableorganizationsand
private foundations in Kuwait to support and develop educational services (Al‐Enezi,
2002). Similarly, schools generate extra funds through their cafeterias and funding from
48
charitableorganizations(N.Aleteki,personalcommunication,April6,2010).
Theprimarystage inKuwait lasts for fiveyears,whenstudentsareagessixto10.
The curriculum consists of 10 content areas (subject areas), which are Arabic, Islamic
Studies,Mathematics,SocialStudies,Science,Arts,Music,PhysicalEducation,English,and
ComputerStudies.Thecurriculumisunifiedinallprimarystagesthroughouttheschoolsin
Kuwait. TheMOEunifies the content of the textbooks and the student assessments, and
determinestheallocationoflessonsforeachsubjectperweek.Allocatedlessontimeis45
minutes,withatotalof32lessonsperweek(AlAhmad,2000).Theeducationalareasare
responsible for execution, supervision, and evaluation of the curricula. The system of
education and teaching in Kuwait is based on traditional teaching approaches. Ebrahim
(2004) emphasizes that despite the current changes taking place in the use of
contemporary teaching methods, teacher‐centered instruction has solid and empirical
roots in Kuwaiti schools. Students move from one grade to another according to their
performanceinclass,mid‐termtests,andprogressionduringtheschoolyear,asthereare
nofinalexamsasthereareinmiddleandsecondarylevels(AlAhmad,2000).Gradesfour
andfive,ontheotherhand, takefinalexamstomovefromone level toanother inpublic
schools(N.Aleteki,personalcommunication,April6,2010).
Schoolpersonnelconsistofaschooladministrator(principal),oneortwoassistant
principals,andonedepartmentheadforeachsubjectarea,teachers,technicians,andoffice
personnel. The school administrator is responsible for the administrative and technical
performance of the school, financial issues, connectingwith the district, and the overall
school management. The assistant principal monitors office personnel tasks, oversees
teachers’attendanceandabsenteeism,organizestimeallocationsforteachers’classhours,
49
arranges teachers’ shift hours, supervises school activities, andacts as a liaisonbetween
theteachersanddepartmentheadswiththeprincipal(AlAhmad,2000).Thedepartment
head supervises and provides guidance to the teachers in her department, controls the
department budget, and acts as a liaison between the school administration and the
teachers.
The department head, principal, and superintendent evaluate teachers’
performance,inwhichtheprincipal’sassessmentcarriesthemostweightof50%,whilethe
department head and the superintendent carry 25% each. Superintendents and
departmentheadsevaluate teachersbasedon their teaching techniques, interactionwith
students, teaching toolsused,etc.Theschooladministrationevaluates teachersbasedon
their attendance, cooperation with colleagues, and school administration (N. Aleteki,
personal communication, April 6, 2010). The principal and superintendent also assess
departmentheads.Teachersareassessedonceatthebeginningandonceattheendofthe
academic year. Reports are designed by the MOE and contain elements of assessment,
whicharegraded frommost to least (AlAhmad,2000).Theevaluation formsconsistsof
criteria ranging from following lesson plans as portrayed by the MOE, classroom
management, ability to teach the topic, relationship with students, accepting the
superintendent’s advice, use of tools and different teaching methods, evaluation of
students, allowing participation of students, preparation of lesson, and completion and
stampingoflessonexercises(B.Alayoub,personalcommunication,March17,2010).
Teachers are promoted to department head after five years of teaching and go
through awritten exam, oral interviews, and a short‐term training program. Nominated
candidatesfordepartmentheadpositionsaredistributedtootherschoolsorcanchooseto
50
remaininthesameschoolandworkasteachers.Furthermore,afterfiveyearsofservice,
departmentheadscanbepromotedtoworkassuperintendentsorassistantprincipals(M.
Aladwani,personalcommunication,March31,2010).Assistantprincipalsgetpromotedto
principals and superintendents get promoted to head superintendents. All these
promotionsdependonwhetherexcellentevaluationsandgoodconductareachieved(A.A.
Alsaleh,personalcommunication,February1,2011).
Teachers in the primary stage face several problems; for the needs of this study,
onlyanumberof issueswillbetackledthatareinalignmentwiththisresearch.Kuwait’s
constitutionmandatessecurejobsforallKuwaiticitizens,whichleadtoanoverabundance
ofteachersintheschoolsystems(AlAhmad,2000).Althoughhavingasurplusofteachers
is good in regards to teacher/student ratio, this issue has a drawback, which is the
inconsistency on the allocation of lessons. Department heads are given the authority to
distributelessonsastheyseefit,and,thus,havinganabundanceofteacherscausessome
departmentheadstogiveexperiencedteachersmoreclassestoteachthanlessexperienced
onesduetotheirconcernaboutstudentsachievements.Inothercases,someteachersget
tocarryoutschoolactivitieswhileotherstakeoverclassesforabsentteachers(AlAhmad,
2000).
Kuwaititeachersalsodonothavesufficienttimeinusingnewteachingmethodsfor
several reasons. First, the continuous change of the curriculum by the MOE enforces
teacherstoexertmoreeffortinimplementingit(AlAhmad,2000).Inaddition,itdoesnot
give the teachers ample time to exchange ideas with others or prepare the materials
needed(N.Aleteki,personalcommunication,April6,2010)nortoimplementnewteaching
ideas (Al Ahmad, 2000). Teachers also receive teaching guidance from various
51
superintendents,andthiscausesconfusiononthebestteachingmethodstobeemployed,
which also affects teachers’ assessments (Al Ahmad, 2000). Recently, the MOE changed
their policies and instead one superintendent is assigned to each content area and is
responsible for theschoolsundereachof the fiveeducationalareas (A.Alsaleh,personal
communication,February1,2011).
Al Ahmad (2000) found that the strict school policies regarding absenteeism
including sick leave or leave of absence affected teachers’ evaluation. Primary school
teachers also have limited participation in the decision‐making process concerning their
jobs,leadingtoasenseofdemotivation(AlAhmad,2000).Otherproblemsincludedealing
withnon‐cooperativeparentswhoarenotwillingtocooperatewiththeteachers inclass
and difficult student relationships (Al‐Lemeh, 2004). The lack of educational tools, the
curriculum,technicalsupervision,andallocatedlessontimeandclassschedulesarealsoa
problem for teachers. In his study, Al‐Lemeh (2004) found that Kuwaiti female teachers
thoughtclasstimewasmoreofaproblemthanthecurriculum,sinceithinderstheiruseof
various educational tools and teaching approaches in conveying the information and
instead promotes the traditional teaching approach. During the end of each semester,
allocatedclasstimeisshortenedto40minutesinsteadof45minutes,allowingforanextra
lesson to be created. This lesson enables students to receive assistance in specific
curricularareas.Thedisadvantageisthatconcentrationismadeondoingactivitiesrelated
totheexamsand, thus, teachersareunabletouseanyformof technology(L.Alghoneim,
personalcommunication,April4,2011).
Despitetheprovisionofsometechnologiesinthepublicschools,thereisstilllackof
technological resources in the primary schools. Teachers have constant access to audio‐
52
recorders and overhead projectors due to their availability in classrooms as they are
providedbytheMOE.Ontheotherhand,thereareaninsufficientnumberofotherdevices
such as the Data Show, which is a terminology teachers use to refer to a document
projector. Internet access is provided for the administration but not to the teachers.
Teachers use their personal USB Internetmodem for access. The lack of equipment and
educational resources forces teachers to pay often from their own personal funds (A.
Alasaker,personalcommunication,April4,2011).Thismeansthatthosewhocannotafford
itlackthesamelevelofexpertiseandexposuretotechnologyandthosewhocanaffordit
feeltheburdenofself‐sustainingeducationalmaterials,whichissupposedtobegrantedby
theschooladministrationandtheMOE.
Summary
The MOE in Kuwait is a centralized institution, which oversees all educational
matters for K–12 school systems. The organizational structure of the MOE consists of
different work sectors, each headed by assistant undersecretaries. Decisions regarding
school budgets, equipment purchase, personnel employment, the curriculum, training
programs, and school facilities are under the umbrella of the public education sector.
Despitethechallenges,thecitizensofKuwaitareprovidedwithlearningopportunitiesthat
fosterenhancededucationalenvironments.
53
CHAPTERTHREE:METHODOLOGY
This chapter will present a description of the research design employed, an
illustration of the participating schools and study population, and the data collection
procedures and data analysis strategy that was followed. The chapter also includes a
descriptionofhowthevalidationofresultsandfindingswasattained.
PurposeStatementandResearchQuestions
Thismultiple‐casestudywillusetheperceptionsoffemaleKuwaititeacherstoward
technologythatmayhavecontributedtoorlimitedtheiradoptionofitinordertoshowthe
applicabilityofRogers’DOItheorywithintwoKuwaitiprimarypublicschoolcontexts.The
studyseekstoanswerthefollowingspecificquestionsandsubquestions:
1. TowhatextenthavetheKuwaititeachersadoptedandintegratedtechnology?
a. Howdo teachers’ characteristics (priorknowledgeandexperience,motivation,
andanxiety)affectthewaytheyperceivetechnologyadoptionanduse?
b. What are the support environments that facilitate or impede their use of
technology?
2. InwhatwaydotheattributesoftechnologyaffecttheperceptionsofKuwaititeachers’
towardstechnologyadoptionanduse?
a. Howistechnologyusefulandbeneficialtoteachersintheirprofession?(relative
advantage)
b. Is the technology used consistent with the teachers’ pedagogical beliefs and
needs?(compatibility)
54
c. What are the challenges that teachers face when working with technology?
(complexity)
d. Whatopportunitiesdoteachershavetoexperimentwiththetechnologybefore
becomingpotentialadopters?(trialability)
e. Whatdoteachersexperiencewhenusingtechnology?(observability)
iii. Whattangibleresultsdoteacherswitness?
iv. Howdovisibilityandaccessibilitycontributetouse?
ResearchDesign
Thisresearchstudyutilizedaqualitativemethodologyforbothdatacollectionand
dataanalysis.Inqualitativeapproachstudies,theresearchergainsknowledgebasedonthe
meaningofindividualexperiencesanddevelopspatternsbasedonthesocialandhistorical
constructofthegroup(Creswell,2003).Conductingthestudyinanaturalsettingallowed
metoobtainadetailedandholisticpictureoftheschoolenvironment,teachers’roles,their
perceptionsandviewpointsontheuseoftechnology,aswellastheirinteractionswithit.
Thus, I was able to obtain a comprehensive understanding of the aspects involved in
teachers’ decision‐making about whether to adopt or minimally adopt the use of
technology.Accordingly,IwasabletoshowwhetherRogers’(2003)theoryisapplicablein
thesetwoschoolsettings.
Casestudiesareaqualitativeapproachinwhichthe“researcherexploresindeptha
program, an event, an activity, a process or one or more individuals. The case(s) are
boundedbytimeandactivity,andresearcherscollectdetailedinformationusingavariety
of data collection procedures” (Creswell, 2003, p. 15). Qualitative case studies allow the
55
“researchertohaveaninsight,[and]discoverandinterpretsituationsratherthan[testa]
hypothesis” (Merriam, 2009, p. 42). The three characteristics of a case study include
particularistic,descriptive,andheuristic,whichleadtoabetterunderstandingoftheissue
under study (Perkins, 2003). Additionally, the nature of case studies is that they’re
bounded,whichmeans that there is a limit towhoandwhat gets investigated. Mertens
(2005)emphasizesthatthemorethe“objectofstudyisaspecific,unique,boundedsystem,
the greater rationale for calling it a case study” (p. 237). Furthermore, case studies are
particularlyappealingineducationalfieldsandusefulforstudyingschoolandeducational
innovations(Merriam2009;Yin,2009),whichisalsoapplicabletothisresearchstudy.
For this study the boundarieswere quite clearly defined by a number of factors:
time,individuals,andthecontextwithinwhichtheeventsofthestudytookplace,asitwas
carriedoutspecificallyintwoKuwaitiprimarypublicschools(A.E.andI.S.), focusingon
teachers,fromMarch5toApril10.Therefore,allcriteriaforcarryingoutacasestudywere
represented.Eachschoolwasregardedasanindividualcase.Withineachindividualcase,
therewereembeddedcases(eachoftheeightteachers),makingtheresearchdesignatwo‐
caseembeddedstudy. The rationalebehindusingmultiple casedesigns is twofold: first,
thepossibilityofreplication,andsecond,arrivingatcommonconclusionsfrombothcases,
which will expand the external generalizability of the findings (Yin, 2003, 2009). In
addition, analyzing the findings within each setting and across settings enables the
understandingof thesimilaritiesanddifferencesbetweencases(Baxter& Jack,2008). In
fact, variations across the casesmake interpretationsmore compelling (Merriam, 2009)
andthefindingsmorerobust.
56
PilotStudy
Priortocarryingoutthemainstudy, ItravelledtoKuwaitinDecember2008fora
weektocarryoutapilotstudywithintwopublicschools(A.M.andA.E.).Priorpermission
wasobtained fromtheKuwaitiMinistryofEducation(MOE)with thehelpofaprofessor
from the University of Kuwait. I conducted six interviews with teachers from different
disciplines,withdifferingyearsofteachingexperience,andofdifferingages.Ashortsurvey
wasalsodistributedto30teacherstoinquireaboutthetypesoftechnologiestheyuse.The
pilotstudygeneratedinformationthatgavemeinsightintothevariousissuesaffectingthe
use of technologies in these sectors. From the data collected, I was able to identify the
targetpopulation for this studyaswell asdecideon theappropriate researchdesign. It
should be noted that teachers from theA. E. school participated in the current research
study,whileteachersfromtheA.M.schooldeclinedtoparticipate,eitherduetothetypeof
datacollectionproceduresorthelackoftimeintheschoolschedule.Thesecondgroupof
teacherswho agreed to participate in this study came from I. S., another primarypublic
schoolinmysecondvisittoKuwait.
TheStudyPopulation
This research study focused on female teachers because Kuwait has cultural
constraints regarding interaction between genders, as illustrated by the segregation in
publicschoolsanduniversities.Foracomfortleveltobereachedbetweentheresearcher
andtheparticipants,itwaspertinenttofocusonfemalesandnotmales.Thiscomfortlevel
is important because there is a need for “increased cultural sensitivity, collaboration,
57
respect and the tailoring of the research procedures to the population being studied”
(Mertens,2005,p.38)inordertoobtaincomprehensiveanddetailedinformation.
Purposeful sampling was used in this study; Patton (2002) emphasizes that this
technique involves choosing information‐rich cases, fromwhich one can learn issues of
central importance to the study (Merriam, 2009). One of the strategies of purposefully
selectingthesampleismaximumvariationsampling.Thebenefitofthistypeofsamplingis
thatit“documentsuniquenessofeachcaseandshowsthesignificanceofsharedpatterns
that emerged from their heterogeneity, thus capturing the core experiences and central,
shared aspects or impacts of a program” (Patton, 1990, p. 172). For multiple‐case or
comparativestudies,maximumvariationsamplingcanbeusedintheselectionofcases“to
ensurethatthebestcasesarechosenforthestudy”(Merriam,2009,p.81).Theliterature
showsthatsitesor individualscanbechosenformaximizingvariationwithinthesample
(Merriam,2009;Mertens,2005),allowingforthetransferabilityofthefindings,whichwill
bediscussedlateron.
The key variations for constructing the sample population in this studywere the
differences in sites and the characteristics of the participants. Regarding the sites, two
primary public schools were sought to take part in the study. In regards to teachers’
characteristics, although all teachers are Kuwaiti, the variation sample initially included
teachersbetween25to40yearsofage,whohadfivetotenyearsofteachingexperience,
andwhotaughtdifferentsubjectareasandgradelevels.Teacherswhowerewillingtobe
interviewed and audio recorded (as will be seen in the subsequent paragraph) did not
matchtheintendedvariationsampling,sothefinalsampleincludedteachersaged25to32,
with five to seven years of teaching experiencewhodid not represent all of the content
58
areas.Furthermore, teacherswhoagreed toparticipate came fromonly twoschools.For
confidentially reasons, the realnamesof theparticipantsandschoolsareconcealedwith
pseudonyms.
ProcedureforEstablishingtheSample
IncooperationwithKuwaitiemployeeMs.Almajed fromtheUniversityofKuwait,
the administrator of each school was contacted in advance to request administrative
recordsthatshowedthenamesoftheKuwaititeacherswhotaughttheappropriatecentral
subjectareas(excludingsportseducation,music,andart).Oncetherecordswereobtained,
Iconstructedaninvitationletteraddressingwhattheresearchisabout(AppendixA)anda
small questionnaire. I provided both of these to Ms. Almajed to be distributed to the
Kuwaiti teachers. The questionnaire inquired about information related to the above‐
mentioned criteria (age, experience, subject area taught, grade level, and types of
technologies used) and whether they would be willing to be interviewed and observed
(AppendixB). Although therewere several teacherswhomet the criteria, some refused
due to social traditions against being interviewed using audio, while others who had
initiallyagreedtoparticipatelaterfoundthatpersonalcircumstancesarosewhichcaused
themtodropoutofthestudy.
Intheend,atotalofeightteachers(fourfromeachschool)participatedinthestudy
andwerewilling tobe interviewed(audiorecorded)andobserved.FromtheA.S. school,
the interviews were carried out with the English, Islamic, science, and social studies
teachers. From the I. S. School, two teacherswere from science and twowere from the
social studiesdepartment. It isworthwhile tomention that twoof theparticipantswere
59
willingtobeobservedbutnotinterviewed.Meetingtheteachersinpersonanddescribing
to themwhatwould takeplace eased their concerns, and throughout the fieldwork they
wereresponsivetomyinquiries,showingthatpersonalcommunicationandcontact isan
important factor in research studies involving other cultures. The validity of the sample
was confirmed through school records and information gathered from the department
head.Priortotheinterviews,theresearchercontactedtheinterestedteacherstoschedule
timesforinterviewsandobservation.
DescriptionsoftheSchoolsandParticipants
BoththeA.E.andI.S.schoolsarepublicprimaryschoolforgirlslocatedinKuwait
and areunder the educational areadistrict ofAl‐Aseema.Both schools consist of grades
one to five. Each grade level has three to five classes. A. E. and I. S. are under the
supervisionoftheMOEandfollowthenationalcurriculumofKuwait,whichconsistsof10
contentareas.Eachofthecontentareashastheirowndepartmentheads.Operatinghours
oftheschoolarefrom7:30a.m.to1:20p.m.,SundaythroughThursday.Thefollowingisa
descriptionofeachoftheschools.
DescriptionoftheA.E.School
TheA.E.Schoolwasfirstfoundedin1975asahighschool;itlaterbecameamiddle
school,andin2004–2005itbecametheA.E.primaryschool.Table1showsthenumbersof
studentsenrolledduringmyvisit.RecentlyrenovatedbytheMOE,theschoolhasupdated
furniture,twofullyequippedcomputerlabs,andalanguagelab.Thelanguagelabhasnot
beenutilizedbyanyoftheteachers,astheyhavenotyetreceivedtrainingonhowtouseit.
60
Theschoolconsistsoftheadministrationdepartment,whichiscomprisedofoneprincipal,
two assistant managers, and six administrative personnel. There are also two social
servicespersonnel,onepsychiatricworker,twolibrarypersonnel,onetechnician,andone
facilityandstoragekeeper.
Table1
NumberofstudentsenrolledintheA.E.School,March2010
GradeLevel Classes Students Total1 17 2 15
Grade1
3 15 471 18 2 19
Grade2
3 20 571 23 2 22
Grade3
3 22 671 17 2 16 3 17
Grade4
4 19 691 18 2 18 3 18 4 17
Grade5
5 16 87TotalNumberofStudentsintheSchool 327
DepartmentdescriptionsattheA.E.School
The following is a description of the subject area departments from which the
participantswerechosen.
61
TheSocialStudiesdepartmenthasonedepartmentheadandsixteachers.Theyhave
onecomputerintheoffice,butfiveoftheteachershavepersonallaptops.Teachersshare
the office computer, which is used to enter grades. They have one printer, which the
departmentheadprovidedforherteachers.Thereisalsoaphotocopymachine,whichwas
donatedtothem.Sometimestheteacherspurchasetheinkcartridges,andsometimesthe
administration provides them. The department head holds weekly meetings with the
teachers,inwhichtheydiscussvariousissues,includingtopicsrelatedtotechnology.
Similar to the Social StudiesDepartment, the Islamic StudiesDepartment has one
departmentheadandsixteachers.Theyhaveonecomputer,butitislocatedintheIslamic
Clubbecausethere isnospacefor it inthedepartmentoffice.Threeof theteachershave
personal laptops. The department’s computer is used to enter grades, type tests, create
worksheets,etc.Theyhaveoneprinter intheofficethat isnon‐functionalandonethat is
attachedtothecomputerintheclub.LiketheSocialStudiesDepartment,theyhaveweekly
meetings inwhich theydiscussa lessonandwhat teachingmethodscouldbeused.They
alsoinformeachotherofothertechnologiestheyhavebeenexposedtowhenvisitingother
schoolworkshopsandactivities.
TheScienceDepartmentconsistsofonedepartmentheadandeightteachers.They
have twocomputers, andall eightof the teachershave theirownpersonal laptops.They
alsohavethreedepartmentprinters,twoofwhichwereprovidedbytheschool,whilethe
teachers purchased the third as a group. The computers are used for submitting grades,
preparation,worksheets,etc.SomeoftheteachersinthisdepartmenthaveanInternetUSB
modemtoconnect to the Internetwhile theyareat school.Thedepartmenthasmultiple
weeklymeetings;one is todiscusscurriculum,whileothersaretodiscussadministrative
62
issues.Duringthesemeetings,theydiscusshowtoobtainaccessfromtheInternetandhow
to present their work using technologies. Examples include downloading from
youtube.comandusingtheDataShow(whichisthetermusedforthedocumentprojector).
The English Department is made up of one department head and nine teachers.
Theyhaveone computerandeightpersonal laptops.The laptopsareused tomake flash
cards and exams, while the teachers use the computer for submitting grades, typing
materials like worksheets and tests, and printing them out. TheMOE has provided one
printer. Aswith the other departments,weeklymeetings are held to discuss topics that
include new technologies that come to the market. Examples include the iphone and
Windows7.
Descriptionoftheparticipants
The following isadescriptionof the fourparticipantsat theA.E.School, inwhich
the subject area and grade level, years of teaching experience, age, education, and
experiencewithtechnologywillbediscussed.
Amiraisasocialstudiesteacherforgradefive.Shehasbeenteachingforfiveyears,
ofwhichthreewerespentinthisschool.Sheis29yearsoldandhasabachelor’sdegreein
sociology.SheattendedtheInternationalComputerDrivingLicense(ICDL), forwhichshe
tookfourofthesevenexamsnecessaryforcompletion,butshedidnotcompletetheother
threeexams.Sheindicatedthatshelovestechnology,soshedoesn’tfeelitiscomplicated.
InheropinionthemostdifficultapplicationisMoviemaker,sinceshedidnotreceiveany
training on how to use it,while the Internet is the least difficult application to use. She
mostly uses the laptop and the Data Show, while the audio‐recorder is the least used
63
technology.Herexperiencewith technology is at theuniversitywhere she tooka course
called “Computers inEducation”aspartofherdegreeprogram.She then tooka training
course fromaschoolcalledtheInstitute for IntegratedStudies,whereshe learnedWord,
PowerPoint, and Excel. Her latest training was for the ICDL, during which she studied
Word,PowerPoint,Excel,andtheInternet.
Abeer is a science teacher for grades one and five. She has five years of teaching
experiencewith sevenmonths teaching at this school. She is 30 years old and shehas a
bachelor’sdegreeineducation,majoringinbiologyandchemistry.Shealsohasamaster’s
degree in educational administration. She completed all seven courses required by the
ICDLbutdidnottaketheexamforcertification.Sheusesmostlytheoverheadprojectorfor
teaching,aswellasPowerPoint.Leastusedaretheaudio‐recorderandExcel,astheydon’t
relatetoherwork.ThemostdifficultmachineforheristheDataShow,whiletheoverhead
projector is the least difficult. Her education in technology was taking a course in
educational technologyaspartofher courseworkat theCollegeofTeacherEducation in
Kuwait.During this course, she learnedMicrosoftOfficeapplications (Word,PowerPoint,
andExcel).
LeilaisanIslamicteacherforgradestwoandfive,andshehasbeenteachingforsix
years,ofwhichoneyearwasatA.E.Sheis28yearsoldandhasadegreeinIslamicstudies.
LeilatooktheICDLbutdidnotcomplete it;however,shedidtaketheComputerLiteracy
Program (CLP) offered by the MOE at her school. She doesn’t use any complicated
technology in her teaching. In her opinion, complicated technology is any device or
application that she feels is difficult to use. The easiest technology for her to use is the
audio‐recorder. In Islamic Studies, the audio‐recorder and the TV are the most used
64
technology,andtheoverheadprojectoristheleastused.Herexperiencewithtechnologyis
throughtheICDL(WordandInternet),theCLP(PowerPoint),andattheUniversity(Word).
NodahisanEnglishteacherforgradesoneandthree.Shehasfiveyearsofteaching
experience inwhichoneyearwas inthisschool.She is28yearsoldandhasabachelor’s
degreeinEnglish.ShedidnottaketheICDL,butshedidtaketheCLPofferedatherschool,
inwhichshelearnedhowtousePowerPointandWord.Forher,theDataShowisthemost
difficult technology, while real objects, flash cards, and the audio‐recorder are the least
difficult. Shemostlyusesaudiotapesandtheaudio‐recorderwithherstudents,whilethe
DataShowisusedleast.ShetookseveraltrainingprogramsofferedbythePublicAuthority
for Education and Practice, inwhich she learned how to use the computer applications,
Internet,PowerPoint,andWord.
DescriptionoftheI.S.School
The I. S. School was founded in 1961. Table 2 shows the number of students
enrolledduringmyvisit.TheI.S.Schoolwastransferredtothebuildinginwhichitisnow
located in2006.Theschool is in theprocessof renovation,butmostclassroomsarestill
inadequatelyfurnished.Inaddition,someoftheequipmentisoutofdateandisstored.But
theschoolhas twocomputer labsanda language lab.Similar toA.E., the language lab is
stillnotusedbytheteachers.Theschoolconsistsoftheadministrationdepartment,which
iscomprisedofoneprincipal, twoassistantmanagers,and fiveadministrativepersonnel.
Alsoonstaffaretwosocialservicespersonnel,onepsychiatricworker,onelibrarian,two
technicians, one facility and storage keeper, one implementing serviceperson, and three
sciencepreparatorypersons.
65
Table2
NumberofstudentsenrolledintheI.S.School,March2010
GradeLevel Classes Students TotalGrade1 1 19
2 20 3 21 4 19 79
Grade2 1 23 2 22 3 21 4 22 88
Grade3 1 19 2 18 3 19 4 19 5 19 94
Grade4 1 23 2 20 3 21 4 21 85
Grade5 1 17 2 17 3 18 4 20 72TotalNumberofStudentsintheSchool 418
DepartmentdescriptionsattheI.S.School
The following is a description of the subject area departments from which the
participantswerechosen.
The Social Studies Department has one department head and six teachers. They
havetwocomputersintheoffice,whicharesharedbetweentheteachersforgradeentry,
buteachteacherandthedepartmentheadhasapersonallaptop.Theirlaptopsareusedfor
66
writingtestsandteacherpreparationfortheclassroom.SomeoftheteachershaveUSBfor
Internet connection. They also have one printer, one laminationmachine, and one Data
Show,whichtheprincipalprovidedtothemasarewardtothesocialsciencedepartment
for hard work. They have weekly meetings and a monthly workshop given by the
departmenthead,inwhichshefacilitatesdiscussionwiththeteachersaboutteachingtools
andnewteachingmethods,andprovidesadministrativeguidance.
TheScienceDepartmentconsistsofonedepartmentheadandeightteachers.They
havetwocomputers;oneisusedforgradeentryandtheotherisusedfortestconstruction,
developing worksheets, and printing Word documents. One of these computers was
donated to thedepartment fromanoutsidesource.Someof the teachershave theirown
personal laptopandsomehavean InternetUSBmodem to connect to the Internet.They
alsohaveoneDataShowthatwasgiventothembyanoutsidesource.Thedepartmenthas
weeklymeetings,inwhichteachersexchangeinformationaboutnewapplications,suchas
Flash and Photoshop, that they have learned, as well as discuss what technologies are
neededforspecificlessons.
Descriptionoftheparticipants
ThefollowingisadescriptionofthefourparticipantsattheI.S.School,inwhichthe
subjectareaandgradelevel,yearsofteachingexperience,age,education,andexperience
withtechnologywillbediscussed.
Asmaaisascienceteacherforgradesoneandthree;sheis29yearsoldandhasa
bachelor’s degree in basic education with a specialization in science and applied
mathematics.Shehasbeenteachingforsevenyears,ofwhichfiveyearswereatthisschool.
67
She completed her ICDL and received her certificate. She mostly uses PowerPoint for
presentations, and she uses TV the least. For her, themost difficult application is using
featureswithinPowerPoint,suchasmakingindexes,whiletheleastdifficultistheInternet.
HerexperiencewithtechnologyisthroughtheICDLandoneweekduringwhichshetaught
herselftheuseofMoviemakerwhileshedevelopedaneducationalmoviefortheschool.
Lojain isascienceteacher forgradesthreeandfive;she is32yearsoldandhasa
bachelor’sdegreeineducationwithamajorinappliedsciences.Shehasbeenteachingfor
sevenyearsandhasbeenteachingatthisschoolforfouryears.ShecompletedtheICDLand
receivedthecertification.ShetaughtherselfFlashandMoviemaker initially,butthenshe
tookaMoviemakertrainingprogramforaweekattheTeachersAssociationinKuwait.For
her,Flash is themostdifficultbecauseshedidn’t takeprofessional trainingabout it.The
easiest technology for her is PowerPoint. Shemostly uses the Data Show for her work,
whiletheaudio‐recorderistheleastused.
Maiisasocialstudiesteacherforthefourthandfifthgrades;sheis29yearsoldand
hasadegreeinhistory.Shehasbeenteachingforfiveyears,allofwhichhavebeenatthis
school. She completed her ICDL training and received her certificate. Themost difficult
technology forher is theDataShow,andtheoverheadprojector is the leastdifficult.She
mostlyusestheInternetinherwork,whilevideotapesaretheleastused.Herexperience
withtechnology,otherthantheICDL,occurredduringheruniversitystudiesinwhichshe
attendedacomputertrainingprogramthattaughtWord,PowerPoint,Access,andExcel.
Mariam isa social studies teacher for secondand fifthgrades; she is30yearsold
andhasadegreeingeography.Shehasbeenteachingforsixyears,allofwhichhavebeen
inthisschool.ShedidnottaketheICDL,asshebelievessheknowsenoughcomputerskills
68
andhasnothadtimeto take it.Mariamhasrecentlybeenpromotedtodepartmenthead
buthasnot takenover thepost.Shemostlyuses theDataShow,andsheuses theaudio‐
recorder least. The most difficult technology for Mariam is PowerPoint in regards to
extracting pictures and organizing them on the slides. The least difficult are the audio‐
recorder and overhead projector. Her experience with technology is self‐taught on the
commonapplications(Word,PowerPoint,Excel,andInternet),fromtheComputerLiteracy
program (Word and PowerPoint), at school, and through a one‐hour session offered by
anotherschoolonhowtousetheInteractiveWhiteboard.
SummaryoftheStudyPopulation
Atotalofeightteachersparticipatedinthisstudy.FourwerefromtheA.E.School
fromtheEnglish, IslamicStudies, Science,andSocialStudiesDepartment.Theother four
teacherswerefromtheI.S.School,twofromtheScienceandtwofromtheSocialstudies
Department.Table3describestheparticipantsofthestudy:
Table3
Descriptionofstudyparticipants
Teacher’sName Age School Department TeachingYearsAmira 29 A.E. Science 5Abeer 30 A.E. SocialStudies 5Leila 28 A.E. IslamicStudies 6Nodah 28 A.E. English 5Lojain 32 I.S. Science 7Asmaa 29 I.S. Science 7Mai 29 I.S. SocialStudies 5
Mariam 30 I.S. SocialStudies 6
69
DataCollection
This study was first approved by the Virginia Tech’s Institutional Review Board
(IRB)toensurethattheresearchprotocols involvinghumansubjectsareethicalandthat
the rights of participants are protected (Appendix C). Furthermore, permissionwas also
obtainedfromtheMOEinKuwait,whichwastranslatedintoEnglishforthepurposeofthis
study (Appendix D). Written consent from each participant was obtained before data
collection.ItshouldbenotedthattheconsentformprovidedbytheIRBwasinEnglish,so
it was translated by a third party into Arabic so that the participants understood the
contents of the consent form before signing. Thiswas important because “cross‐cultrual
ethicalpriniciplesindicatesthattheresearchershouldcommunicatetheintendedresearch
agenda,designandactivitieswithmembersofthehostcommunity”(Mertens,2005,p.38).
For each school, data was collected via interviews, participation observation, physical
artifacts,andrecords.
Interviews allow researchers to gain insight into educational and social issues by
understandingtheexperienceoftheindividualswhoselivesreflectthoseissues(Seidman,
2006). Both standardized open‐ended and dialogic interviews were utilized with the
teachers. Through standardized open‐ended interviews, the questions for all eight
participantsarefixed,buttheywereallowedtorespondfreely(Rossman&Rallis,2003).
The interview questions I formulated ascertained information about the teachers’
perceptions towards the attributes of technology, as well as teachers’ characteristics, in
order to be aware of how these aspects contribute to the adoption or rejection of
technology.Theinterviewquestionsweredividedintotencategories.Fiveofthecategories
focused on asking questions related to Rogers’ perceived attributes (relative advantage,
70
compatibility,complexity,observability,andtrialability).Theotherfivecategoriesinquired
about the individual factors (anxiety due to change, teachers’ prior knowledge and
experience,administrativesupport,andtypesoftechnologyusedbytheteachers),aswell
asinvolvementindecision‐making(AppendixE).Teacherswerealsoprovidedwithatable
thatinquiredaboutwheretheylearnedtousetechnology,whattechnologiestheylearned,
andwhether they completed the training/courses, etc. (AppendixF). The teacherswere
askedtosubmittheformbeforetheendofthestudy.
Dialogicinterviewswerealsousedwhenneeded,whichareconversationsthatare
carried out “between the researcher and participants, to develop a more complex
understanding of the topic” (Rossman& Rallis, 2003, p. 182). This type of conversation
encouragedtheparticipantstoreachtoacomfortlevelandbemoreateasewithanswering
and discussing culturally sensitive issues with me. I noted the questions asked and the
pointsdiscussedwiththeparticipants,departmentheads,andschoolprincipals.
Qualitative observation occurs when the researcher is interested in observing
individualbehaviorsinanaturalisticsetting(Mertens,2005).Participantobservation“isa
special mode of observation where the researcher assumes a variety of roles and may
participate in the events being studied” (Yin, 2009, p. 111). Moderate participant
observation is when the researcher participates in some but not all of the activities
(Mertens,2005).Forthisstudy,Ifollowedthemoderateparticipantobservationapproach
with the eight participants, which provided me with an opportunity to inquire about
certain aspects and get feedback from the teachers. Observation included examining the
settingsinwhichthetechnologyisused(classroom,lab,office,etc.),howteachersuseand
interactwiththetechnology,andforwhatpurposesistechnologyused.Thisprovidedan
71
understanding of the existing technologies and the patterns of use by the teachers. I
attendedtwoclasssessions(40–45minutes)foreachteacher,foratotalof70–90minutes
ofobservationforeachteacherandatotalof16sessionsforalleightteachers.Inaddition,I
attendedtwoworkshopsandadepartmentmeeting(invitation‐based)inwhichtechnology
was used. Furthermore, I observed the layout and the technologies present in the
departmentofficeinwhichtheparticipantsworked(AppendixG).Basedonitsfocus,this
studyconcentrateson the16 sessions,but referencewill alsobemade toother sessions
sincetheyinvolvedtheuseoftechnology.
Physicalartifacts (Yin,2009)arealsoanessentialdata collectionprocedure, from
which “investigators are able to develop a more precise understanding of classroom
applications”(p.113).Thisstudyutilizedphotos,teachingmaterials,andarchivalrecords
inadditiontointerviewsandobservation.Verbalpermissionwasgrantedfrombothschool
administrations to takepicturesof theclassroomsettings, including labsandplayground
areas,withoutthepresenceoftheteachers.Fromthisinvestigation,Iwasabletodevelopa
preciseunderstandingofhow the teachersuse technologywith their studentsaswell as
observe the constraints and/or facilitative aspects that teachers face when using
technology. In addition, individual teachersprovidedmewithCDs, sampleof curriculum
textbooks, and worksheets to have a more comprehensive picture of the type of
technologies used in student’s learning and in teaching at that school, and grade level.
Archivalrecords(Yin,2009)werealsoprovidedbytheschooladministrationafterbeing
requestedbytheresearcher.Theserecordsincludedinformationonschoolestablishment,
schoolstructure,schoolpopulation,andinventory.
72
DataStrategyandAnalysis
Thefollowingsectionwilldiscusstheanalyticalstrategiesandtechniquesthatwere
used for each of the data collection methods utilized in this research study. The main
strategyusedwasrelianceon theoreticalpropositions (Yin,2009).Yin (2003)notes that
one important practice during the analysis phase of any case study is to return to the
propositions. This ensures that the analysis is focused to “avoid analyzing data that is
outsidethescopeoftheresearchquestions”(Baxter&Jack,2008,p.555).Thetheoretical
proposition was Rogers’ perceived attributes and Farquhar and Surry’s (1994) user
characteristicsandsupportenvironment.Usingthesetheoreticalpropositions,Iwasableto
decideonhowtobestorganizethedatacollectedandtofocusonthosedatageneratingthe
mostrelevantandusefulinformationtothestudy.
StrategyforAnalyzingandOrganizingDataforInterviews
Creswell emphasize “case study and ethnographic research involve a detailed
descriptionofthesettingorindividualsfollowedbyananalysisofthedataforthemesor
issues”(p.191).Researchersneedtocollectinformationusingtheparticipant’sdominant
language(Mertens,2005).SinceArabic is thenative languageofboth theresearcherand
theparticipants, theinterviewswerecarriedout inArabicexceptfortheEnglishteacher,
who decided to answer the questions in English. Conducting the interviews in Arabic
allowed the participants to be comfortable and elaboratewith ease. It was evident the
Englishteacherhaddifficultyinelaboratingasmuchasshecouldhaveifshehadspokenin
Arabic.Comingfromadifferentculturalbackground,Ihadtobecautiousnottocauseany
73
discomfortbyinsistingthattheinterviewstakeplaceinArabic.Doingsocouldhavecould
havehamperedtheinterviewprocess.
The interviews were transcribed into Arabic and then translated into English.
During the translation, I experienced two main issues: the first was the issue of the
translation itself and the second was the essence of the interview generated by the
translation.Theprocessoftranslationtosomeextentalteredtheoriginalmeaningsofthe
statementsandalsodisempoweredthevoicesoftheparticipants(AlKandari,2004),which
resulted inwhatDelgado‐Gaitan (1994) calls “the problematic of representationdue the
language translation” (p. 301). Despite the fact that my native language is Arabic, I
struggledtotranslatesomeofthewordsandterminologyusedbytheparticipantsbecause
of fear they might hold several interpretations. I translated the teachers’ statements
literallytoensurethatthevoicesofteacherswerenotinanywayaffected,buteditswere
madetothedirecttranslationsforthesakeofclarity.Theseeditsareshowninbracketsas
willbeillustratedinChapterFour(ResultsandFindings).
Patton(2002)emphasizedthatevenwhenusingcommonlanguage,wordscanhave
a differentmeaning in other cultures. Therefore, itwas pertinent to get assistance from
someone of the same national origin in order to ensure accuracy of the translation. A
Kuwaiti teacherwhomImetduringmy fieldwork(whoreceivedascholarship topursue
herdoctoraldegreeintheUnitedStates)offeredherassistancebyprovidingmewiththe
correcttranslationsofsomeambiguousterminologyandstatementsusedbytheteacher.
Frommy own perspective, reading the Arabic transcription and then reading the
Englishtranslation,InoticedthatIdidnotgetthesameeffectinthetranslationasIdidin
the transcription. This could be because I speak the same language and have a similar
74
cultureas theparticipants, therebyallowing the teachers’viewpointsanddescriptionsof
the issues tomake sense tome in Arabicmore than the translatedmaterial. It became
evident that the issueof cultureand languageplayavery important role in intercultural
researchstudiessuchasthisone.
After the completion of the transcription and translation, content analysis of the
interviews took place, which refers to “the data reduction and sense‐making effort of
qualitativematerialstoidentifycoreconsistenciesandmeanings”(Patton,2002,p.453).I
readtheinterviewstobecomefamiliarwiththeinformationprovidedandthenproceeded
with coding.Coding is the process of organizing thematerial into a segment of text that
leads tomeaningful information (Creswell, 2009). A first set of codes was generated to
highlight critical statements, which addressed the core issues regarding teachers’
perceptionsonthebenefitsandusefulnessoftechnology, itsapplicability, theconstraints
faced, difficulty of use, the types of technologies used and the context inwhich they are
used,thesupportinitiativesprovided,priorexperience,andtraining‐relatedissues.
From the first set of codes, common patterns in the teachers’ responses were
established and irrelevant data was eliminated. These common patterns were grouped
together intomeaningfulclusters(Rossman&Rallis,2003;Patton,2002),allowingmeto
identifythemes.Someofthethemeswerecloseinnatureandintertwinedwitheachother,
so Idecided to createa subtheme.This techniqueensuredaccurate interpretationof the
dataandproducedamorefine‐grainedanalysisforthefindings.Thethemesgeneratedare
supportedbytheteachers’quotationsandwillbepresentedinChapterFour(Resultsand
Findings). During all phases of coding and analysis, field notes were maintained that
addressed the data and personal reactions to the participants’ responses to increase
75
reflexivity. The same analytical strategy was followed for both schools, and the themes
generatedwillbepresentedjointly.
StrategyforAnalyzingandOrganizingDataforObservationsandPhysicalArtifacts
Fieldnoteswerecollectedthroughouttheprocesstomaintainawrittenaccountof
the observations in asmuch detail as possible. These notes included descriptions of the
participants, settings, interactions, activities, and conversations related to technology.
Fromthecompiledfieldnotes,adescriptivenarrativewasformulated,includingphotosof
the technologies present in the classrooms and labs. Using this narrative, I identified
commonissuesthatdescribedelementsoftechnologyasadoptedbytheteachers. These
issueswerelinkedtothethemesgeneratedfromtheinterviewsandactedasillustrations
ofhowtechnologywasusedbyteachers(supportedbyphotoswhenneeded).
ValidatingtheResultsandFindings
Researchstudiesareconcernedwithproducingknowledgethatcanbetrustedand
validated.Validatingtheaccuracyofthefindingsofthisstudyrequiresthattheresearcher
dealwithissuesofvalidity,credibility,andtrustworthiness(Creswell,2003).“Lincolnand
Guba(1989)parallelcredibilitywithinternalvalidity,transferabilitywithexternalvalidity,
dependabilitywithreliabilityandconfirmabilitywithobjectivity”(Mertens,2005,p.253).
Generalizability(externalvalidity)andreliabilityarenotapplicableandplayaminorrole
in qualitative research design, but in this studywewill discuss how external validity is
somewhatrelevant.
76
Trustworthiness(InternalValidity)
Inthisstudy,anumberofmethodswereusedtoincreasethecredibilityofthestudy
results.First,triangulationwasusedbecauseitallowsfortheexaminationofevidencefrom
different sourcesormethods, thusbuildingacoherent justification for themes (Creswell,
2003) and ensuring consistency of evidence across sources of data (Mertens, 2005). A
combination of interviews, observation, and physical artifacts was used in this study.
Second,toensureintegrityoftheresearcher,theresearcher’sposition(reflexivity)toward
the studywill bediscussed to ensure thatbiases are reducedandethics aremaintained.
Reducingbiases canbe achievedby ensuring reflective reporting through self‐reflexivity
(Nyirongo,2009)andreflexivityofthosestudied(Patton,2002).
Researcher’sreflexivity.
The role of the researcher in a qualitative research study involves sustained and
intensive experiencewithparticipants, and, thus, ethical andpersonal issuesmight arise
that could lead to biases and prejudices (Creswell, 2003). Merriam (2009) states that
investigators need to explain their “biases, dispositions and assumptions regarding the
research”(p.219)sothatthereadergetsabetterunderstandingofhowinterpretationsof
thedataweremade.Itisimportanttounderstandtheresearcher’sbackgroundandhistory
to determine how this reflected on the study under investigation. The researcher’s
reflexivityorposition(Lincoln&Guba,2000)“istheprocessofreflectingcriticallyonthe
selfasaresearcher”(Merriam,2009,p.221).
My perceptions of how teachers should teach and how children learn have been
shapedbymypersonalexperiences.Allthroughmyformaleducation,uptotheuniversity
77
level,Iwasinasegregatedenvironment.IwastaughtinaprivateBritishschoolsystemfor
girlsandservedasateacherassistantfortwoyearsinthesameschool.Ithencompleted
my bachelor’s degree at Ahfad University for Women, which was the first university
established inSudan topromotewomen’seducationandenhance their role in society. It
wasalsoaprivateuniversityandfollowedaBritisheducationalsystem.Thesurrounding
educationalcontextframedmybeliefandinterestintheempowermentofwomenandtheir
right to develop and educate themselves regardless of the surrounding social and/or
culturalconstraints.Thisbeliefisalsoreflectedinmydecisiontopursuemyeducationata
graduate level and gave me the encouragement to make the decision to travel to a
European country, alone, formymaster’s degree. I then furtheredmy educationwith a
doctoraldegree.
I believe thatmyunderstandingof the roleofMiddleEasternwomen ina society
that isboundedbyculturaland traditional restrictionsmakesmeawareandsensitive to
manyofthechallengesandissuesthatKuwaititeachersface,whetherintheirprofessional
teachingor in a general social context. Furthermore, being from the same religionanda
similarculture,Iwasabletorelatetotheirbeliefsystemsandunderstandtheirreactions
andviewpoints.Bythesametoken,asaresearcher,Ibroughtknowledgegainedfrommy
education in the field of Instructional Design and Technology (IDT) and acted as a link,
minimizingthemisconceptionsabouttheuseoftechnologyineducation.
Creswell (2003) emphasizes that researchers should identify biases and sensitive
ethicalissuesthatmightariseduringthestudyandhowthesesituationswillbeaddressed.
My biases, I believe,would emerge from being a supporter of students learning at their
ownpaceratherthanbeingpassivelearners.Knowingmybiases,Ihadtoensurethatthis
78
did not reflect on my field notes and on my observations. My other bias is regarding
teachers’ ideas and whether they will illustrate their viewpoints regarding the use of
technology. This issue is critical since I believe using technology is beneficial in many
aspects;duringmyinterviewsIneededtomakesurethatIdidnotask leadingquestions
thatmightinfluencetheirresponses.Inregardstosensitiveethicalissues,myexpectations
are that school administrators, including teachers, might have reservations about the
researchstudyitself.IneededtomakesurethattheywerefullyawarethatIwouldrespect
their decisions when they were unable to speak about sensitive issues. In addition, I
ensured their understanding that all information provided was confidential and that I
wouldusepseudonymsforallnamesandschoolnameswhenwritingthefinaldissertation.
Generalization(externalvalidity)ortransferability.
One of the criticisms of case studies is that the findings cannot be generalized.
According to Creswell (2003), reliability and generalizability do play a minor role in
qualitativestudies.Therearetwoperspectivesongeneralizabilitythatarecompatiblewith
qualitative research (Mertens, 2005). The first perspective is “analytical generalization”
(Firestone,1993),wherebytheresearchercangeneralizefromaparticularsetofresultsto
a broader theory” (Mertens, 2005, p. 427). One method to enhance analytical
generalization is through the use of multisite cases. Yin (2003) emphasizes that the
analyticalconclusionarising frommultiplecasestudiesaresubstantial, since focusingon
differentcontextsbutarrivingatcommonconclusionexpandsexternalgeneralizability(p.
53). Patton(1990)arguesthatthe“term‘extrapolations’arebetterthan‘generalizations’
as they are problem oriented rather than statistical and probabilistic” (p. 489).
79
Extrapolations are speculations on how certain issues are applicable in similar but not
identicalconditions(Merriam,2009).
Thesecondtypeofgeneralizabilityis“transferability(Lincoln&Guba,1985),which
canbeproducedthroughtheprovisionofthickdescriptionsthatallowsthereadertomake
judgment about the applicability of the research to another setting” (Mertens, 2005, p.
427). Merriam (2009) addresses how to enhance transferability in qualitative studies,
throughthickdescriptions,whichreferstoa“descriptionofthesettingandparticipantsof
thestudy,aswellasadetaileddescriptionofthefindingwithadequateevidencepresented
intheformofquotesfromparticipantinterviews,fieldnotesanddocuments”(p.227).In
thisstudy,adescriptionoftheschool,teachers’viewpointsandtheirstatements,observing
theirpracticaluseof technology,andsnapshotsof the technologies in theclassroomwas
maintained in this study. Another method is carefully choosing the study sample. A
samplingstrategysuchasmaximumvariationssamplingwhetherforsitesorparticipants,
allows for a “greater range of application by readers or consumers of the research”
(Merriam,2009,p.227).Maximumvariationsamplingwasalsocarriedoutinthisstudy.
SummaryofDataCollection
Thestudyisqualitativeinnatureandutilizedinterviews,participation,observation,
andphysicalartifactsasdatacollectionmethods.Throughtheuseofinterviews,teachers’
perceptions on the attributes of technology, teachers’ characteristics, and the support
environmentwererecordedtoshowtheapplicabilityofRogers’DOI(2003)theoryandto
whatextenttechnologyisadoptedbytheKuwaititeachers.Theobservationsandphysical
artifactsdescribedthesuitabilityfortechnologyuse,andtherecordsprovidedinformation
80
regardingtheschoolstructure,yearofestablishment,etc.Thestudywasconductedintwo
primarypublicschoolswitheightKuwaititeachersofdifferentsubjectareas.Thereporting
ofthestudyfindingsinvolvesalinkbetweenthethemesthatemergedfromtheinterviews
andnarrativedescriptionsfromtheobservations,includingsnapshotsofthetechnologies
used. Validating the results and findings, this study can provide information related to
technologyadoptionthatcanbetransferredtosimilarschoolcontextswithinKuwait.
DelimitationoftheStudy
Tomakethisstudymanageableandtoachieveadetaileddescriptionoftheuseof
technologywithinthesetwoprimaryschools, thescopeof thestudywasreducedto four
mainaspects.First,thefocuswasonKuwaititeachersandnotonnon‐Kuwaititeachersto
ensure that perceptions toward technology adoption or rejection reflect the Kuwaiti
teachers’ beliefs and were not influenced by another culture. Second, teachers of the
subjectareas sportseducation,music, andartswereexcluded,due to thenatureof their
content,whichhave slight or nouse of technology, thusnotmatching the criteria of the
sampleunderinvestigation.Finally,duetolimitedtimeconstraintsandfinancialresources,
onlytwopublicschoolsettingswithinthecityofKuwaitwerepartofthestudy.Thefocus
wasonpublicschoolsduetothefactthatprivateschoolshavemoreadequatecapitaland
resources and, thus, are equipped with various technologies. The school structure,
classroom context, curriculum, etc. of a private school could lead to aspects that do not
reflectthesituationwithinthepubliceducationalsector,andtheresultsmayrepresenta
specificcontextandgroupofpeoplenotparticularlyrelevanttothepublicsector.
81
CHAPTERFOUR:RESULTSANDFINDINGS
This chapter will present the findings of the research study. It will make an
integrated presentation of the themes generated from the interviews and supported by
teachers’ statements, excerpts from the teachers’ observations, and snapshots of the
classroomandlabsettings.Thischapterwillbedividedintotwosections.Thefirstsection
focuseson themesrelevant to teachers’ characteristics,and to thesupportenvironments
providedbytheschools.Thesecondsectionwillfocusonthemesrelevanttotheattributes
oftechnology.Asmentionedearlier,editsweremadetothedirecttranslationsforthesake
ofclarity,whichwillbeshowninbrackets.
ChangeProcess
One set of research questions addressed teachers’ viewpoints regarding
incorporating technology andwhether they experienced any form of anxiety during this
process.Thisallowedmetogetaclearpictureofwhattheteacherswentthroughasthey
moved from their accustomed teaching practices to using new teaching methods and,
accordingly, to discover the important aspects that made the transition and adjustment
processfeasible.
TransitionandAdjustment
During the transitionstage fromnon‐use touseof technology, the teachers in the
study facedvarious issues.While transitionwasnotaproblemforsometeachers,others
wereconcernedabouttheextratimeneededinlessonpreparation,thelackoftrainingin
usingcertaindevicesorapplications,andthelackoffunctionalityofthedevices.
82
Amira, the social studies teacher from theA. E. School, discussedhow the change
affectedherconstructively.BeforetheplasmaTVwasinstalledintheSocialStudiesClub,
Amira faced the problem of not having a variety of teaching tools, as illustrated by her
statement:
Theclubprovides [a]TV [and]DVD, so itmade iteasier forme tousemy laptop.
Before,theydidnotprovideuswiththese,soIusedtofaceaproblem.Ididnotlike
thelessonwhenIusedonlyexplanationandpictures.Iwantedtousethelaptop,but
in the lesson if I used the laptop, the screen is [so] small [that] itwas difficult to
explain toall thegirls. I facedproblemsbefore Istartedtouse technology.Onthe
contrary, technology facilitates things forme significantly. . . . Changeaffectedme
positively.
TimeandEffortinLessonPreparation
Time and effort made in lesson preparation was a concern for some teachers,
despiteknowingitsbenefits.Duetotheirobligationsinsideandoutsideofschool,insome
cases teachers avoided using technology and instead used traditional means such as
writing on the blackboard and reading from the textbook. They noticed that during the
class, less effort was exerted using traditional teaching methods. Nodah, the English
teacher from the A. E. School, talked about how it was easier for her to write on the
blackboardthantomakeaPowerPoint.Leila,theIslamicstudiesteacher,iteratedasimilar
experience:
Thecomputeratschooltakessometime.Forexample,ifIpreparealessonandput
pictures[init],ittakesmoretime. . . ifyouwanttouseapicture,youenterasite,
83
youdownloadthepicture,andyouorganizeandpreparethelesson.Thetextbookis
a bit easier in preparation. If I want a picture, I print it out and laminate it. The
computertakesalittleofbittimeinpreparationofthelesson....Inclass,itiseasier
andbetter,butinpreparationittakesabitoftimeintypingandorganizing.
Bothof thescienceteachers fromthe I.S.Schoolalsoconcurredthat they initially
facedtheissueofmoretimespentinlessonpreparation,butovertimetheygotusedtoit.
AsmaadiscussedthatbecausetherewasnoInternetatschool,shedidthepreparationat
homeintheevenings,whichtooktimeawayfromherfamilyobligations.However,during
classshedidn’tfeelanxiouswhenusingtechnology;onthecontrary,shefeltatease.Lojain
talkedaboutnothavingsufficienttimetoutilizecomputersinthebestmannerpossible:
It affected me because it [takes] time. The number of grades; for example, I am
responsible in one grade level for one or more classes, [and] for grade two, one
class,andsothis takesa lotof time . . . time inpreparingthe lesson. It takes time
usingthecomputer.Thewayofpreparingthelessontakestime;Imeanyouneedto
thinkofastoryorarepresentationoraquiz...thistakestime,sothereisnotime,
sothiswastheproblemforme.
LackofTraining
Whilepreparationwasaconcernforsomeoftheteachers,othersthoughtthatlack
oftrainingwasthemainissueinadoptingnewinstructionaltechnology.Mariam,thesocial
studies teacher from the I. S. School, emphasized that not being trained in using the
computerandothertechnologieswasaproblematthebeginning,butovertimeitbecame
easier and the change affected her positively. She said, “At the beginning, yes, it was a
84
problembecause Ididnot take thecomputer training, the ICDL.” Sheexplainedthatshe
taughtherselftheuseofcomputers,soitwasdifficultforheratfirst.Forexample,shesaid,
“ifIwantasongoranything,touploaditonaCD,Ididnotknowhowtodoit,sodefinitely
itwasdifficultatthebeginningtousetechnology...butwithtryingitbecameeasier,later.”
Shecontinuedbysayingthat“changeaffectedmepositively;changeaffectedmeinabetter
way.”
TechnologyFunctionality
Theotherconcernforsometeacherswasnotbeingabletotrustthetechnologyto
function.Fortheseteachers,changeitselfwasnotaproblem.Abeer,thescienceteacherat
the A. E. School, discussed how technology allowed her to bemore prepared before the
lesson,sincetechnologytendstomotivatethestudenttoaskalotofquestions.Shegavean
example: “If you need to search 30% of the subject area, you prepare 70 to 80% of it
because this is going to encourage them to ask questions and this affects the way you
preparethe lessons.”Ontheotherhand,shediscussedthattechnologyuse ledtoanxiety
because ofmalfunctions. She gave an example that if the laptop connection or electrical
power failed, thisaffected the teacherandtheclass.Shestated, “youneedtoprepare for
the lesson mentally and the tools you are going to use, and this frustration sometimes
doesn’tmakeyouwanttoyouusetechnologybecauseyoudonottrustthetechnology.”She
continued,“Youtrustyourhandsandmaterials.SometimesinthelessonIhadtheoptionto
useornotusethetechnology,soIdidnotuseit.”
Duringmyobservationofherfifth‐gradeclass,shefacedatechnical issue,andthe
followingdescriptionishowAbeerdealtwiththeissue.
85
Theteacherbeganherlessonbyaskingthestudents,“Whatarethetypesofenergy
that we have? I will show you types of energy.” She had her laptop, and it was
connectedtotheDataShow.Sheusedaremotecontrol,buttheDataShowdidnot
turnon.Duringthetimeshewasattemptingtosolvetheproblem,thestudentswere
saying, “Teacher, put the plug on; teacher, the batteries are notworking; teacher,
standonthechair.”Theteacherthenstoodonachair,pointedtheremotecontrol
closetotheDataShowbutton,andafterseveralattempts,thedeviceworked.
In conclusion, despite their worries about the challenges of learning to use and
usingtechnology,theseteacherswereabletoviewtechnologyuseasapositivechangefor
themandfortheirinstructionalneeds.
TechnologyUse
Asecondtopicrelatedtothethemeoftheteachers’characteristicsandthesupport
environments isthevarioustypesoftechnologiesusedbytheteachersandtheformat in
whichtheywereused.Technology, inthiscontext,referstoall teachingtoolsusedbythe
teachers in teaching thestudents.Thereason forasking theseresearchquestionswas to
get a clear view of what and how the teachers utilized technologies and how they
integrated them into their profession. In addition, the questions would provide an
understanding of the sort of technologies used in each subject area. The following is an
integratedpresentationofthetypesoftechnologiesandtheextentoftheiruseinteaching
andadministrationtasks.Thispresentationwillincludeeachteacherinthestudy.
86
EmployingTechnologyinTeachingandAdministrativeTasks
The teachers in the study used a variety of devices in their work. The types of
devicesusedincludedlaptops,overheadprojectors,DataShow,audio‐recorder,plasmaTV,
DVD, and cellphones. The teachers also used flash cards, posters, real objects, and
experimental kits. Applications used were Word, Excel, PowerPoint, the Internet, and
MovieMaker.Anillustrationofthedevicesusedbyeachteacherfollows.
Abeer,thescienceteacher,usedPowerPoint“forpresentationsofthelessonandto
showpictures.”Shealsousedher laptop “to showmovieson itusing theDataShow.” In
addition,sheusedtheoverheadprojector“to tellastoryabout the lessonor the topicof
thatday.”SometimesshealsousedtheTV“forshowingmovies.”Furthermore,sheusedthe
computer in the department office to enter students’ grades and type
certificates/transcripts for the students. In her opinion, she used technology more in
teaching.Forexample,sheexplainedthatsheusedcomputerswithfifthgradersmorethan
with the first graders because she believed that “there ismore need for communication
betweentheteacherandstudent”infirstgrade.Inthecaseoftheoverheadprojector,she
indicatedthatshe“use[d]itallthetimeforfirstgraders,onceaweekforfifthgraders.”
Amira,thesocialstudiesteacher,usedvarioustechnologiesforteaching.Sheuseda
laptop“toshowvideoswithsongs.”SheconnectedthelaptoptotheDataShowortotheTV
intheclub.ShealsousedtheDVDplayerandconnectedittotheTV“toshowvideos.”She
alsousedtheoverheadprojectorandaudio‐recorder.Amiratalkedabouttheapplications
sheused.Wordwasused“fortypingandprintingtests,students’worksheets,and lesson
preparation.” She also used PowerPoint “to present the lesson itself” and Excel “if the
lesson has tables, charts, percent of population, percent oil, exports, etc.” For
87
administrative tasks such as entering grades, she used the computer in the department
office. Shealsoused the laptop.Shesaid, “Ihaveapagewith thenamesof thestudents,
theirgrades,performance,andobservationsthatImake.”ForAmira,usingtechnologywas
equalinusefulnessforteachingoradministrativetasks.Shesaid,“BeforeIteachmylesson,
Idotheadministrativework inpreparing for the lesson,so Icannot teachwithoutdoing
the administrative task[s].” Finally, she discussed that in teaching she used technology
daily;sheindicated,“theleastIcanuseistheoverheadprojector.”
Nodah, the English teacher, used technology for a variety of purposes to enhance
instruction.Shealsohadstudents interactwith the technology.Shebeganbysaying that
she used the Data Show “for reading, playing educational games, numbers, letters, [or]
showingthemamovieaboutthelesson.”Shebelievedthattherearemanythingsthatcan
bedonewithaDataShow.Shealsousedthelaptop“forpresentationoflessons.”Sheadded
thatsheusedtheInternettodownloadgames.Nodahalsohadcomputergames,whichshe
connectedtoherlaptopforherstudentssothattheycouldpracticecolorsandshapes.She
explained,“Therearecolorsandshapes.Iaskthegirlsquestionsandeachoneofthegirls
goestothelaptopandpressesonthecorrectanswerusingthepen,whichcomeswithit.”
Nodahalsosometimesusedtheoverheadprojectorandtheaudio‐recordertolisten
to thetapes thatcamewiththe lessons. “Wehavea lesson in thepupil’sbook[inwhich]
theyhavetolistentothenativespeaker,nottomyvoice,sotheylistentothetapethefirst
time,andthesecondtime,theylistenandrepeat.”Nodahstatedthatsheusedtechnology
moreforteaching.Sheexplainedhowmuchtimeshespendsusingthetechnologies.“Iuse
the cassette player, flash cards, and real objects daily.” Similarly, she used the overhead
projectoronaregularbasis—“threetofourtimesaweek”—andtheaudio‐recorder“four
88
to five times a week.” When teaching reading, she used PowerPoint, as it was more
appealingtostudentsthanblackandwhiteflashcards.Foradministrativework,sheused
thecomputertoentergrades,forworksheets,andforlessonpreparation.
Leila, the Islamic studies teacher, described that she did not use the laptop but
mostly used the overheadprojector for showing “a verse, a prayer, theQuran, [and] the
Surah using slides.” She also used the audio‐recorder “for Quran recitation, or Hadith
recitation,”becausetheschoolswereprovidedwiththesecassettetapesformemorization.
I observed Leila with fifth graders during her Islamic studies class, where she used the
flashcards,posters,andaudio‐recorder.Thefollowingaremyobservationnotes:
Theteacherattachedtwoflashcards,whicharelaminated,ontheblackboard.The
flashcardhasthenameofthelesson,whichis“QuranicStudies.”Shewritesonthe
blackboard: “Surah Al‐Insan (Madaniya).” She hangs a large poster, which is
laminated,showingtheversesoftheSurah.Shetellsthestudentstoopenpage48.
The teacher has an audio‐recorder in front of her. She looks at what is in the
textbookandallowsthestudentstolistentotheverses.Sherepeatsthetapefourto
five times.She thenasks thestudents to repeat theSurahwith the tape.The tape
playstheversesandthenthestudentsrepeatit.Shethenreadsouttheversesofthe
Surah from the textbook inherownvoice. She thenasks the studentswhowould
liketoreadtheSurahandallowedtwostudentstoreaditaloudtotheclass.
AfterthelessonIaskedLeilawhoprovidedherwiththeposter.Sheexplainedthat
oneoftheircolleaguesinthedepartmentbroughtitfromthebookstoreandlaminatedit.
NeitherwereprovidedorlaminatedbytheschooladministrationortheMOE.
89
Leilaalsoused thecomputer forenteringstudents’gradesand to typeexamsand
tests. Except for when she made a worksheet for her class, she didn’t often use the
computers. Sheonlymade tests one to two timesper semester. She explained, “We take
turns between the teachers on who will type the tests.” She gave an example. “If three
teachersteachfifthgrade,eachonetakes[a]turnontypingthetestseachsemester.”Asfor
teaching,sheusedtheoverheadprojectorandaudio‐recorder.“Theoverheadprojector—I
useitonceinaweek.Theaudio‐recorder—Iuseitfourtofivetimesaweek.”
TeachersattheI.S.Schoolalsodiscussedtechnologyuses.Mai,intheSocialStudies
Department,providedadescriptionofhowsheutilizedtechnologyinteaching.Shebegan
bystatingthatsheusedtheDataShowforPowerPointpresentationstoexplainlessonsand
concepts:“Inteaching,IusetheDataShow.IprepareatopiconthePowerPointandthenI
showittothestudents.”Inheropinion,throughtheuseofPowerPoint,studentswereable
to see something new. The format of the lesson was not traditional; rather, it included
discussionordialogue.Shealsousedtheoverheadprojector.Sheusedtransparenciesand
photocopies of some of the textbook activities and presents them. She believed
transparencieswerebetterthanusingtextbooksbecausestudentstendedtoflipfromone
page to another and lose concentration, but when she closed the textbook, the student
focusedontheinformation.Shesaidthatastudent’s“eyesareontheslidesheisattached
totheslidesmorethanthetextbook.”Inaddition,Maiusedtheaudio‐recorderorCDsfor
songsbecausethestudentsbecomehappy if therewasmovement.Lastly,shementioned
theuseofthecellphone,whichsheusedtocalltheWeatherChannel. Sheexplainedthat
they had a lesson on the weather and they called 116 for weather information, which
90
studentsreallyenjoyed.Sheexplained,“Theyreallylikeditwhenwerangtheweather.All
werelisteningtowhatwassaidabouttheweather;allofthemtrieditathome.”
Furthermore, Mai used the laptop for obtaining reports from the Internet. She
explained that they looked up “Kuwait’s outside investments, Kuwait’s petroleum
companies,etc.Wesearchonthenetandweprintitout.”ShealsousedExcelforinserting
grades, andWord for writing exams. Mai also indicated that they have a listserv in the
department,which theyuse to send theirwork to thedepartmenthead for revision. She
said,“Isendanemailwiththework;sheseesit,doesthecorrections,andsendsitbackto
me. I do the changes and then we print it out and it is ready for the students.” She
emphasizedthatheruseoftechnologyforadministrativeandteachingtaskswasequalin
level.Shegaveanexample:“Look,attheendofthemonth,mostofthetimethecomputeris
used for administrative work when we put exams and when we put the grades [in the
computer].”But,shesaid,“ifIwriteareportorsomething,Icanuseit24hours,Iuseita
lot.”Asfortheoverheadprojector,sincewasisavailableineachclass,sheuseditdaily.She
stated,“thereisanoverheadprojector,sothepersonautomaticallywillthinktoputaslide
intomakeiteasyforthestudents.Iuseiteveryday.”
Duringmy observation ofMai’s practice teaching fifth grade in the Social Studies
Club(seeFigure4),sheusedtheoverheadprojector.Thefollowingisanillustrationofhow
Maiusedtheoverheadprojector:
Shebeganbyusinganoverheadprojectorandslides.Shehasa slide thathad the
mapofKuwaitdrawnonitandaskedthestudentstowritepercentageofpopulation
in each state. Each student took turns indicating the population percentage and
wrotetheanswersintheirtextbooks.Afterthestudentscompletedtheexercise,the
91
teacher started another exercise. She used another slide that had a graph on it
showingthepercentageofKuwaitiandnon‐Kuwaitipopulationinthecountryand
asked the students questions. She would then write the correct answers on the
slideswhilestudentswroteintheirtextbooks.
Figure4.TheSocialstudiesclubforgrades4and5attheI.S.School.
Mariam,thesocialstudiesteacher,beganbysayingthatsheusedtheaudio‐recorder
for music, especially for the first, second, and third grades. She explained, “When they
listentoasonglinkedtoalesson,theyinteractmorewiththeteacherthroughmovement,I
canletthemdanceorinteractmore.”Forexample,shesaid,“Today,thelessonisaboutthe
GCCcountries.ThesongisabouttheGulf.”
Shealsousedtheoverheadprojectorandprovidedanexample:“Whenthetextbook
has questions, I photocopy the questionswithout the answers on slides and I present it
through theoverheadprojector.” She indicated that “itbecomeseasier for thegirls; they
seethequestionsontheblackboardandIsolve[them]withthem.”Shealsoshowedmaps
thesameway.Inaddition,sheusedtheDataShowforshowingmanythingsonitsuchas
“songs,movies,andPowerPoint.”SheusedtheTVforvideosorDVDs.
92
After discussing the devices, she talked about the applications. She said that she
used Excel for tables and PowerPoint if the lesson needed it. She also used Word for
makingtestsandforreadingparagraphs.Forinstance,duringoneofthelessons,shehada
paragraphon theprince, addedpictures to it, andused theDataShowand the laptop to
presenttheinformation.
Furthermore,Mariamusedtheschool’scomputertoenterstudents’gradesbutused
her personal laptop for lesson preparation. When discussing what she used technology
most for, she indicated that it was for teaching. She stated, “We enter grades once per
monthbutteaching iseveryday.”As forpreparation,sheexplainedthatshedoes itevery
day for her lesson. “My preparation is my teaching; each lesson has its preparation, its
tools,[andthe]methodsthatIuse.”Sheindicatedthatshehadeightlessonsperweek,so
sheusedherlaptopeighttimesinaweek.Thefollowingillustrationfrommyobservations
explainshowsheusedtechnologiesinteachingherstudents:
The teacher opened the lesson by asking, “What are the GCC countries?” The
studentsrespondedandtheteacherexplainedthesimilaritiesintheGCC.Shebegan
thelessonusingtextbooksandaskedthestudentstoidentifytheGCCcountriesona
map.Theteachertransitionedtousingtechnologybyusinganoverheadprojector,
which has slides of the presidents. The students were asked to identify the
presidents on each slide. She then used another slidewith important locations in
eachoftheGCCcountriesandaskedthestudents,“Whataretheseplacesandwhere
are they located?” After this interaction, the students returned to the textbook to
completeatask.Asthestudentsworked,theteacherplayeddifferentsongsfromthe
GCCcountriesusingtheaudio‐recorder.
93
Lojain,thescienceteacher,alsoprovidedadescriptionofthetechnologiessheused.
She began by discussing that she used the overhead projector when the lesson didn’t
includetheuseoftoolsorifshehadnotoolsforit.Shegaveanexampleaboutalessonin
desertification.“Icannotbringsandtotheclass,ordesertsand,ormakesandbarsinthe
class,soItrytomakeatransparencyandshowthemhowsandbarsform,andthestudents
seeit.”ShealsoindicatedthatsheusedPowerPointwhenthelessonhadalotofpictures.
Shedownloadedpictures fromthe Internetandadded themto thePowerPoint inanice,
organizedway to show them to the students. Shegave anexample about a lessonabout
insects,whichthestudentsenjoyedseeingbecauseoftheanimation.“Imean,IusedFlash
in thePowerPoint so that they can see thebutterflymovements, numberof legs, and so
everythingwascleartothestudentsandwasinteresting.”
Furthermore,LojainusedWordwhentherewasaworksheetoratest.Shealsouses
theInternet:“Idownloadallthepicturesassociatedwiththetopicor[that]Ineed. . . for
the PowerPoint or Moviemaker, anything I can take it from the Internet.” She also
indicatedthatsometimessheusedMoviemakertoshowamovieonpartsofaflowerora
plant. She commented, “[Themovie]was clear in showing how the seeds grow till they
becomeacompleteplant.Itwasveryinterestingtothestudentssincetheydonotalways
seeitbuttheysawitwhenIusedMoviemaker.”
Lojaincontinuedbydescribingotherteachingtoolsandmethods,thatsheuses.For
her,technologyincludesexperimentalkits,“Ihaveanexperimentalkit—theoneofferedby
theMOE.Itiseveryeasybecauseithasalltheinstructions.”Sheexplainedthatthestudents
triedto followthedirectionsgivenbecausethe instructionswereclearandshortsothey
couldreadit.Thekitalsohadmagnetic/electricaltools,makingiteasyforthestudentsto
94
experimentwiththecircuitsandmagneticshapes.Shethendiscussedhowcertainconcepts
insciencecouldbeillustratedbyrole‐playing.Shegaveanexample:“Todaywestartedthe
lesson[with]astoryabouttwocircuits.Twostudents[areinvolved];oneactsas[a]series
connectionandanotheroneactsasifconnectedinparallel,andsoItrytomakeanacting
situation.” But she further stated that this method didn’t work with all ages. “I used to
follow this with the younger stage in order to convey the information, but the older
students do not need this type of role acting; [they prefer] only themodern things like
PowerPointandMoviemaker.”
Lojain, like many of the teachers, indicated that she used technology more for
teachingthanforadministrativework.Shestatedthatsheusedvarioustypesoftechnology
throughout theweek: “Adaydoesn’tpassunless Iuse technology.”When Iobservedher
fifthgradeclass inthescience lab(seeFigure5),studentsworkedingroupstocarryout
scientificexperiments,usingtheexperiementalkitsshetalkedabout.
Figure5:TheSciencelabattheI.S.School.
Asmaa,thesecondscienceteacher,alsoprovidedadescriptionofthetechnologies
sheused.SheusedherlaptopfortypingandaccessingtheInternet:“[Iuseitfor]anything
thatIneedtotypeorwhenIwanttodownloadapicturefromtheInternetanddownload
95
shortmovies.”ShealsousedPowerPointinpresentinglessonandusedtheDataShowfor
presentations. Sheused theoverheadprojector for transparencies, suchas for “apicture
thatIneedtoenlargeforthegirls.”Similarly,iftheyhavemoviestowatch,sheusedtheTV.
Asmaaindicatedthatsheusedtheaudio‐recorderforsongs,whichtheyusedatthe
beginningofthelesson.Thesesongsaremadebysometeachers.Forexample,for“alesson
aboutmagnets,wehaveasongaboutmagnets.Iturnitonforthembecausewhenthegirls
hear it, they get to know the scientific terminologies through the song and so theywill
memorize[them].”Asmaafurtherexplainedthatshemostlyusedtechnologies,inthiscase,
computers, for administrative tasks such as “typing and printing worksheets, lesson
preparation, [and] typing and printing grades.” She further stated, “In a weekwemake
threeworksheetsandinamonthwemakeasmalltest.”Furthermore,shesaid,“Weextract
wordsofthelessonandwewriteitonA4paperandphotocopyit.Preparationismorethan
teaching.”
Inconclusion,teachersatbothschoolsusedvarioustypesoftechnologies,whether
devices or applications, to assist them in carrying out their teaching and administrative
activities.
PriorKnowledgeandExperience
The second aspect related to teachers’ characterstics is prior knowedge and
experience. Teachers were asked whether they thought that prior knowledge and
experienceencouragedthemtousetechnologyandwhethertheybelievedthatitplayeda
role in their continuoususe.Thisquestionwasdesigned toprovide anunderstandingof
howpreviousknowledgeandexposuretotechnologyingeneralreflectitsuse.
96
ExperienceandPractice
All of the teachers in the research study were of the same opinion that prior
experience and the daily use of technology played a role in influencing them to use
technology in their profession. Amira, the social studies teacher from the A. E. School,
explainedthatusingherlaptoponacontinuousbasismadeherlikeusingitandmadetasks
significantly easier for her. At the same time, she pointed out her colleagues who had
laptopstoobutwhohadlimiteduseduetolackofexperience.Shesaid,“Iknowteachers
[who]donothavepriorexperiencewiththelaptop,[and]theiruseislimited,even...use
during tests. Despite the fact that they have a laptop, they don’t have prior experience,
[and]priorexperienceisbeneficial.”
Nodah,theEnglishteacher,supportedthebenefitsofandneedforpriorexperience
andcontinuouspractice.Shestatedthat“by[practicing]everyday,Ilearnsomethingnew..
..ForthePowerPoint,IlearneditbeforeIbecameateacher,andwhenIbecameateacher,I
used it. . . . daily.” Similarly Lojain, the science teacher at the I. S. School, talked about
experience and practice, “Yes of course, with continuous experience.” She believes that
“regardlessofthenumberofcoursesthatapersontakes,theywon’tlearnasmuchaswhen
theyhaveexperienceandpractice.”Mai, thesocial studies teacher, talkedabouthowher
experiencewiththeInternetdriveshertouseitnow.Sheexplainedthatwhenshebeganto
use the Internet and she learned how to extract information, she would bring her USB
Internetmodemtoschoolanduseit.
A conclusion from these study results is that teachers see prior experience as an
importantfactor,butdailypracticeismorecrucialfortheircontinueduseoftechnology.
97
AdministrationSupport
Inquiring about whether teachers received support from the administration and
departmentheadprovidedanunderstandingofthetypeofsupportavailableandhowthis
reflected teachers’ use of technology. Support provided by the school administration for
eachschoolwillbediscussed,followedbysupportofthedepartmenthead.
SupervisionandManagement(MotivationalSupport)
TeachersfromtheI.S.Schoolindicatedthattheyreceivedsupportfromtheschool
principal by receiving excellent evaluations, being praised, and, in some cases, being
providedwiththetechnologiesthattheyneeded.Lojain,thescienceteacherfromtheI.S.
School, responded, “There is encouragement by the principal entering the class and
encouragingus. She likesus touse technology all the time inside the class and enjoys it
whenshesees the teacheruse thecomputerand therearepresentations.”Lojain further
explained that the claim of principal is that “‘students can benefit from the use of
technology,’ and she likes that the student tries to use the computer.” In addition, she
added, “this is the onlymotivationwe get, but [monetarily] or spiritually, there is none.
Only one thing gets affected and [this is] the teacher’s assessment. Those who use
technologyexcelintheirfinalassessment.”
Teachers also disccused how the department heads provided guidance regarding
the types of technologies to be used, carried out weekly meetings, assisted them with
technologicalissues,andtriedtoorderdevicesforthem.OnlyLojain,thescienceteacherat
theI.S.School,indicatedthatherdepartmentheaddidn’tsupporther.Mariam,thesocial
studiesteacherfromtheI.S.School,responded:
98
[Mydepartmenthead]givesusweeklymeetings;sheisMashallahcleverontheuse
oftechnology,sosheshowsusthingsthatshedoes,andshetellsustodothesame;
sheattendsourlessonsandsheseestheteachersthatexcelintheuseoftechnology,
andshehonorsusinouroffice,nearlyeveryweek.
Maialsofoundthedepartmentheadsupportiveofherefforts:
Ourdepartmenthead,yes,verymuch....Forexample,sheboughtusthelamination
device. She is always keen on getting us new things; shemakes us aware of new
devices.Shemadetheemaillistservforthedepartmenttocollaboratetogether;we
sendherpersonalcommentsabouttheproblemsrelatedtothedepartmentthrough
the[listserv].
Duringmyfieldwork,Iwasinvitedtoattendasocialstudiesweeklymeetingledby
thedepartmentheadattheI.S.School.Duringmyobservationofthesocialstudiesweekly
meeting,whichtookplaceintheclubroom(seeFigure6)thatisdesignatedforgrades1,2,
and3, thedepartmentheadprovided the teacherswithaPowerPointpresentationusing
theDataShow.Thepresentationon Japanexemplifiedthetypeofactivities that teachers
carryoutwiththeirstudents.Thedepartmentheadthoughtthisdiscussionwasimportant
because it exposed the teachers to teaching techniques followed inother cultures,which
would assist them in learning and adapting new teaching trends for the benefit of the
students.Theclubhadanoverheadprojector,TV,andvideotapes.
99
Figure6.TheSocialstudiesclubforgrades1,2,and3attheI.S.School.
Lojain,thescienceteacherattheI.S.Schoolhadaverydifferentexperiencewithher
department head and did not feel the same contextual support. She stated, “My current
headdoesnot[supporttechnologyuse].Itisrelatedtothetypeofenvironment.Sheisfrom
a certain environment, andwe are from another background.Differences in background
haveledtolittleornouseoftechnologyandencouragement.”
Theexperienceof teachersbeingsupportedwassimilarat theA.E.School,where
teachersalso indicated that theyreceivedsupport fromtheschoolprincipalbyreceiving
excellentevaluations,beingpraised,and in somecasesbeingprovidedwith technologies
thattheyneeded.Leila,theIslamicstudiesteacher,commented:
[Theprincipal]alwayspreferstheteacherswhoconstantlyusetechnologytools.If
theadministrationorthesuperintendentattendstheteacher’sclass, theyevaluate
herwell;theyenjoyseeingherusingtechnology,projector,alaptop,tools,etc.There
isaction;itisbetterthantheteacherwhodoesn’tuseanything.
The teacheralsoreinforced that theschooladministration“provide[s]uswith the
equipment, like the overhead projector, teaching tools, [and] the TV [that] is
availableineachdepartment.”
100
The A. E. School’s teachers also discussed the support initiatives provided by the
departmentheads.Nodah,theEnglishteacher,viewedherthedepartmentheadnotonlyas
supportivebutalsoasaresource.Sheenthusiasticallystated:
Yes. . . .Well,shealwayssaysit,shesaysusethisandusethat;shealwaysgiveus
manyideas.Forexample,thePowerPointtoday,shesuggesteditforme;[shesaid]
insteadofusingtheflashcards,make itaPowerPoint, it ismorecolorful, it’smore
attractive.Shealwaysgivesusmanytoolstouseitintheclassroom.Shegetsitfor
usfromthebudgetoftheministryoftheschool.
DuringmyobservationofNodah’sfirstgradeclassintheEnglishClubthefollowing
interactionoccurred,whichexemplifiedtheteacher’suseoftechnology:
The teacher connects the laptop to theData Show. There is a TV andDVD in the
room.AmovablescreenandDataShowwasbroughtfromtheadministration.She
beginsbystating,“Wearegoingtodosoundstoday.”Sheusesflashcards.Shesays,
“Mynameis...mysoundisWa.Wisforwhite,”then,“Mynameis...mysoundis
Pa. P is for pink.” The teacher then uses the Data Show with picture and words
writtenonitandmakesthestudentsreadthesentencesbypronouncing“CaAaTa=
cat,” “RaAaN=ran”(seeFigure7).After thepresentation,sheasks thestudents
howtowritetheletterO.Sheusesaplastic‐coveredflashcardandasksthemwhatO
lookslike.ShewritestheletterOontheblackboardandasksoneofthestudentsto
comeandmatchitwithasmallletter.Sheusesplastic,magneticletters.
101
Figure7.UsingtheDataShowtoteachEnglishattheA.E.School.
Other teachers at the A. E. School also indicated that their department head is
supportive.Abeer,thescienceteacher,explainedthattheirdepartmentheadadvisedthem
aboutwhatmovies touse for their lessons. “She sometimesdownloadsmovies from the
Internetatherhomesothatwecanpresent[them]totheclass.”Inaddition,sheindicated
that the department head took full responsibility for getting and keeping the remote
controlfortheDataShowfromtheschooladministrationsothattheteacherscoulduseit.
Amira, the social studies teacher, stated that the teachers feel comfortable
suggesting the purchase of equipment to the department head. For example, she said,
“Yesterday,wefoundaDataShowinoneofthestoreswithagoodprice,sothedepartment
headvolunteeredthatshewillhelpusbuyitandwecanleaveithereinthedepartment.”
Amiraalso indicatedthat theteachersreceivedrecognitionthroughacertificate for their
workandenthusiasminusingtechnology.
Insummary,theschooladministrationanddepartmentheadsprovidedsupport in
variouswaysandencouragedtheteacherstousetechnologywiththeirstudents.
102
Decision‐Making
Thediscussiontoucheduponwhethertheteacherswereinvolvedinthetechnology‐
relateddecision‐makingprocess.This informationprovidedanoverviewof thedegreeto
whichteacherswereinvolvedindecision‐makingandhowit impactedtheir instructional
technology use. Teachers were found to be either directly or indirectly involved in
decisionsregardingtechnology.
DirectandIndirectInvolvement
Teachers from both schools were directly involved in deciding the appropriate
technology to use with their students inside the classroom, but they were indirectly
involvedinthedecision‐makingprocessrelatedtopurchasingofcertaintechnologiessince
thesedecisionwerecarriedoutbytheMOEandschooladministration.Teachersfromboth
schoolsalsoindicatedthattheyhadfreedomtousevariousteachingtoolsastheysawfit.
Leila, the Islamic studies teacher from the A. E. School, stated that the school
administrationprovidedthemwithseveraltoolsandthatshechosewhattouseornotto
use.“Theyleaveitfreeformetodecide...Ihavetouseit.It’samust.”Nodah,theEnglish
teacher, supported Leila’s assertion by saying that she decided whether to use a
PowerPointortheTV,forexample,buttherewerecertainthingsthatshehadtouse.“For
theCDplayer,Ihavetouseitbecausethestudentshavetolistentothenativespeaker...
astheCDcomesfromtheMOE.”Similarly,teachersfromtheI.S.Schoolindicatedthatthey
hadthefreedomtochoosethetechnologiestheywantedtouseintheirlesson.Asmaa,the
science teacher, responded, “It’smy decision. Nobody tellsme . . . even the department
headhasnosayinthis,it’smydecision;shedoesn’tinterfere.”
103
Sheexplainedthatitwasherlessonandthateachteacherhadherownmethodof
teaching and delivering the information to the student. “Themost important thing is to
convey the information . . . every teacher has her own style.”Mariam, the social studies
teacher, responded, “I have many technologies available—audio‐recorder, overhead
projector,DataShow,etc.—butIamnotforcedtouseitinonelesson.”Sheexplainedthat
sometimesshedidnotusetechnology:“Icancomeoutofalessonwithoutusinganytypeof
technology,soIamnot forcedtousethemall.”Sheaddedthat theschooladministration
didn’tforcehertouseacertaintypeintheclass:“IdecidewhatIneedtouse.”
The interview and discussion thenmoved to the types of technologies purchased
and whether the teachers were involved in the decision‐making process. Some of the
participants discussed that the MOE and the school administration decided on the
technologies to be purchased but that their suggestions were taken into account, while
otherteachersstatedthattheiradvicewasnottakenintoaccount.TeachersfromtheA.E.
SchoolsuchasAmira,thesocialstudiesteacher,statedthattheschooladministrationdid
notbuyequipmentunlesstherewaspressurefromtheteachers.Shestated,“Whenwesay
weneedthistechnology,itwilldeveloplearning,[theprincipal]thentakesstepsindoing
so,shebuysit.”Nodah,theEnglishteacher,supportedthisnotion:“theministry(prinicpal)
[listens to] the suggestionof the teachers. . . . Sometimeswehave [a] generaldiscussion
andthedepartmentheadconveystheinformation. . . .Ifweneedanything,wejustsayit,
weneedthisone,weneedthatone.”Ontheotherhand,Leila,theIslamicstudiesteacher,
commented that their advice was not taken into account “because it is not the
administration,it’stheMinistrywhodecides...theydonottakeouradvice.”
104
Bythesametoken,theI.S.School’steachersdiscussedhowtheyarenotinvolvedin
thetechnologydecision‐makingprocess.Mai,thesocialstudiesteacher,indicatedthatthe
departmenthead took theiradviceandconveyed theirviewpoints to theprincipalof the
school,buttheydidnotdirectlyrequest it fromtheschooladministration.“Theprincipal
consults with the department head. I think she provides things if she is convinced that
[they] will benefit the teachers.” She further explained that their principal knew the
“advancedthings”andwasalwaysresearching.“Sheseesthethingsthatareusefultothe
school.Thereareschoolsthatdonothavethetechnologywehave.”
Asmaa, the science teacher, discussed that the principal held meetings with the
departmentheadsoftheschool,whotoldherwhattechnologiestheteachersneeded.She
furtherexplainedthattheprincipalwouldconsultwiththoseinchargewithintheMOEand
discussedwiththemherplantoprovidedevicessuchaswhiteboards.Theprincipalthen
informedthedepartmentheadoftheoutcomes,andtheheadtheninformedtheteachersof
thedecisionsmade.Shesaid,“This[meetingbetweentheprincipalanddepartmenthead]
happenseveryweek.[Thedepartmenthead]tellsus,definitely.Butwhetherweapproveor
not,we arenot asked.” Lojain, the science teacher, concurred that theprincipal didnot
taketheteachers’advice,butshetooktheadviceofthedepartmenthead,whowouldask
themwhattheywanted.Inheropinion,theprincipalboughtthingsaccordingtowhatshe
sawwas beneficial “There are things that are important;maybe the science department
doesn’tbenefitfromit,butotherdepartmentsdo.”
Theconclusionaboutdecision‐makingregardingtechnologyisthatteachersdidnot
takepart indecisions related topurchasing technologies, but teachersdiddecideon the
typeoftechnologiestheyusedinsidetheclassrooms.
105
BudgetConstraints
Financial issues related to technology use emerged during the interviews.
Numeroustimes,teacherstalkedabouthowtheypurchasedschoolsupplieswiththeirown
personal money, which in their opinion was not fair to them; it was due to lack of
appropriatebudgetplanningbytheMOEaswellastheschooladministration.Amira, the
socialstudiesteacherfromtheA.E.School,commented:
Theschoolbudgetshouldgotoprintingpaper,inkforexamsandtests,certificates,
recognitioncards,gifts,stickers—thisshouldbeboughtbytheschool’sbudget,but
technologyaseducationalmethods,theMOEitselfmustprovideit....Alhamdulillah,
weareacountrythathasabudget,thefinancialissuesaregood,sotheremustbean
interest on technology and its provision in the school. . . . The administration
provided us with the whiteboard from its budget, despite the fact that the MOE
shouldprovideit.EventheTVisfromtheschoolbudget.
Leila,theIslamicstudiesteacher,concurredbysaying:
Forexample,IbuythepostersandsometimestheMOEprovidesitandsometimes
theydon’t;webuyitandtheschooloruspaysforit.Laminationisthesamething,I
gototheadministration,theylaminateitforme,andIgetchargedforit. . . .[The]
schoolortheMOEshouldofferthis.
Likewise,teachersfromtheI.S.Schooldiscussedthisissuefromtheirperspectives.
Lojain,thescienceteacher,emphasizedthattheyboughtthingsnotonlyforthelabbutalso
for other activities. “For example, [for] theworkshop you attended,weput [in] like 500
dinars;fortwomonththeteachersput[in]$50dinarsandsowegatheredthisamountfor
thefood,themes,organization,etc.Itwasallfromourpersonalmoney.”Shediscussedhow
106
teachersgottiredoftryingtogetthingsdoneattheschool“Anyemployeefromaroundthe
world doesn’t get tired like the teacher. In the Arab countries, the teacher spends from
his/herownpocket.”
Asmaatalkedaboutbuyinginkcartridgesallthetime,whichwereveryexpensive,
sotheprincipalhadtosignoffonallthepapersthatneededtobeprinted“Wehavemany
problems—a bigger problem is the ink. We provide the ink cartridge[s] all from the
school’sbudget,sothat’swhytheprincipalsigns[off]onthepaper[s][tobeprinted],not
allthepapers.”Furthermore,sheexplainedthattheysometimespurchaseditemsfromthe
budgetallocatedforthesciencedepartment.“Sometimes,forexample,wemakeabrochure
[or] copy transparencies, [and] the ink [and] the transparencieswe have to provide . . .
fromthebudgetofsciencethatisallocatedfortools.”
Other teachers, such as Mai and Mariam, the social studies teachers at the I. S.
School,talkedabouthowtheMOEshouldprovidecertaindevicesfortheschool.Maistated
that “the Internet has to be present, connected so that I can provide it for the students
[and] I do not have to get the USB Internet modem.” She explained that there were
teachers who did not possess laptops and this limited their technology use in class. In
addition,shebelievedthatalaptopshouldbeprovided.Shesaid,“Thereareteacherswho
donothaveacomputer,so[theyare]obligedtobuyonetoprovidethestudentswiththe
technology inside the class. So, all this should be provided by the MOE or the
administration.”Mariamexplainedthattheyhadanevaluationformattheendofthefirst
termwhere theycouldmakea request for the itemsneeded. “Forexample,whatare the
things that I want to add to the school so [that] we can write training programs for
computers,forexample,addingDataShowtoeachclass.”Sheaddedthattheformwentto
107
the MOE and they looked at it, but unfortunately it tool a long time until they were
providedwiththeirneeds,asinthecaseoftheDataShow.“TheDataShow,wehaveasked
foritthreeyearsagotobeineachclassanduntilnowwedidnotgetit.”Shebelievedthat
themain issue fornothaving technologieswas the lackof financial resources. “TheData
Show is expensive and theMOE saw that theywould lose [money] if theyprovide it for
eachclass.”
Theconclusiononthistopicisthatteacherswerefacedwithalackoftechnologies
dueto limitedbudgetsandovercamethisconstraintbypurchasing itemsfromtheirown
personalfunds.
The following section will describe the themes that emerged from the research
relevanttotheattributesoftechnology.Undereachattribute,thethemesthatemergedwill
beillustrated.
RelativeAdvantageandCompatibility
Onecategoryof researchquestions focusedonasking the teachersaboutwhether
theybelievedtechnologywasusefulandbeneficial(relativeadvantage)intheirprofession
andwhether technologywas consistentwith the teachers’ pedagogical beliefs andneeds
(compatibility).The issues thatemergedshowedan interrelatedconnectionbetween the
advantageandneedofusingtechnologybytheteachers.
InformationAccessandSharing
Onepointthatemergedwhendiscussingusefulnessandbenefitsoftechnologywas
that teachers from both schools noticed that technology saved resources, saved
108
preparationtime,reducedeffort,andevensavedonstationerysupplies.Abeer,thescience
teacher at the A. E. School, emphasized that by using technology “less time is spent in
delivering the information to the student. . . . It also saves time, saveseffort, savesoffice
work, and saves a lot of paper.” Amira, the social studies teacher at the A. E. School,
discussed how technology helped her in teaching the students. She said, “Instead of
explainingand45minutesgetswastedallonexplanation, Iget tired.Butwhen I showa
video,Idrewtheattentionofthestudents.”Shecontinued,“Soit isbeneficial formeasa
teacherandmakingtheinformationunderstandabletothestudent.”ThecaseofAsmaaand
Mai from the I. S. Schoolwas similar. Asmaa, the science teacher, stated that before she
usedtechnology,shewouldtalkalotaboutthetopictothestudents,butthenshenoticed
that the effort exerted in discussion inside the class seemed to decrease. She explained,
“Forexample,...Idownloaded[avideo]fromtheInternet,ashortmovie,[and]insteadof
explainingthelesson,thegirlswatchitandunderstandthepointsgiventothem,andsoI
reduce explanation and so it [relieves] the teacher.” Mai, the social studies teacher,
concurred by saying that the Internet saves time and effort. “It shortens for us the time
[and]effort,soIseeitisbettertousetheInternet.”Shefurtherexplained,“Evensometimes
[a]magazineisconsideredatechnologicaltool; thestudentsseeit[and]I feel it isuseful
[and]betterthananythingtraditionalorwritingontheblackboard.”
In addition, teachers believed that through the use of technology, obtaining
information was easier and faster. They discussed how the Internet facilitated getting
accesstoanyinformationtheyneeded,whetherfortheirprofessionorlifeactivities.Leila,
theIslamicstudiesteacherattheA.E.School,gaveanexampleofhowtheInternethelped
her in finding resources and carrying out personal tasks such as making travel
109
arrangements.Shestated,“Itsavestimeandeffortandbeingabletogetanything,Imeanif
I need any information, I can get it.” Mai, the social studies teacher at the I. S. School,
concurred that instead of going and looking for educationalmaterials in the bookstores,
everythingnowadayscouldbefoundintheInternet.“Icansearchforacertaintopiconthe
Internet,printitout,showittothestudents,anditisconsideredanadvancedmethod.”
ThisconceptwasillustratedduringmyobservationofMaiwiththefourthgraders.
ThetopicofthatdayaddressedthevarioustypesofresourcesfoundinKuwait.Sheusedan
overheadprojectorandslidestowriteKuwait’soutsideinvestmentsaswellasthetypesof
manufacturingindustriesfoundinKuwait.Shealsousedher laptopandreadexcerptson
Kuwait’sforeigninvestment,whichshedownloadedfromtheInternet.
OrganizationoftheLesson
One discussion point that emerged related towhether technologywas consistent
withtheteachers’pedagogicalbeliefsandneedswasthatteachersperceivedtechnologyas
better than the traditionalmethod as it allowed for better organization of their lessons.
Teachers from both schools discussed that technology helped them in organizing their
lessons,aswellastheirthoughtsandideaswhentheypreparedlessonmaterialandeven
when they taught the curriculum. The thoughts of Nodah, the English teacher were, “It
organizesmy lesson, I knowwhere touse theword cards, I knowwhere touse the real
objects, I know where to use the real numbers, I know where to use the pictures, it
organizes the lesson.” Amira, the social science teacher, also supported this premise by
saying:
110
It organizes the way I teach, the way I search.When I prepare a lesson without
technology,thelessonisunclear/fuzzy/notwell‐organized.SowhenIseethelesson
...Icanusetechnology,Icanusevideo,music,theoverheadprojector,sotheideas
comeoutandpreparationbecomesmoreorganizedanddoesn’t tireme.Even the
timeislessincomparisontopreparationthatdoesnothavetechnology.
Asmaa,thescienceteacherfromtheI.S.School,alsoindicatedthatthatshefeltthe
lessonsweremoreorganized,especiallywhenusingPowerPoint.Shecommented,“WhenI
preparethePowerPoint,thestepsareallinorder.Imean,whenIexplainit,itisinorder,
butwithPowerPointitismoreorganized.”
FacilitationoftheLearningProcess
Teachers indicated that by teachers using a variety of technology tools, students
learned the topic at handwithmore ease. Amira, the social studies teacher at the A. E.
School,stated:
[In] the old teaching, only discussion, only questions and answer, question and
answer,thereisnovariationonthemethods.[Now]thereisaTV,aDVD,[a]laptop,
and so having a variety of toolsmakesmy lesson enriched. It becomes excellent;
evenwhenavisitorentersmyclass,theyalsohavefun,theywillnotbeboredofthe
lesson.Ithelpedmeinteaching,helpedthestudents,andhelpedeverybody.
During my two observations of Amira teaching social studies for fifth grade, I
noticed that sheused several technologies ranging fromherpersonal laptop,plasmaTV,
newspaperarticles,overheadprojector,posters,flashcards,anddownloadedmoviesfrom
YouTube.InbothobservationssheusedtheSocialScienceClub,inwhichaplasmaTVand
111
anoverheadprojectorwereinstalled.Hereisanillustrationofwhattookplaceinoneofthe
observations:
Shewritesontheblackboardthetitleofthelesson.Shethenconnectsherlaptopto
theplasmaTV.Her lessonbeginsby talkingabouthow the14thprinceofKuwait
became prince andwhat his achievementswere during his reign. Usingmagnetic
flashcards,shesticksthemontheboardeverytimeshediscusseswith[students]a
certain issue regarding the prince. Following the discussion, she shows them a
documentary, which talks about the prince and his achievements. Some of the
studentsweretakingnotesintheirtextbooks,whileothersjustconcentratedonthe
movie shown.As themovie continues, shewrites on theblackboard andmakes a
tableusing threedifferentcolors.After themovie finished,sheaskedthestudents
what achievements were mentioned in the movie. When students answered
correctly, sheused theoval‐shaped flash cards that had statements of the correct
answerandstuckthemontheblackboardusingmagnets.Shethenaskedstudents
toworkontheexercisesinthetextbook.Sheusedanexerciseworksheetandplaced
it on the projector, whichwas directed toward the blackboard. The exercisewas
composed of questions related to the topic. When the students gave the correct
answers,theteachermotivatedthembyaskingeachstudenttocomeupandwrite
theanswerontheworksheetontheoverheadprojector.
Similarly, teachers from the I. S. School used various teaching tools to assist the
students during the learning process. Mariam, the social science teacher from the I. S.
School, indicated thatsheused technologyespecially forchildren;since itenabledher to
extract pictures ormaterials thatwere attractive to them, she could gather and present
112
new information and accordingly facilitate learning for the students. She commented, “I
facilitatetheirunderstandingofthelessonbygettingstufffromoutside,notonlyfromthe
school textbook, so Imake it easier for them.Formy topic, social studies, I getpictures,
objects,thingsfromtheInternet.”Furthermore,sheaddedthatthesuperintendentorthe
principalenjoyedherclassbecauseoftheextrainformationshegathered.“Theyenjoymy
lesson because I get information from the Internet. I correct information found in the
textbook; I enter the class and I am comfortable, and I have extra information and self‐
confidence.”
DisseminationofInformation
Teachers also emphasized that certain information could only be conveyed using
technologyandthat the topicaswellas thesubjectareadeterminedwhether technology
was used. Abeer, the science teacher from the A. E. School, provided an example of her
thoughts:
It depends on the nature of the lesson; some lessons you do not have to use
technology,youmustcommunicatedirectlytothestudents,youmustseetheireyes,
theirfaces,theirreactions,ithelpsthem;butsometimesyouneedtousetechnology
becausetheycannotimaginethepicturethatyouwantthemtoimagine.
She gave the following as an example: “How a bird flies. Technology shows them
visuallyhowabirdcanflyandifyouactedhowabirdfliesyouwillnotconveythesame
messagelikewhenusingtechnology.”Anotherexamplewhichshedescribedwas“burning
ofthecandle,itisbettertheyseeitwiththeireyes.Youneedtousetoolsinthiscase.”She
furtherindicatedthattherewerecertaintopicsforwhichtechnologywasnotrequiredand
113
youneeded to convey the information in front of the students.Her examplewas “in the
lessonregardingmovement.Howdoyoudosportexercises,itisnotpossiblethatyouuse
technologybecausethestudenthastodotheexercise.”
DuringmyobservationofAbeer teaching first graders, the topicwas “How things
move,” during which she performed the movements to communicate the message in a
manner thatwasunderstandable to the students and that conveyedwhatmovingmeant
andhowobjectsmoved.Thefollowingisanexcerptofwhattookplace:
Theteacherasksthestudentstoopentheirtextbooksandlookatthepicturesthat
show the types of movement. The first picture shows someone jumping. She
performed the action of jumping and the students stood up and copied her. The
secondpictureshowedapersonwalkingontoes.Sheperformeditandstudentsdid
thesame.
Whenitcametothenextexercise,theteacherusedadifferentwayofexplaining:
Thesecondexercisewasapoemonrabbits.SheusedaPowerPointpresentationto
showthemapictureofarabbitsothatthestudentsknewwhatit lookedlike.The
teachertoldthemthatthepoemsays“pretendyouarearabbit.”Sotheteacherputs
herhandsontopofherheadshowingthemhowtheearsofarabbit looklikeand
thestudentsimitatedher.
Abeerusedadifferentapproachinanothersituationduringmyobservationofher
teachingfifthgradersa lessononenergy. Inthiscasesheusedamovietoexplainkinetic
and static energy.Themovie showedahigh swingmovementandhow it swingsupand
down. Therewere no sound linked to themovie, justmovement. The teacher discussed
withthestudentstheactionsthatweretakingplaceinthemovie,emphasizingthatwhen
114
theswingswaysup,thisiscalled[kinetic]energy.Whentheswingmovesdown,itiscalled
static energy. After the movie finished, she drew on the blackboard a movement (see
Figure8),andthenmadethestudentscomeuptotheblackboardtoindicatethelocations
ofthestaticandkineticenergy.
Figure8.DiagramofkineticandstaticmovementusedduringAbeer’sfifth‐gradesciencelesson.
After the lesson I asked Abeer where she got the movie. She explained that the
moviewasprovidedby theMOEand that theMOEprovides themovies for someof the
lessonsbutwhentheydonot,thentheteachersgettheirown.
Whendiscussingwhethertechnologycanbeusedinallsubjectareas,teachershad
variousideas.Leila,theIslamicstudiesteacher,discussedhowtechnology,inheropinion,
wouldnotbeusefulwhenteachinghertopic.Herresponsewasasfollows:
I use also the audio‐recorder more than anything because Islamic studies are
different,maybeothersubjectsuseotherthings.Thetypeofsubjectaffectsmyuse
oftechnology.Forexample,insocialstudiestheyusemaps,andinsciencetheyusea
lot of pictures. As for religion,most things are static;most of the things that get
presentedareverses,Hadith,simplepictures...formethetypeoftopiccontrolsthe
Static
Kinetic
Static
115
technologyused.[Toteachthe]Quran,Iusetheaudio‐recorderandtextbook;[that]
isallthatweuse.
In conclusion, teachers from both schools perceived technology to be useful and
applicabletotheirneedsastheywereabletocarryouttheirteachingtaskswithmoreease
anditmatchedtheirneedsandstyleofinstruction.
Complexity
Duringtheinterviews,theteacherswereaskedaboutthechallengesanddifficulties
theyfacedwhenusingtechnology.Thesequestionsprovidedanunderstandingofwhether
teachers facedproblemswhenutilizing technologyandwhat thoseproblemswere.From
the discussion, emphasis was made on difficulty in using some of the devices and
applicationsandnotbeingabletodealwithtroubleshootingissues.
DifficultyofUseofDevicesandApplications
Two teachers at the A. E. School responded to the issue of difficulty of use by
indicating that the Data Show and Moviemaker were the most difficult technology. The
English teacher indicated that getting access to the Data Show and getting it readywas
difficult,andtheIslamicstudiesteacheremphasizedthatsheavoidedusinganytechnology
that she perceived as difficult; these two testimonies showed that each teacher had her
own thoughts and levelsof comfortwith technologyuse.The followingare the teachers’
statementsregardingthisissue.
Leila, the Islamic studies teacher, stated that she did not use anything that was
complicated.“AnythingthatiscomplicatedIdonotuseatall.AnythingthatiseasyIchoose
116
anduseit,evenifitisadevicelikeacellphone.”Sheexplainedthatcomputerswerenot
complicatedbutrequiredpracticeandtimethatshe feltshedidnothave. “I feel Idonot
havetimesoIdonotuseitatall.IlikeitIwouldliketolearnonitthings,butIdonothave
time.”Sheelaboratedthatshecheckedemailsonlyeverytwotothreeweeksandthatusing
onlinechattingneededtimeathomeandshedidnothavetime.
Nodah, the English teacher, found the difficulty in obtaining the devices, as they
were not installed in the classrooms. She discussed that preparation of the devices took
time,butonceeverythingwasconnected,itwaseasyforhertouse.Forexample,shesaid,
“the Data Show [is not in the classroom, so] I have to ask permission from the
administration, theymay give it tome, then I take it tomy classroomand I have to call
anotherteachertoopenitforme.”However,shesaid,”Usingtechnologyisveryeasy.”
Incontrast, thescience teacherAbeerwasconcernedaboutnotbeingable todeal
with the devices if anything went wrong. She identified the Data Show as an example
because“ifyoupressthewrongbutton,youwillnotbeabletoreturnbacktothescreen.
Maybeyouwillaskforassistance.Sometimesitstopsinthemiddleoftheclassduringthe
explanation.”TheperceivedunpredictablenatureoftechnologywasanissueforAbeer.
Ontheotherhand,Amira,thesocialstudiesteacher,thoughtofusingtechnologyas
notbeingdifficultexceptfortheMoviemaker.“IdonotknowbecauseIlovetechnology;I
donotfeelthatitiscomplicated....MaybetheMoviemaker...Ididnotstudyitsoit’sabit
difficultforme.Everythingelseisfine.”
Similarly,theI.S.School’steachersindicatedthattheyfounddifficultyinusingthe
DataShow,PowerPoint,andFlash.Asmaa,thescienceteacher,consideredPowerPointto
bethemostdifficult,andsosheaskedhercolleaguesforassistanceifshewantedtomake
117
anindex.Sheexplained,“WhenImakemyquestions,Idonotknowhowtomakeanindex.
..notthatIdonotknowthewholeapplication,butIfinddifficultyinit.NowIamlearning
thesethings.”
Mai,thesocialstudiesteacher,foundtheDatashowtobedifficultsincesheandher
colleagueswerenotusedtoitbecauseitisanewtechnique.Withexperience,theystarted
toknowhowtouseitandhowtomakeaPowerPointpresentation.“Installingthedevice
itselfandshowing it to thestudents, connection to the laptopwasdifficult,butwhenwe
useditalot,itbecameeasy.”
Lojain,thescienceteacher,statedthatFlashis“very,verydifficult.” Shediscussed
that she used it for things that need to be animated, “for example to show how a plant
growsslowly,sothisissomehowdifficult.”Shefurtherexplainedthatshedidnottrainon
usingFlash,but learned itbypractice,andsoshebelievesthat ifshehadtrainingonthe
wholeprogram,itmightbecomeeasierforher.“IwanttotakethistrainingcoursesothatI
feelthatitisnotdifficultformetouse.”Shealsocommented,“Itisdifficult,ittakestime—
eachanimationmovementyoucreate,ittakesmelikehalfanhour,soformeitisdifficult;
thosewhoareexperienced,[itonly]takesthemaminutetodoit.”
Lastly,Mariam,thesocialstudiesteacher,indicatedthatPowerPointwassomewhat
difficult.“Itisnotthatdifficult,butbecauseIliketoputpicturesandshapestoattract[the
students]...itisdifficultformetoextractthesethingsandorganizeitonaslide.”
DealingwithMalfunctions
Afterdiscussingdifficultiesinusingthedevicesandapplication,thediscussionthen
focusedonissuesrelatedtodifficultyindealingwithtechnicalissues.Teachersfromboth
118
schoolshadvariousopinionsonhowtheydealwiththismatter.Someteachersexplained
thattheydealtwithsimplemalfunctionsorcalledtheircolleaguesforhelp,butanengineer
oratechnicianfixedthemainproblems.Othersindicatedthattheytriedthedevicesahead
oftimetoensurethattheyworkedorfoundalternativeteachingtechniques.Thefollowing
aretheirresponsesthatillustratehowtechnicalissuesarehandled.
Amira,thesocialstudiesteacherattheA.E.School, indicatedthatshetriedtouse
the technology by herself at the beginning but would call an engineer when all efforts
failed.Shesaid:
There are times when facilitation comes from Allah; yes, maybe it doesn’t work,
[but] I make two technical changes, [and] five minutes later it starts to work.
Sometimestheissuecanbesimplebutitdoesnotwork. . . .Wecallanengineer,a
computerengineer,tohelpus....Iftheproblemisdifficultforusandweaskedfor
anengineer tocome,we learn fromhimso that thesamemistakedoesn’thappen
again,sooncetheengineerarrivesall theteachers in thedepartmentare thereto
seethereasonoftheproblemandhowitcangetresolved.
DuringmyobservationofAmiraandherfifth‐gradeclass,atechnicalissueoccurred
and she demonstrated several attempts to resolve the technological problem. The
followingisadescriptionofwhattookplaceduringthelessonmentionedpreviouslyabout
the14thprinceofKuwait.
Theteacherwritesthedateontheboard.Shehasherlaptopattachedtotheplasma
TV.Today’slessonisonthe14thprinceofKuwait.Shehasaposter,andshesticks
magnets to theposterandhangs iton thewall.Shebeginsbyasking thestudents
whose picture is on the poster. A student answers, “Princes of Kuwait.” She then
119
asksthemwhoistheprincenowinKuwaitandwhendidhebecometheprince.One
student answers, “Alsheikh Alsabah” and another student answers, “February,
2006.”Whilesheisaskingthesequestions,sheistryingtoshowthemamovieabout
theprince.Thescreenisblank.Theconnectionbetweenthelaptopandtheplasma
TVdoesnotwork.The teachersunplugs theconnectionand thenplugs itback in,
butitstilldoesnotwork.Sheasksoneofthestudentsiftheyknowhowtodoit,but
noneknows.Theteacherthenrebootsthelaptop.Whileitisrebooting,sheasksthe
students questions related to the prince. The screen on the TV shows, but Real
Player does not open the movie. She asks the students to read a section on the
prince.Whilethestudentstaketurnsreadingfromthetextbook,shetroubleshoots
theproblemonwhythemoviedidnotwork.Afterafewtrials,themovieworks.She
showsthemthemovieaboutthe14thprince.
After the lesson I asked Amira on what she did if the movie did not work. She
explained that she would either let the students read aloud the information from the
textbookorgetthemanexternalbookthattalksabouttheprince’sachievements.
Ontheotherhand,Abeer,thescienceteacherattheA.E.School,didnottrytodeal
withmajorissuestoavoidtheimplicationofliability.
Wewerenot trainedonusing themachineorwedidnotuse it before.When the
machinegetsdamaged,theresponsibilityfallsonthelastpersonwhousesit.SoifI
face any problem it is better to contact an experienced person because the
responsibility will fall on that person and not me. It is better that I don’t try by
myselfbecausethereispenalizationifproblemsoccur,andsoitisbetterthatIget
assistancefromanexpert.Soyoubecomeafraidoftryingduetotheconsequences.
120
Toavoid technical issues,Nodah, theEnglish teacherat theA.E.School,prepared
thetechnologypriortoteachingthelessonorusedalternativeteachingtools.
Iprepareitbefore.Likethislesson,Imadeitlastweek;twodaysbeforemylesson,I
tooktheDataShowfromtheadministration,Ipluggeditin,[and]Ipracticedmore
thanonce. Iwas sure it isOK, sowhen the classbegins, I know it’s fine. I used it
manytimesbefore. . . .SometimeswhenIgototheclass,thetapedoesn’twork;of
course,Icandealwithit.Ireadtothegirls.Iftheoverheadprojectorisnotworking,
it’sOK;Itellthem,“openyourworkbook,readthequestion,answeritforme,”andI
writetheanswerontheblackboard.
The social studies teachers at the I. S. School faced the same issue asNodah.Mai
prepared the device and/or application ahead of time, while Mariam used alterative
methods,aswillbeillustrated.Maistated:
Look,itdepends.Imeanmypersonalcomputer,Iknowhowtodealwithit,butfor
example, like Data Show or overhead projector, I definitely call the technician
becausesheisresponsibleforthis.Itrytoresolveitbymyself;ifIdonotknowhow
to,Icontactthetechnician,butmostlywetryitbeforewegointothelesson.Imean,
ifthelessonisintheclub,Ihavemyworkreadybefore[by]fiveortenminutesto
know if it does not work. It is difficult that I embarrass myself in front of the
students, so I try it in advance; if it doesn’twork I call the technician before the
students arrive or get help from other teachers who have more experience. The
problemsrelatedtomylaptop,Ilearneditbyexperienceandtrialanderror.Using
thecomputersallthetimemakesthepersonawareoftheproblem.
121
Mariam also shared the issues related to accomodating the malfunction of
technologyinthefolowingdiscussion:
Ofcourse,Idealwithit.Withmyexperienceinteaching,Isurpasstheproblem,soif
therecorderdoesn’twork,Isingwiththegirls.Isingandthegirlssingwithme,and
wefinishthelesson.Icanliftthetextbookandtheycanseethemaporthequestions
that Iwant to clarify, or Iwrite it on the board if the projector doesn’twork. Of
course,Itry,andifIdon’tknow,wehaveinourdepartmentateacher,sheisclever
with technology. For example, Iwas showing a PowerPoint to the girls using the
DataShowandtheDataShowdisconnected.Ifranklydonothaveexperience;Ijust
connectthewiresandthat’sit.Iaskedforhelpfromtheteacher.AfterthelessonI
askedherabouttheproblem,asIwasafraidthattheproblemwouldberepeated.
Lojain, thescience teacherat the I. S. School,on theotherhand,hadacompletely
differentapproachtoallofthis.ShesavedherworkonaUSBincaseaproblemoccured.
Sheexplained:
Sometimes,forexample,weagreedwiththeteacherstosaveeverythingonUSB....
Yes,wetrytosaveeverythingonitsothatifthecomputerbreaks,Allahforbid,our
workwillstillbethere.. . .Duringthelesson,ifIfacedaproblemorthelaptopdid
notwork,Itakemycolleague’slaptopandusetheUSB,whichhasallmyworkonit,
soIwon’tfaceaproblem.
In summary, teachers faced some technical challengeswhenusing technologybut
managed todealwith the situationsbyaskingassistance from their colleagues, ensuring
functionality ahead of time, or substituting technology with other materials that were
available.
122
Observability
Subsequenttofindingoutfromtheteachersaboutthedifficultiestheyfacedinusing
technologies,itwasimportanttofindoutwhethertheyfacedissuesinbeingprovidedwith
thetechnologiestheyneededandwhethertheyhadaccesstothem.Thisinformationwould
show thedegreeandamountofuse. Inaddition, itwas important todeterminewhether
thereweretangibleconsequencesthattheyexperiencedwhenusingtechnology.
VisibilityandAccessibility
Duetothelackandaccessibilityofdevicesandteachingtools,constantusebythe
teachers at both schoolswas limited. Teachers resorted toworking at home and taking
turnsinusingcertaindevicesaswellastheclassroomsthathadtechnologiesinstalledin
them.Furthermore,theA.E.School’steachersdiscussedthecontrolenforcedbytheschool
administrationoverthedevices.
Amira,thesocialstudiesteacherfromtheA.E.School,talkedabouthowsometimes
herhourscoincidedwiththoseofotherteachersinherdepartmentinwantingtousethe
plasmaTV in theClub. She gave an example: “Sometimes, like last time I had aproblem
withthefirstlessonandthatofAblaX[anotherteacher],Italkedtotheadministration[to
see] if theycanexchangemylessonorher lesson.”Sheexplainedthattheadministration
switchedthelesson.“Theymovedmylessonandpostponedittothefourth[period],[and]
shegavethelessonhereandIgavethelessonhere[intheclub].”Duringmyobservation,I
found out that therewas one Social Studies Club that had a plasmaTV (Figure 9) to be
shared by all the teachers of the department. In addition, when talking to Amira, she
123
indicated that she uses the clubwhen she needs to use technologies for her lesson, and
wouldusetheregularclassroomwhenthelessondoesnotrequiretechnologies.
Figure9.TheSocialstudiesclubattheA.E.School.
Leila,theIslamicstudiesteacher,respondedthatsheneededtogoandreservethe
Data Show, and the school administration would provide it for her, but she found the
process toodifficult. “I find itdifficult; therefore, Iuseaneasiermethod,or flashcard,or
anythingthatIhave.AnythingIcanuse.Butifitisprovidedintheclass,itisbetter.”
Duringmy observation of Leila, I discovered that the Islamic StudiesDepartment
hadoneClub(seeFigure10)thathadaplasmaTV.Duetolackofspaceintheiroffice,the
clubhasacomputerforteacherstotypeandprintouttheirworksheetsandexams.
Figure10.TheIslamicstudiesclubattheA.E.School.
124
Similarly,Abeer,theA.E.School’sscienceteacher,indicated,“IfwehadInternet,for
example,it[would]makethingsveryeasyforus.Insteadofdoingourschooltasksathome,
we[would]doitintheschool.Wedepend90%ontheInternetformovies,pictures,etc.”
Duringmyobservation,InotedthatseveralteachersusedanInternetUSBmodem
tobeabletoaccesstheInternet.TheInternetwasusedonlybytheschooladministration,
andtheteachersdidnothaveaccesstoit.Inaddition,teachersfacedproblemsduetothe
lackofDataShowdevices.TheA.E.SchoolhadaDataShowroom(seeFigure11)thathad
a Data Show installed in it, and this was to be shared by the different departments;
therefore,itwasnotavailableallthetimeforteachers.
Figure11.TheDataShowroomattheA.E.School.
All teachers at the A. E. School emphasized that the administrative procedures in
controllingwhoused thedevices limited theiruseandaccessibilityof technology.Abeer,
thescienceteacher,commented:
Their concernon thewelfareof themachines impedesusebecause theywant the
machinestobesafe,sotheyhavealotofcomplicatedprocedurestouseitbecause
theyjustwanttoblamesomeone,whowasthelastpersontousethemachine,soit
is your fault, so you must hold responsibility. These are administration
125
complications. The main issue they are concerned about is the safety for the
machines,sotheyhavelong,longprocedures.
Nodah,theEnglishteacher,reiteratedthisideabysaying:
AnyonewhowantstousetheDataShowhastohavepermission....TheDataShow
iswith the administration; I have to take it from the administration. I use it and
returnit.Idonothaveitallthedayinmyclass.
Duringmyobservationofbothherclasses intheEnglishclub(seeFigure12),she
used her own laptop and connected it to the Data show, which she got from the
administration.Shealsohadtogettheprojectionscreenandsetupeverythingbyherself.
TherewasoneEnglishclubthatwassharedbetweenalloftheteachersofthedepartment.
Figure12.TheEnglishclubattheA.E.School.
Similarly, I found that teachers from the I. S. School had issues regarding
accessibilityofsomeofthetechnologies.Mariam,thesocialstudiesteacher,statedthat it
waseasierforhertousetheDataShowifitwaspresentintheclass,butsinceitwasnot,
shelimitedheruse.
126
Beforegivingthelesson,IaskcanItakeitornot,becauseasyoucansee,itisone
device.IfIneedit,Igoandtakeit,andgototheclass,andbythetimeIprepareit...
ifitisineachclass,itiseasieranditwillencouragemetouseit.
Asmaa, the science teacher from the I. S. School, also discussed that not having
accesstotechnologiessuchastheDataShowlimitedheruse:
NowwehaveoneDataShow,andsometimesitoccursthatthreeteacherswantto
present a PowerPoint, which causes for us a very big problem. Previously, they
thought that all the teachers should do a PowerPoint, but they faced problems
becauseit’sonedevice.
Shecontinued,explainingthattheycarriedoutwhattheycalled“PlanB,”whichwas
thenormalpreparation for groupactivities and that theproblemof technologywas that
shecouldnotuseitatalltimes.Forexample,“IcomeinthemorningandIfindoutthatone
oftheteacherswillbedoingaPowerPoint,IamOK,Ihavealreadyarrangedforthat.”She
continued, “We dowish thatwe [had]moreData Show devices.” She indicated that one
teacherevenofferedtopurchaseherowntouseforworkpurposes.
Clearly,havingtechnologiesavailableforuseandtheaccessibiltiyoftheclassrooms
inwhichtheywereinstalledplayedanimportantroleinthedegreeoftechnologyusageat
theschools.
TangibleResults
Despite all of these complexities, teachers’ technology use with their students
showedthattheirexperiencewithtechnologywasnotallnegative.Duringourdiscussions,
teachers emphasized that they experienced tangible resultswhen using technologywith
127
their students. Their focus was that students performed better in class and acquired
informationaswellasindependenceskills.
ClassPerformance
Teachers from both schools pointed out thatwhen technologywas used in class,
studentstendedtoconcentrateandbeattentivetothelesson.Theybecameactiveinclass,
memorizedthingsbetter,andperformedbetter.Amira,thesocialstudiesteacher,andLeila,
the Islamic studies teacher, from the A. E. School discussed this issue.With technology,
Amira said she can “simplify the information to the students and that it draws their
attention.” She further explained thatwhen therewasonly explanation, the students fell
asleepandbecamesluggishorlazy.Butwhensheusedarecordedclip,video,orlaptop,“it
draws the students’ attention.” She noticed that everybody concentrated on the film or
song thatwasbeingshown.Likewise,Leila stated that shenoticed that the studentshad
“moreinterestandconcentratedmore.”Sheexplainedthatstudentsbecameattentiveand
interactedwithnewthingsthatwereaddedbecauseitwasmoreinteresting.
Furthermore,teachersattheA.E.Schoolrecognizedthatstudentstendedtomake
connections of the information to things they knew, absorbed informationmore rapidly,
and remembered the informationgiven to them.Nodah, theEnglish teacher commented,
“Theinformationwillremainintheirmindsmuchlongerbecausetheyseesomething,not
just talking.” Abeer, the science teacher, talked about how students made sense of the
information,explaining:
Inoticedthattheylinkedtheinformationwiththerealitytheylivein.Forexample,
theyseehowicemeltsthroughwatchingthePowerPointpresentationorthrough
128
watchingavideo,andsotheygiveexamplesfromtheirlife,linkthingsthattheysee
totheirreality.
TeachersfromtheI.S.Schoolsupportedthepremisethatstudentsperformbetterin
classwhentechnologyisused.Lojain,thescienceteacher,discussedhowtechnologywas
betterforstudentsthannarration.Sheexplainedthatwhensheusedtheoldway,wasisto
narratebyexplaining,sheusedtonoticethat“thestudentswouldnotgainanyinformation
andthelessonwasnotinteresting.”Whenthestudentsweregivenproblemstosolve,they
wouldn’t solve them because the narration was boring, so they wouldn’t listen. She
explained that “their concentrationdisperses; theyplaywith things in frontof them, the
textbook, whatever.” However, she explained, when she uses technology, which she
referredtoas“emergingpedagogy,”shenoticedthatthestudents’attentionwaswiththe
teacher.Shesaid,“youfeelthattheinformationremainswiththestudents,sowhentheygo
totheuppergrades,theyhavenotforgottentheinformation.”Furthermore,sherecognized
that students acquire independence when technology is used. She talked about how
students depended on themselves when doing experiments, reading, and implementing
steps,andthattheyenjoyedworkingtogetheringroups.
Mariam,thesocialstudiesteacher,talkedaboutusingmusictoencouragestudents’
interaction. Shebeganby stating that informationbecameembedded in the child’smind
whensheshowsthemafilm,putonmusic,orshowedthempicturesotherthantextbook
pictures.Shegaveanexample:“Iusetheaudio‐recorderformusic,especiallyforthefirst,
second, and third graderswho are young in age.When they listen to a song linked to a
lesson,theyinteractmorewiththeteacher.”
129
SheindicatedthatsheencouragedstudentstogatherinformationfromtheInternet
relevanttothelessonandthenshewouldpresenttheirworktotherestoftheclass.She
believedthatthestudentsbecameproudoftheirworkwhentheysawitshowntoothers
andtheclassbenefitfromit.ThefollowingisanillustrationofwhatMariamdidduringmy
observationofherfifth‐gradeclass:
Theteacherhadherlaptopconnectedtothe(portable)DataShowandshebeganby
showingamovieonAl‐Sheikh JaberAlsabah.She thenreadaloudwhat themovie
said. She used aWord documentwith pictures of the prince on it and asked the
students, “When did Al‐Sheikh Jaber become a prince?” One student replied, “29
February, 2006.” The teacher then asked the students to read out excerpts about
him. She had a poster to which the work of each student was attached, and the
student read from it. The students’ work had pictures, including type‐written
paragraphs.Shethenplayedasong(fromavideodownloadedfromYouTube)about
theprincewhileshecirculatedamongthestudentsandmarkedtheirtextbooks.
Next,Mariambegantopresentthestudents’projects:
Shethenusedherlaptopandshowedaprojectmadebyoneofthestudentsthatwas
savedonaCD.TheCDconsistedofaWorddocument, and therewas information
about the prince typed on it. It also had pictures of the prince. The teacher read
whatwaswrittentothestudents.AnotherstudenthadherworksavedontheUSB,
andshegaveittotheteacher.TheteacherconnectedtheUSBandreadsomeofthe
informationgatheredbythestudent.
In conclusion, the teachers observed that technology made students absorb and
learnthematerial,aswellasimprovedtheirperformanceinclass.
130
Trialability
Afterdiscussingtheobservableissuesfromusingtechnology,thediscussionturned
towhereteacherslearnedtousetechnology.Thishelpedinunderstandingthetypeofskills
thatweregainedandhowittheseskillscontributedtotheiruseoftechnology.
ProfessionalDevelopment
TeachersfromboththeA.E.andI.S.Schoolsindicatedthattheyattendedcomputer
courses either throughuniversity coursework or training institutes. In addition, someof
themstatedthattheytaughtthemselvestheuseofsomeapplications.Allteachershadthe
same opinion that prior exposure to technology and the daily use of it played a role in
making themuse technology in theirprofession.Teachers talkedabout the ICDLand the
CLP as being the most common training programs recommended by the MOE and the
schooladministration.
Abeer,thescienceteacherattheA.E.School,commented,“Thosewhodidnottake
theICDLtaketheCLPofferedbytheMOE,somostoftheteachershaveeithertheICDLor
CLP. It is mandatory for us to take it as prescribed by the school administration.” She
believedthatforsometeachers,theICDLandCLPwerebeneficial,butforotherstheICDL
wasnotentirelyuseful.ShepersonallybelievedtheICDLwasusefulandthatshelearneda
lotofthingsfromit.“TheICDLisreallyimportant,andIlearnedalotofthingsfromit;the
ICDLtaughtmemorethanthecollegecourses.”Sheexplainedthattherewereapplications
thatshelearnedatcollegeandapplicationsshelearnedattheICDL.Shegaveanexample:
“Excel,wetookitinabasicwayatcollege,butintheICDLsession,wehadmorein‐depth
exposure.” She also said that she did not learnOutlook at college, but she took it at the
131
ICDL. She further explained, “EvenWord andPowerPoint, how touse it andmanyof its
functions,IlearneditattheICDL,whichwasacompletiontowhatIlearnedatthecollege.”
Mai,thesocialstudiesteacherattheI.S.School,reiteratedasimilaropinion:
IntheICDL,forexampleIlearnedPowerPoint.IlearnedhowtoshowitontheData
Show...[andhowto]preparealessononitandpresentitthroughtheDataShow.
UsingWord, I learned how to type exams and reports, and in Excel I put grades.
Previously,duringuniversityItookcomputerprograms,buttheICDLstrengthened
it.InowknowmorewiththeICDL.
Ontheotherhand,IfoundthatAmira,thesocialstudiesteacherattheA.E.School,
andLojain,thescienceteacherattheI.S.School,hadadifferentviewpointabouttheICDL
andthattheydidnotentirelybenefitfromattendingit.AmiradiscussedhowtheICDLdid
notaddanythingforher.“Frankly,theICDLdidnotaddorsubtractanything,becausefor
me,ExcelistheonlythingIdidnothavebackgroundinformationon...anddidnotstudy.”
She said that she stopped attending the ICDL courses for personal circumstances. She
continuedbysaying,“IhadpreviousexperienceinPowerPoint;Iusedtomakelessonswith
itbeforetheICDL.Word,Iusedtouseitbefore.IthinkifIcompletedtheExcel,thisisthe
onlythingthatcouldhaveaddedtome.”
LojaindiscussedthattheICDLdidnotplayaroleforher,butshetookthetraining
course. She explained that “everything they gave us in PowerPoint or the Internet are
things I know by practice.” She further explained that if shewere to comparewhat she
learnedfromtheICDLandthethingsshelearnedbypractice,practicewasbetterthanthe
ICDLbecause“itisnot100%comprehensive.”
132
The teacherswere then asked aboutwhat theywould like to see changed in the
ICDL. Each of the teachers provided different recommendations on what needed to be
changed.LojainindicatedthattheICDLshouldincludethethingsthatarebeneficialtothe
person’sspecialtyandtheirprofessionasateacher“Imean,Iamateacher,whatdoIneed
from the ICDL? I need PowerPoint, Moviemaker, and the Internet, so they should
concentrate on the things that the teachers need.” She also suggested that the trainers
should concentrate on specific topics and not provide general topics and that there are
topicsthatwouldapplymoretotheadministrativepersonnelandnotteachers.
Leila,theIslamicstudiesattheA.E.School,andMai,thesocialstudiesteacheratthe
I.S.School,bothindicatedthatthetimeperiodoftheICDLexam,whichis45minutes,was
insufficient forthemtocomplete it.Leilasaid,“TheproblemwiththeICDLispassingthe
exam,itisverydifficult.Theexamis45minutesandtheexamispractical . . .sothetime
wasnotsufficient,soanyerror,youwouldbeaccountableforit.”Maiconcurredbysaying:
Theexamhasacertain time.Therearequestionsand ithasa time limit.Yes, it is
nicethatyouworkquickly,buttheproblemisthatyoufeelthatmentallyyouarein
amess,youfinishquickly,somaybeyouputsomethinginsteadofanother,sothat
impactsyou,sotimeisabitofaproblem.
Other recommendations for the ICDLwere provided by Amira, the social studies
teacherattheA.E.School,whosuggested:
I think the ICDL should be in twoparts, advanced and beginners.When I took it,
therewereteacherswithmewhodidn’thavepreviousexperience,sotheICDLwas
anachievementforthem.Ifyouaskme,theICDLdidnotaddanythingforme,[but
for]anotherteacher,theICDLaddedforhersomanythings.TheMoviemaker—why
133
should it not be as part of the courses—I think it is more advanced than the
PowerPoint,soitshouldbepartoftheprogram.
Abeer,thescienceteacherattheA.E.School,alsoprovidedsuggestions:
OneofthetopicsgivenintheICDListheoretical,likethecomputer,computerparts,
and itsstoragecapacity.Thesethingsare theoretical, it is just informationneeded
fortheexam,itisbetterifitgetsremoved...likehowyouopen[thecomputer];Ido
notthinkthereisanyonewhocannotpressthebuttonandopenthedevice.
Some teacherswho took the CLP discussed the benefits of attending it. Leila, the
IslamicstudiesteacherattheA.E.School,commented,“Wetookitattheschoolhere.The
school organized training. . . . They gave us Word and PowerPoint, so I learned the
PowerPoint.” She said “itwas nice,” but believed that if they left the training up to the
school, it would be better. “Training at school is so much better. . . . The MOE had an
instructionalbookthathadPowerPointandWord,andtheytrainedus.Iftheygiveittous
attheschool,itisbetterforusthantheICDL.”Similarly,Mariam,thesocialstudiesteacher
at the I. S. School, also benefited from the CLP training because she learned how to use
features within PowerPoint. She said, “CLP helped me but not significantly because
originally I have prior experience with computers, but maybe it helped me more with
PowerPoint.”SheexplainedthatshehadpreviousexperiencewithExcelandWord,butnot
somuchwithPowerPoint. “PowerPointhelpedme in insertingpictures; these tasks that
wereabitdifficultforme.IneedapictureorshapesorFlash,[so]itfacilitatedthesethings
forme.”
134
Nodah, theEnglishteacherat theA.E.School, despitenot takingthe ICDL, talked
abouttheadvantageanddisadvantageofeachtrainingprograminregardstocertification,
varietyofcoursesgiven,andtime.Shesaid:
ICDL, it is better than the CLP because it has a test, a certificate, and it includes
Word,PowerPoint,Excel,Access,allofthem....Well,theICDLtakesmoretime;ifI
wanttotaketheICDL,nowIhavetotakeitfrommyowntimenotfromtheschool
time because I cannot leavemy students and go take the ICDL, so it’s a little bit
difficult....CLPisshorter...theygaveusthistrainingduringthelasttwoweeksof
theendoftheschoolyear,sotherewerenokids,gradeswerealreadyin,soitwas
good,thetimewasgood....Well,itwasgood;Ilearnedalot.Thereisnothingtobe
changed....No,itwasgoodasastarter.Ilearnedalot.
Overall,theconclusionregardingprofessionaldevelopmentisthattheICDLandthe
CLPtrainingsessionsprovidedanopportunityforteacherstogainskillsandtotrycertain
applicationsandaccordinglyusethemintheirteachingprofession.
Summary
This chapter presented the themes generated from the interviews, which were
linkedto theparticipantobservation that tookplace, includingphotos fromtheA.E.and
I.S.Schoolsettings.Thefollowingthemesemergedregardingteachers’characteristicsand
supportenvironment:transitionandadjustment,experienceandpractice,supervisionand
management(motivationalsupport),employingtechnologyinadministrativeandteaching
tasks, direct and indirect involvement, and budget constraint. The themes that emerged
relatedtoattributesoftechnologywereinformationaccessandsharing,organizationofthe
135
lesson, facilitationof the learningprocess, anddisseminationof information.Difficultyof
useofdevicesandapplication,dealingwithmalfunctions,accessibilityandvisibility,class
performance, and professional development also emerged as relevant topics. Teachers
from both schools showed similarities as well difference in many aspects related to
technologyuse.ThekeydifferencewasthatteachersfromtheA.E.Schoolspokeabouthow
certain information can only be conveyed using technology and that the subject matter
determinedwhethertechnologyisused. TheA.E.School’steachersalsospokeaboutthe
control enforced by the school administration over use of some of the devices. The I. S.
School’steachersdidnottackleanyoftheseissues.TheI.S.School’steachersemphasized
thataccesstoavastamountofinformationallowedthemtobuildtheirself‐confidence;the
A. E. teachers did not discuss this point. Finally, in regard to class performance, the
difference between teachers at the A. E. and I. S. Schools was that the A. E. teachers
discussed how students acquired knowledge,while teachers from the I. S. School talked
aboutstudentsbecomingindependent.
136
CHAPTERFIVE:DISCUSSIONANDCONCLUSION
Thischapterwilldiscussthefindingsofthestudy.Thediscussionoffindingswillbe
followed by an overall conclusion of the study and recommendations. Implications and
areasforfurtherresearchwillalsobehighlighted.
DiscussionoftheFindings
Thissectionwilladdresseachresearchquestionindividually.Undereachresearch
question, the themes generated will be discussed, including their relationship to the
literatureandthetheoreticalframeworksusedinthisresearch.
ResearchQuestionOne
The first research question addresses the extent to which Kuwaiti teachers have
adopted and integrated technology. Teachers’ characteristics that affect the way they
perceivetechnologyandthesupportenvironmentthatfacilitateorimpedetheirusewere
examined. The following themes that emerged are anxiety, experience and practice,
support from administration, decision‐making, technology used and its purposes, and
budgetissues.
Anxiety
Anxiety was one factor that Kuwaiti teachers faced during the transition and
adjustmentstageastheymovedfromnon‐userstousersoftechnology.Feelingsofanxiety
camefromthreemainissues:time,equipmentfailure,andlackoftraining.Thefirstissue,
time, can be broken into three challenges. The first challenge relates to the fact that
137
technology requires a change inhow the classmaterialswereprepared—extra timeand
effortwereneededtopreparethelessons.Asecondproblemrelatedtotimeisthat,since
most of the equipment was not installed in classrooms, teachers needed to obtain it,
whetherfromthestorageroomortheschooladministration.Finally,gettingtheequipment
setupandmaking sure it functionedalso requiredextra timeandeffort. In their study,
Oncuetal. (2008) found that teachers thoughtof technologyasbeingconvenientduring
the lessonsince it speedsandenhances thepresentationof the content.Butbecause the
teachers in this studyhad to “figureouthowtouse [technology]andwhere it fits in the
lesson”(Oncuetal.,p.35),teachersspentextratimepreparingthelessons.Furthermore,
Zhao and Frank (2003) emphasize that simple technology options that “require little
changeand[do]notrequirereconfiguringteachingpractices,costlessintermsoftimeand
energy,areusedmostfrequently”(p.821).
The second reason why the Kuwaiti teachers reported being anxious was their
uncertaintyaboutfunctionality—thefearofasuddenfailureoftheequipmentinclass.This
anxiety was heightened because Kuwaiti teachers are bound by a specific timeline and
timetable for completing the curriculum. Therefore, any delay would not only affect
students’learningbuttheteachers’finalprofessionalassessments.
AfinalissuelinkedtoanxietywasthattheKuwaititeachershadlittleornotraining
in the use of certain applications and/or devices at the time the technologies were
introduced in their school. Authors discuss that teachers’ knowledge and skills are an
influencing aspect on their use of technology in schools (Hew & Brush, 2007) and that
knowledgeandskilldevelopmentarenecessarytobeabletousetheinnovationEly(1999).
138
In summary, due to feelings of anxiety, Kuwaiti teachers’ limited their use of
technology.Theteacherswouldoftenuseaccessibleandsimpleteachingtoolssuchasthe
blackboardorflashcardsinsteadofatechnologyoptionsuchasaPowerPointpresentation
ExperienceandPractice
Experienceandpracticewiththeinstructionaltechnologyoptionswereaspectsthat
positively influencedKuwaiti teachers’useoftechnology.Priorexposureanddailyuseof
technology encouraged teachers’ usage. Rogers (2003) indicates that previous practice
usinganinnovationdecreasestheuncertaintyofaninnovation.Withcontinuouspractice,
teachers were able to maximize their use of technology for the best interests of their
studentlearningandteachingtasks.Keengweetal.(2008)emphasizethatteachersneedto
have a “comfort level and consistently implement technology tools as part of their own
repertoire of tools in subjects in which they teach” (p. 561). For example, some of the
Kuwaititeachersmotivatedthestudentstoparticipateinclassprojectsbyaskingthemto
searchforinformationontheInternetanduploaditonaCDoraUSBtopresentittotheir
peers. Other teachers provided experiments and group activities to teach scientific
concepts. Nevertheless, the obligation of the Kuwaiti teachers to follow the national
curriculum tended to direct theirpedagogical orientation. Teachers did not change their
overallteachingstyle.Rather,theKuwaititeacherswouldmostlydemonstrateandprovide
the students with the information and then allow students to follow and replicate the
instructions, aswell as use the traditional question‐and‐answer teaching approach. This
result supports studies that show that in teacher‐centered environments, students are
taught throughnarrativesor theuseofdrills and repetitionof information (Wenglinsky,
2005).Drillsareusedasareinforcementtoolandpromotetheacquisitionofknowledgeor
139
skill through repetitive practice as well as question‐and‐answer interactions in which
studentsgetappropriatefeedback.
SupportfromAdministration
TheKuwaiti teachers in the studyweremotivated to use technologyby receiving
supportfromboththeschooladministrationanddepartmenthead.Ely’s(1999)condition
commitment emphasizes that the availability and provision of support by immediate
supervisors and administrators can have significant influence on the successful
implementation of the innovation. The results showed teachers receive guidance on the
appropriatetechnologiestobeusedinspecificlessons,and,insomecases,wereprovided
with instructional tools. Insomecases, thestrictrules fromtheadministrationregarding
accessibilitytosomedeviceswassurpassedbysomedepartmentheadswhotookpersonal
responsibilitytoensurethattheteachershadaccessall thetimetothetechnologiesthey
needed.
Furthermore, Ely (1999) emphasizes that rewards or incentives facilitate
technologyadoption.ThisisconsistentwithRogers’(2003)suggestionthatincentivesand
thetypesofincentivesusedcanspeedthediffusionprocessofanewinnovation.Incentives
takeavarietyofdifferent forms,oneofwhich ismonetaryandnon‐monetary incentives
(Rogers,2003).Kuwaititeachersdonotreceiveanyformofmonetaryencouragementfor
using technology but receive non‐monetary incentives, which is “a commodity or object
that is desired by the recipient” (p. 237). In the case of the Kuwaiti teachers, the non‐
monetary incentives mentioned by Rogers (2003) were in the form of receiving
recognitionsandexcellentend‐of‐yearassessmentswhentheyusedtechnology.
140
In summary, support from the supervision andmanagement of the school was a
contributingaspectforKuwaititeachers’utilizationoftechnology.
DecisionMaking
ThepurchaseofequipmentwasunderthedirectionoftheMOEwithsomelatitude
given to the local school administration. Teachers were not involved in deciding what
technologies were purchased but did provide their recommendations. Purchases were
madebasedonthefundsavailableandontheviewpointsofboththeschooladministration
andtheMOEaboutwhetherthesetechnologiesweredeemedbeneficial.Forinstance,the
overhead projector and the audio‐recorder, available in each classroom, were decided
upon and provided by the MOE. This instance supports studies that indicate that
technologyisintegratedregardlessofteachers’needsandusageandinmostcaseswithout
their consultation (Baylor & Ritchie, 2002). Rogers (2003) discussed that school
administratorswhohavepower and status are likely to encourage their subordinates to
adoptnew ideas, also referred to as “authority innovationdecisions” (p.38).The rateof
adoption is faster when potential adopters’ decisions to adopt have been influenced or
madebysomeone inauthority(Rogers,2003).However,authoritativedecisionstoadopt
aninnovation“mayonlyhelpinitialadoptionbutmaydecreasethelikelihoodthatitwillbe
implemented” (Rogers, 2003, p. 429). When adopters are obliged to use a certain
innovation based on hierarchical decisions, they lack the motivation and willingness to
proceedunlesstheyperceivethatproceedingisuseful.InthecaseoftheKuwaititeachers
they believed that technology was useful and therefore limited their use to what was
providedtothem.
141
On the other hand, studies show that when teachers take part in the decision
process,twobenefitsarise.Thefirstbenefitisthatitimproves“teachers’competencyand
moraleandallow themtomakedecisions thataccomplish their specificgoals” (Baylor&
Ritchie, 2002, p. 19). This supports the condition of participation (Ely, 1999), which
suggests that shared decision‐making and communicating among all parties develops a
sense of ownership of the product and thus, increases, the likelihood that it will be
implemented successfully (Ensminger & Surry, 2008). Second, taking part in decision‐
makingdeterminesthemostimportanttechnologiesneededbytheteachersandeliminates
those that are not needed. Oncu et al. (2008) emphasized that “fine tuning technologies
accordingtoteachers’needs,insteadofmakingdecisioninatop‐downfashioncanhelpto
wiselyuselimitedresources”(p.43).
While they did not have control over the technologies purchased, teachers from
both schools had full discretion on the use of technologies inside the class. Teachers
decidedwhether technologywas needed or not needed for the lesson and used various
types of technologies based onwhat they perceived as appropriate to help the students
understand the material. This supports Moore and Benbasat’s (1991) construct
voluntarinessofuse,whichisthe“degreebywhichtheuseofaninnovationisperceivedas
voluntaryorfreewill”(p.195).Havingthistypeofauthorityallowstheteacherstocater
specifically to students’ needs and to be creative in utilizing technology. This discussion
willleadtothetypeoftechnologiesusedbytheteacherandhowteachersusethem,thus
showingthemostandleastusefultechnologiesasperceivedbytheteachers.
In summary, the hierarchical decision‐making was a limiter, while the voluntary
decision‐makingwasacontributortotheiruseoftechnology.
142
TheTechnologyUsedandItsPurposes
Teachersfrombothschoolsutilizedtechnologyinbothteachingandadministrative
tasks.Thevariation inuseaswillbeshown, indicates thatKuwaiti teacherswereable to
applytechnologyastheysawfitinordertobeabletoachievetheirneeds.Teachersuseda
variety of tools and applications in teaching. These included using PowerPoint
presentations, using the overhead projector for transparencies and slides, inserting
pictures and text inWord, using theData Show topresentmovies from their laptops or
PowerPoint presentations, and using the audio‐recorder for playingmusic, and learning
English languageandQuranic verses.The cell phonewas alsoused for activities suchas
listeningtotheweatherforecast.
Furthermore, teachers used both the department computers and their personal
laptopsforadministrativetasks.Wordwasusedfortypingtests,preparingworksheetsand
insertingpicturestomakeflashcards.Excelwasusedforstudents’grades.Teachersused
theirpersonalUSBInternetmodemforaccessatschooltodownloadpictures,movies,and
information linked to the lesson. The teachers to exchange information with the
departmentheadabouttests,preparation,worksheets,etcalsousedemail.Someteachers
also had experience with Moviemaker to edit video footages. Other than computers,
teachersalsousedvideotapes,DVDs,andCDs.
Teachersuseddifferentdevicesandapplicationsaccordingtothecontentareaand
grade level. Presentations, transparencies, and Word documents were used with older
students in grades three to five, while tools promoting interactivity, role modeling, and
hands‐onskillswereusedwith theyoungerstudents ingradesoneand two.Teachers in
eachcontentareaalsohadcertaintechnologiesthatwerecommonlyused.Forinstance,the
143
Islamic studies teacher mostly utilized the audio‐recorder and posters, while in social
studies the teachers used the overhead projector and the Data Show. These findings
supportstudiesthatindicatethatteachers’usesoftechnologyvaryfromonegradelevelto
another(Niederhauseretal.,2006)andthecontentareadeterminescomputerapplications
utilized(Alkhezzi&Alqahtani,2007).
BudgetIssues
Both schools featured in the study lacked technology tools and resources due to
budgetconstraints,whichhadanimpactonteachersaswellasthedepartmentheadsand
school administration.This supportsEly’s (1999) conditionofadequate resources,which
referstotheneedtohaveavailableandaccessibleresourcestoimplementtheinnovation.
Teachersoftenpurchasedtheirowntoolsandstationeriestoovercomethescarcityandthe
mismanagement of the funds. Furthermore, the department head as well as the school
administrationutilizedpart of their allocatedbudgets forpurchases, despitebeing these
being the responsibility of theMOE. Studies have shown that funding is a constraint on
technologyadoption since ithinders thepurchaseanduseof technology (Rogers,1999).
Evenwhenfundsareavailable,thesefundsareoftennotgearedtowardtechnology.Rogers
(1999) emphasizes that the viewpoint and attitude of those in charge toward the
importanceoftechnologydetermineswherefundsareplaced.Thiswasthesituationfound
in both schools—the budget was spent on activities and an insufficient amount was
allocatedforpurchasingtechnologicaltoolsandsupplies.
In summary, insufficient funds is allocated for technologypurposes leading to the
scarcityof technological resources inbothschools.This shortage limited teachers’useof
technology.
144
ResearchQuestionTwo
Thesecondresearchquestionexaminedinwhatwaydotheattributesoftechnology
affect the perceptions of Kuwaiti teachers’ towards technology adoption and use by
examining the attributes relative advantage, compatibility, complexity, trialability, and
observability(resultdemonstrability,visibility)andaccessibility.
RelativeAdvantageandCompatibility
Kuwaiti teachers perceived technology to be useful and advantageous for several
reasons. Technology saved time and effort because it facilitated access to all types of
information and allowed for rapid delivery of information to students. This supports a
study by Oncu et al. (2008), who found that time‐saving in presenting information,
preparing classmaterials, and locating educational resourceswith easewere among the
aspects that encouraged teachers to use computers. The teachers also found that
technologywas consistentwith their pedagogical beliefs and needs. Technology allowed
forbetterorganizationoftheirlesson.Teacherswereabletohaveaclearsenseofwhatto
present inwhat order and how to organize theirmaterial in amanner attractive to the
students. By using a variety of technologies, teacherswere able to provide an enriching
environmentforstudentsthatcontributedtotheirlearninggoals.Teachersalsofoundthat
certain information could only be conveyed to the students when technologywas used.
Examplesincludedprehistoricperiodsorscientificconceptsthatcouldnotbecarriedout
in classrooms. Rogers (2003) refers to this as compatibility with needs. The topics
addressed by the Kuwaiti teachers were interrelated and reciprocal in nature. This
supports studies that indicate that there is a high correlationbetween compatibility and
relativeadvantage(Al‐Gahtani,2003;Moore&Benbasat,1991).
145
In summary, Rogers’ concepts of relative advantage and compatibility were two
attributes that contributed to teachers’ use of technology in this study. Kuwaiti teachers
perceived technologyasbeingadvantageousand inharmonywith theirneedsbecause it
allowedthemtoaccomplishtheircurricularactivities.
Complexity
Teachersfaceddifficultiesusingdevicesandapplicationsduetomalfunctions.The
mostdifficultdeviceforthemajorityofteacherswastheDataShow,althoughdifficultyin
using applications varied from one teacher to another. For some, the most difficult
applicationwasPowerPoint,while forothers itwasFlashandMoviemaker. Inregardsto
technicaland troubleshooting issues, teachers frombothschoolsdidnotdealwithmajor
technical issues but resorted to receiving assistance from a technician or a colleague, or
ensuring equipment functionality ahead of time. Others used alternative teaching tools
suchas textbooks, flashcards,oranyteachingtools thatcouldcommunicatethe intended
informationtothestudentswhentechnicalissuesoccurredduringthelesson.Ontheother
hand,teacherswereabletomanageminorissuessuchastheconnectionproblemsbetween
thelaptopsandtheDataShow.
Furthermore, when the Kuwaiti teachers were unable to resolve major technical
issuesduetotheirlackofexpertise,theywereconcernedthattheproblemmightworsenif
theytriedtoaddressitbythemselvesandthattheymightbeheldaccountable.Astudyby
Al‐Gahtani (2003) showed that training alleviates this type of complexity. Hands‐on and
user‐friendly interfaces would also lead to familiarization. This familiarization can
“overcome the issue of fear and inherited complexity arising from uncertainty of using
technologicaltools”(p.66).
146
In summary, Rogers’ complexity was an attribute that limited teachers’ use of
technology.TheKuwaiti teachersperceived some technologies tobedifficult in termsof
usageandlackoffunctionality.
Trialability
Kuwaiti teachers atboth schoolswereexposed to instructional technologyduring
collegecoursework,byattendingvarioustrainingprograms,andfromthemandatoryICDL
or CLP training programs. Someof the teachers found the ICDL to be beneficial because
they learnedhowtousesomeapplicationsandaddedtechnologyskills towhat theyhad
learnedduringcollege.Forothers,theICDLdidnotmatchtheirneedsinclass,norwasit
usefultothem.Studieshaveshownthat“trainingprogramstendtobetootheoreticalordo
not apply to their classroom applications” (Venezky, 2004, p. 14). Thiswas the case for
some of the Kuwaiti teachers, who were already acquainted with using computers and
their applications.The teachers’ viewpointwas thatnot all of the coursesofferedby the
ICDLwerecomprehensive,thattheICDLshouldbesplitintobeginnerandadvancedlevels,
andthatthetheoreticalsectionsshouldberemoved.Incontrast,theCLPprovidedbythe
MOEforthosewhodidnotcompleteortaketheICDLwasconsideredusefulforthosewho
tookit. Itprovidedbasic instructioninPowerPoint,Word,Excel,andtheInternet,andit
includedaninstructionalhandbook.
Studieshaveshownthatnotallschoolsprovideprofessionaldevelopmenttotheir
teachers, nor is time allocated for them to attend training classes outside of the school
(Venezky,2004).Inthecaseofthesetwoschools,itwasmandatoryfortheteacherstotake
theICDLortheCLPtrainingprogram,thuscontradictingthisconcept.However, thetime
allocatedfortheICDLwasnotconvenientforsometeachersbecauseitwasofferedinthe
147
eveningsafterschoolhours.TheICDLalsoofferedclassesduringtheweekdays,whichdid
notalignwith teachers’ schedulesandschoolhours.TheCLPwasofferedduring the last
twoweeksoftheschoolyearandontheschoolpremises,whichwasmoreconvenientfor
the teachers, but it didnotofferor coverdiverse topicsor a certificateof completionas
withtheICDL,whichwasconsideredadrawback.
Insummary,Rogers’ trialability isanattributethatcontributedto teachers’useof
technology.TheICDLandtheCLPofferedanopportunityforthemtoexperimentanduse
variouscomputerapplications.
Observability
Teachersfrombothschoolswereabletoobservethatstudentsperformedbetterin
class,becamemoreattentive,andweremoreinterestedinthetopicwhentechnologywas
used. The differencewas that teachers at one school noticed that studentswere able to
acquirealotofknowledgebyconnectingwhattheysawordidinrealitywiththematerial
tobe learned through theuseofmoviesorexperiments.Teachers from theother school
noticed that students became more independent, carried out their own projects, and
worked and collaborated together in groups as a result of the technology used in
instruction.This supports a studybyOncuet al. (2008),which found that teachersused
technology because it helped the students to apply what they had learned, encouraged
them to become more involved within the classroom, and helped them to carry out
activitiesmorequickly.
The lackof somedevices limited teachers’useof those technologies. Studieshave
shown that a scarcity of technology resources still exists, which refers not only to the
technology itself but also includes accessibility issues (Hew & Brush, 2007). This was
148
supported in the study when Kuwaiti teachers used their own personal laptops, USB
Internetmodems,andoftenworkedathometoovercometheshortage.Thelackofdevices
also led to two inconvenient circumstances for the Kuwaiti teachers; first, sharing of
devices such as the Data Show, and second, sharing of classrooms that had devices
installed.Thesecircumstancesledtoproblemsofschedulingandcontinuousaccessibility.
Adding to that, teachers fromone school specifically discussed administrative control of
someofthedevicesandnothavingcontinuousaccesstothemduetofearofmisuse.This
supportOncuetal.(2008),whofoundthatteachershadtogetpermission/authorizationto
usesomeofthetechnologiesand,insomecases,mightnotbepermittedtousethem.
Insummary,Rogers’observabilityisanattributethatcontributedtoteachers’useof
technology,astheywereabletoobservestudents’ improvementintheclassroom.Bythe
sametoken,observabilityrelatedtovisibilityandaccessibilitylimitedteachers’usedueto
thelackofdevicesandaccessibilitytowheretheyarelocated.
AssociatingtheFindingswithRogersandFarquharandSurry
Teachers’characteristics,theattributesoftechnology,andthesupportenvironment
provided influenced the Kuwaiti teachers’ use of technology. Teachers’ perceptions and
attitudestowardsthechangeprocesswerepositive;however,therewerevariousaspects
that influenced the teachers’ extent of technology use. Rogers’ (2003) theory on
consequencesof innovation,whichare“changes thatoccur toan individualor toasocial
systemasaresultofaninnovation”(p.31),issupportedinthecaseoftheteachersstudied.
Desirable consequences, “which are the functional effects of an innovation” (p. 470), are
recognizable when teachers discussed how technology tended to facilitate the
149
implementation ofmany professional and personal activities. Furthermore, the teachers
werealsoexposedtoundesirableconsequences,“whicharethedysfunctionaleffectofan
innovationforanindividual”(p.470).Inthisregardteacherswereexposedtofeelingsof
anxietyduetothefactthatthedevicesoftendidnotfunctioncorrectlyandbecauseextra
timewasneededforpreparingclassmaterials.Furthermore,anxietywasalsolinkedtolack
ofskillsandknow‐howindealingwithtechnologies,whichhadnegativeconsequenceson
the teachers, but which dissipated with continuous use. This supports the first step of
Yildrim (2000), who emphasized that individuals go through three stages during
technologyadoption:anxiety,confidence,andliking.
FarquharandSurry (1994) indicate that thecharacteristicsof individualwhowill
ultimately use an innovation play an important role in whether or not the product is
adopted. There were several teachers’ characteristics that played a positive role on the
teachers. Motivational support provided by the school administration and department
head,thevoluntarydecisionsonthetypeoftechnologiestheycoulduse,andteachers’daily
practiceandpriorexperienceencouragedthemtousetechnology.SomeKuwaititeachers
were able to adapt to the technology more rapidly and used technology extensively in
comparisonwithothers.
Rogers (2003) talked about innovativeness and how each individual decides to
adoptaninnovationdifferentlybasedonhisorherviewpoints.Reflectingonthesituation
intheseschools, it ispossibletoidentifythatsomeoftheteacherswere“earlyadopters.”
Theseteachersnotonlyperceivedtechnologyasveryusefulfortheirprofessionandusedit
constantly, but they strove to try newdevices and applications. For instance, one of the
teachers introduced the interactive whiteboard to her colleagues and school
150
administration, and provided an illustration of how it could be used. Another teacher
learned to use advanced applications such as Moviemaker and Flash. Other teachers
represented the “earlymajority” group.These teachersbelieved the importanceofbeing
awareofandusingnewtechnologiestomeetthedemandsofthepresenttime,and,thus,
used various tools in class. In addition, they focused on updating themselves with new
trends,teachingthemselvestousecertainapplications,andattendingtrainingprogramsto
gain more experience. The teachers who fell into the category of “late majority” used
technology but had doubts and uncertaintywhile using them. Thus, in some cases, they
avoidedusingtechnologyandinsteadreliedontypicalmaterialsandexperiments.Finally,
oneteacherstudiedwasa“laggard”anddidnotuseanytechnologyperceivedtobedifficult
ortakingtimeandefforttolearn.Preferencewasgiventothesimplestandeasiestteaching
toolsand,insomecases,tonon‐use.
The attributes of the instructional technology also contributed to and limited
teachers’ use of it. The contributors were that teachers were offered two training
programs—theICDLandtheCLP—(trialability)tobeabletogainskillsandtheknow‐how
tousetechnology.Technologyusecanbefacilitatedwhenteachersobservethattheskills
theygained throughtrainingandprofessionaldevelopmentsessionscanbe linkedto the
contentsofthecurriculumandtheirteachingstrategies,aswellaswhentheyareableto
observe an improvement in students’ achievement (Byrom& Bingham, 2001). This idea
wassupportedinthisstudy.First,byusingavarietyoftechnologies,teacherswereableto
carryouttheiradministrativetasksandteachingactivities(relativeadvantage)andwere
able to achieve their goals and needs (compatibility). Second, through the use of
technology,teachersalsoobservedthatstudentsgainedandimprovedtheirlearningskills
151
(observability).Ontheotherhand,theattributesthatlimitedteachers’useweredifficulty
inusingsomedevicesanddealingwithmalfunctions(complexity),andthelackofdevices
andaccesstoclassroomsinwhichtheywerelocated(visibilityandaccessibility).Providing
theproperamountandtherighttypesoftechnologyinlocationswheretheycanbeusedis
relevantfortechnologyusage(Fabry&Higgs,1997).
Surry and Farquhar (1994) indicate that the role of the organizational factors—
whetherphysicalorsupportenvironment—playsamajorroleintheinitialadoptionofan
innovation as well as in whether it will facilitate or hamper the continuous use of the
innovationby the adopters.The factorsof the support environments (Farquhar&Surry,
1995) that limited the use of technology by the Kuwaiti teachers were limited budget,
centralizeddecision‐making,and formalization.Limitedbudget led to lackofdevicesand
office supplies, and therefore teachers spent fromtheirownpersonal funds toovercome
theshortage.Centralizeddecision‐makingontechnologypurchaseslimitedtheamountand
typesoftechnologiesprovided.Centralizationis“thedegreetowhichpowerandcontrolin
a systemare concentrated in thehandsof a relatively few individuals” (Rogers, 2003, p.
412). Formalization is the “degree to which an organization emphasizes its members
followingrulesandprocedures”(Rogers,2003,p.412).
Rogers (2003) talks about how centralization is usually found to be negatively
associated with innovativeness. The means by which the decisions are made regarding
technologypurchasesshowsthathierarchyiscentraltothepubliceducationalsystemsin
Kuwait. A similar situation is the case with the school administrations that follow the
guidelines set by the MOE and accordingly run the school in a top‐down fashion.
Formalization was also observed in these schools. Formalization tends to inhibit the
152
consideration of innovation by members of an organization but encourages the
implementation of innovations (Rogers, 2003). The teachers studied were bound by
policiesandprocedures,includingthoserelatedtoaccessibilitytocertaintechnologiesand
nottakingpartindecisionsregardingtechnology‐relatedpurchases.
In conclusion, various individual and organizational aspects that were close in
nature and overlapped each other determined technology use by the Kuwaiti teachers.
TheseaspectsareshowninTable4.
Table4IndividualandorganizationalattributesaffectingtechnologyuseInfluencingAspects
Teachers’Characteristics
TechnologyAttributes SupportEnvironment
RelativeAdvantage
SupportfromtheAdministration
Compatibility
Trialability
Contributors
Experienceandpractice
Observability(resultdemonstrability)
Voluntarydecisions
Complexity Centralizeddecision‐makingandformalization
Limiters Anxietyfromextratimeneededtopreparematerials,lackoffunctionality,andlackoftraining
Observability(visibilityandaccessibility)
Budgetissues
ConclusionsandRecommendations
Technology is a social phenomenon and is developed by people in a particular
environment and culture. The study of adoption, diffusion, implementation, and
institutionalization of an innovation is an inherently social process (Surry & Farquhar,
153
1995). Many factors combine and affect technology adoption and use, and, thus, it is
essentialtounderstandtheunderlyingaspectsinvolved(Surry&Ely,2002).Studieshave
postulated that the focus shouldnot solelybeon technical superiorityof the innovation;
rather,theadoption/diffusionprocessshouldstartatthelevelofthepotentialadopterand
addresstheissuesinthecontextoftheenvironmentinwhichtheywillusethetechnology.
This study focused on teachers’ perception towards technology by examining teachers’
characteristics, attributes of technology, and the support environment that might have
contributed to or limited their adoption to showwhether Rogers’ (2003) DOI theory is
applicable in Kuwaiti primary public schools. By examining these aspects, the study
showedthatKuwaititeachersperceivedtheadoptionandutilizationoftechnologyasbeing
constructive.Theywereabletogothroughthechangeprocessandaccustomthemselvesto
technologydespite their feelings of anxiety. Some teachers adapted easily to technology,
while others took more time. However, in all cases, technology acted as a facilitating
mechanism in carrying out both their teaching and administrative tasks. Technology did
not alter their teaching styles, and classes continue to be teacher‐centered. Overall, the
teacherstendedtoutilizetechnologytotheirbestoftheirabilityperwhatwasprovidedin
bothschools.
Whiletherewereseveralcontributorstotechnologyuse,therewerealsolimiters.It
isrecommendedthatsupportinitiativesbeprovidedfromleadersateachsupervisionlevel
to facilitate technology use for future innovations. Yavas et al. (1992) emphasize that
leadershipisconsideredafacilitatingmechanismfortheadoptionofinnovation;however,
“itsroleinachievingthisendwithrespecttodiffusionofcomputersisoverlookedinhigh
context cultures like the Middle East” (p. 76). The MOE’s ultimate authority regarding
154
technologyinitiativesandtheirperceptionstowardtheeffectivenessoftechnologytendsto
bereflectedinthetypeoftechnologiesavailableintheschoolsaswellasinthetechnology‐
relatedtrainingprogramsprovided.TheMOEneededtoensurethattherewereasufficient
number of technologies available in schools and a budget that would cover technology‐
relatedexpenditures. Initiativeswereneeded thatwould leadstakeholderswithinschool
contexts to be updated with new technologies that adhered more to effective learning
processes. Training sessions prior to and during technology adoption and usewere also
required.
Training should not only focus on operational skills but should include personal
skills that build self‐confidence to overcome technological‐related fears and anxieties, as
well as technology‐related teaching techniques that promote more critical thinking and
problem‐solvingskillsforthestudents.Inaddition,technicalskillsthatareparalleltothe
needs of the teachers should be included in the training sessions. The school
administrations needed to provide support initiatives for teachers by reducing the
restrictionsplacedonaccesstodevicesortoclassroomsinwhichdevicesareinstalledto
ensure constant use of technology. The school administration needed to ensure that the
fundsallocatedbytheMOEwereearmarkedforbuyingsuchthingsasteachingtoolsand
technologies,whichbenefitstudents’learning,ratherthanonrecreationalactivities.
Themost crucial recommendation tobe taken into considerationwas theneed to
involve teachers in the technology‐related planning and decision‐making process. This
would ensure that the technologiesmade availablewere those perceived by teachers as
significantandrequiredinaccomplishingtheirteachingneeds.Rogers(2003)talksabout
how decentralized systems allow the users to participate in key decision such aswhich
155
innovation best meets their needs and which of their perceived problems most needs
attention. The “high degree of user control over these key decisions means that
decentralizeddiffusionisgearedcloselytolocalneeds”(p.395).Furthermore,itwillhelp
ensure that teachers do not make a disenchantment discontinuance decision (Rogers,
2003)andrejectthetechnologyasaresultofdissatisfactionwithitsperformance.Overall,
the MOE needed to work very closely with the school administration to provide the
appropriate solutions to ensure that the teachers utilized technology in an effective
manner.TheserecommendedsupportinitiativesareillustratedinFigure13.
Figure13.SupportinitiativesfromtheMOEandschooladministration.
156
ImplicationsforFutureResearch
Thisstudyshowsthattherearethreemainpropositionsthatwouldbenefit future
researchstudiesinsimilarcontexts:
1) The constructs of visibility, in terms of lack of technologies in locations, and of
accessibility, in terms of not having regular permission to all technologies or conflicting
classroom scheduling, were very important factors in determining the degree of use of
technologyby the teachers. These two constructs showa slight divergence fromRogers’
(2003) five perceived attributes. In addition, the construct of accessibility also shows a
divergencefromMooreandBenbasat’s(1991)criteriaofperceivedattributes.Therefore,
further research iswarranted on how the constructs of visibility and accessibility affect
teachers'technologyadoption.
2) The AAmodel (Farquhar & Surry, 1994) described the organizational and individual
attributes that affect technology adoption but neglected to refer to the impact of the
outsideenvironmentontheseattributes.Futureresearchonschoolsthataregovernedby
centralizedsystems,suchasinthisstudy,needstofocusonanalyzingboththeinternalas
well as the external environment in order to have a more precise and accurate
interpretationofthefactorsthatplayaroleontechnologyadoption.
3)Severalapproachesareusefulforhelpingpredicttherateofadoptioninthefuture.One
of these factors is “extrapolation from the rate of adoption of past innovation into the
future for other similar innovation” (Rogers, 2003, p. 227). This research study
recommended support initiatives based on the findings. Kuwaitis working in the public
sectorcanrefertothesesuggestedsupportinitiativesattheplanningstagetofacilitatethe
adoptionandintegrationprocess.
157
AreasforFurtherStudies
Severalfutureresearchinvestigationsrelatedtothisstudycanbebeneficialforthe
field of instructional technology in order to bridge a gap in the literature. Based on the
limitations of this study, research that involves teachers from other disciplines would
provide a more inclusive overview on how other content areas and their need for
technologyaffectstheiruse.Anotherstudythatwouldaddressthelimitationofthisstudy
istocarryoutresearchthatcatersforteachesages40andaboveorteacherswhohadten
yearsofteachingexperience.Thiswouldportrayhowthatparticularagerangeandyears
of teachingexperiencecontribute to theuseornouseof technology.Furthermore,other
recommendedstudieseitherqualitativeorquantitativeinnaturethatalignswiththisstudy
canalsofillthegapinliterature.AcomparisonstudybetweenprimaryteachersinKuwait
andtheUnitedStateswouldidentifythechallengesthatteachersfaceandhowdifferentor
similar the issues are regarding technology use. A study involvingKuwaiti professors of
educationinhighereducationandtheirperceptionstowardstheuseoftechnologyintheir
teacher‐preparation programs would show how and in what ways technology will be
applied in schools. Finally, an experimental study examining primary, middle, and
secondarystudents’useof computersandother technologiesand its role in the learning
process will illustrate the positive or negative outcomes technology has on students’
educationalachievements.
158
References
Ahmad, A. A. (2000). An evaluation of the primary school teacher preparation in thecollege of education at Kuwait University. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,UniversityofSussex,EaseSussex,UK
Agarwal,R.,&Prasad, J. (1997).TheRoleof InnovationCharacteristicsandPerceivedVoluntarinessintheAcceptanceofInformationTechnologies.(3),557‐582.
Al‐Asmari,A.M.(2005).TheuseoftheinternetamongEFLteachersatthecollegesoftechnology in Saudi Arabia. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ohio StateUniversity,Columbus
Al‐Enezi,M.M.(2002).AstudyoftherelationshipbetweenschoolbuildingconditionsandacademicachievementoftwelfthgradestudentsinKuwaitipublichighschools.Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and StateUniversity,Blacksburg,Virginia
Al‐Fulih, K. (2003). Attributes of the Internet perceived by Saudi Arabian faculty aspredictorsfortheirInternetadoptionforacademicpurposes.DissertationAbstractsInternational,63(08),2842A.(UMINo.3062771)
Al‐Gahtani, S. S. (2003).Computer technologyadoption in SaudiArabia:Correlatesofperceivedinnovationattributes.InformationTechnologyforDevelopment,10(1),57‐69.
*4Al‐Khezzi, F., & Al‐Ghatani, A. (2007). The impact of ICDL on public educationinstitutionsinKuwaitbythosecertifiedintheICDL:Astudyinexternalefficiency.[Inpress].
Al‐Sahel, R. A. (January 01, 2005). Teachers' Perceptions of Underachievement inElementarySchoolsinKuwait.SchoolPsychologyInternational,26,4,478‐493.
Al,K.andari,K.M.(2004).Islamicschool:Challengesandpotentialsinthe21stcentury,acasestudyofAl‐Amal,aprivatebilingualschool inkuwait.Unpublisheddoctoraldissertation,VirginiaPolytechnicInstituteandStateUniversity,Blacksburg,Virginia
Ali, J. M. (2004). Information Technology in the Middle East. Journal of Global
4 * Indicates references in Arabic from which used text was translated
159
Information Technology Management, pp. 1‐4. Retrieved fromhttp://ezproxy.lib.vt.edu:8080/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=iih&AN=12517565&site=ehost‐live&scope=site
Alias, N. A., & Zainuddin, A. M. (2005). Innovation for better teaching and learning:Adoptingthelearningmanagementsystem.MalaysianOnlineJournalofInstructionalTechnology,2(2),p.27‐40.
Almobarraz, A.(2007). Perceived attributes of diffusion of innovation theory aspredictors of internet adoption among the facultymembers of ImamMohammedBinSaudUniversity.Unpublisheddoctoraldissertation,UniversityofNorthTexas,Denton.
Alqahtani, A. A. (2007). An exploratory study of students' expectations of differentacademicprogramsEnglishlanguage‐relatedprogramsasacasestudyUnpublisheddoctoral dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University,Blacksburg,Virginia
Alsenaidi, S. S. (2009). An investigation of factors affecting Omani faculty members'adoption of information and computing technology. Unpublished doctoraldissertation,UniversityofNorthTexas,Denton
Bauer, J., & Kenton, J. (2005). Toward Technology Integration in the Schools:Why itisn'tHappening.JournalofTechnologyandTeacherEducation,13(4),519‐546.
Baxter, P., & Jack, S. (2008). Qualitative Case Study Methodology: Study Design andImplementationforNoviceResearchers.QualitativeReport,13(4),544‐559.
Baylor,A.L.,&Ritchie,D. (2002).What factors facilitate teacherskill, teachermorale,and perceived student learning in technology‐using classrooms? Computers &Education,39(4),395.
Belland,B.R.(2009).Usingthetheoryofhabitustomovebeyondthestudyofbarrierstotechnologyintegration.Computers&Education,52(2),353‐364.
Byrom,E.,&Bingham,M.(2001).FactorsInfluencingtheEffectiveUseofTechnologyforTeaching and Learning: Lessons Learned from the SEIRTEC Intensive Site Schools:SERVE:SouthEasternRegionalVisionforEducation,Greensboro,NC.SouthEastandIslandsRegionalTechnologyinEducationConsortium,Durham,NC.
Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design : qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methodapproaches(2nded.).ThousandOaks,Calif.:SagePublications.
160
Creswell, J.W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (3rd ed.). London: Sage Publications.
Cuban,L.,Kirkpatrick,H.,&Peck,C.(2001).HighAccessandLowUseofTechnologiesin
HighSchoolClassrooms:ExplaininganApparentParadox.AmericanEducational
ResearchJournal,38(4),813‐834.
Culp, K. M., Honey, M., &Mandinach, E. (2005). A Retrospective on Twenty Years of
Education Technology Policy. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 32(3),279‐307
*Dashti,F.A.,&Behbhani,I.E.(2005).Theeffectivenessofusingtechnologyinteachingon achievement in English language for first grader: An experimental study. .TheEducationalJournal,20(77),13‐53.
Davis,F.D.(1989).PerceivedUsefulness,PerceivedEaseofUse,andUserAcceptanceofInformationTechnology.MISQuarterly,13(3),319‐340.
Ebrahim, A. (2004). The effects of traditional learning and a learning cycle inquirylearningstrategyonstudents'scienceachievementandattitudestowardelementaryscience.Unpublisheddoctoraldissertation,OhioStateUniversity,Columbus
Elmasry, S. K. (2007). Integration patterns of learning technologies. Unpublisheddoctoral dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University,Blacksburg,Virginia
Ely, D. P. (1999). Conditions that facilitate the implementation of educationaltechnologyinnovations.EducationalTechnology,39(6),23‐27.
Ensminger, D. C., & Surry, D.W. (2008). Relative ranking of conditions that facilitateinnovation implementation in the USA. Australasian Journal of EducationalTechnology,24(5),611‐626.
Ertmer,P.A.,Addison,P.,Lane,M.,Ross,E.,&Woods,D. (1999).Examining teachers'beliefsabouttheroleoftechnologyintheelementaryclassroom.JournalofResearchonComputinginEducation,32(1),54‐72.
Ertmer,P.A.,Ottenbreit‐Leftwich,A.,&York,C.S.(2006).ExemplaryTechnology‐usingTeachers: Perceptions of Factors Influencing Success. Journal of Computing inTeacherEducation,23(2),55‐61.
Fabry, D. L., & Higgs, J. R. (1997). Barriers to the Effective Use of Technology in
161
Education: Current Status. Journal of Educational ComputingResearch, 17(4), 385‐395.
*Farag,A.H.(2005).TheuseofInternetinEducation.TheEducationalJournal,19(74),110‐150.
Farquhar, J.F, and Surry, D.W. (1994). Adoption analysis: An additional tool forinstructional developers. Education and Training Technology International, 31(1),19‐25.
Goktas, Y., Yildirim, Z., & Yildirim, S. (2008). The keys for ICT integration in K‐12education:teachers'perceptionsandusage.AsiaPacificEducationReview,9(2),168‐179.
Grainger, R., & Tolhurst, D. (2005).Organisational factors affecting teachers' use andperception of information & communications technology. Paper presented at theProceedingsofthe2005SouthEastAsiaRegionalComputerScienceConfederation(SEARCC)Conference‐Volume46.
Gulbahar, Y. (2007). Technology Planning: A Roadmap to Successful TechnologyIntegrationinSchoolsComputers&Education,49(4),943‐956.
Gwayi, S. M. (2009). Perceptions of innovations as predictors of TALULARimplementation levels among secondary school science teachers in Malawi: Adiffusion of innovations perspective. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, VirginiaPolytechnicInstituteandStateUniversity,Blacksburg,Virginia
Hennessy,S.,Ruthven,K.,&Brindley,S.(2005).TeacherperspectivesonintegratingICTinto subject teaching: Commitment, constraints, caution, and change. Journal ofCurriculumStudies,37(2),155‐192
Hermans, R., Tondeur, J., van Braak, J., & Valcke, M. (2008). The impact of primaryschoolteachers'educationalbeliefsontheclassroomuseofcomputers.Computers&Education,51(4),1499‐1509.
Hew,K.F.,&Brush,T.(2007).IntegratingtechnologyintoK‐12teachingandlearning:current knowledge gaps and recommendations for future research. EducationalTechnologyResearchandDevelopment,55(3),223‐252.
Hofer, M., & Swan, K. O. (2008). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge inAction: A Case Study of Middle Schol Digital Documentary Project. Journal ofResearchonTechnologyinEducation,41(2),179‐200.
162
John, P. D., & La Velle, L. B. (2004). Devices and Desires: Subject Subcultures,Pedagogical Identity and the Challenge of Information and CommunicationsTechnology.Technology,PedagogyandEducation,13(3),307‐326.
Karagiorgi, Y. (2005). Throwing Light into the Black Box of Implementation: ICT inCyprusElementarySchools.EducationalMediaInternational,42(1),19‐32.
Keengwe,J.,Onchwari,G.,&Wachira,P.(2008).ComputerTechnologyIntegrationand StudentLearning:BarriersandPromise.JournalofScienceEducation&Technology,17(6),560‐565.Lambert, J., Gong, Y., & Cuper, P. (2008). Technology, Transfer, and Teaching: The
ImpactofaSingleTechnologyCourseonPreserviceTeachers'ComputerAttitudesandAbility.JournalofTechnologyandTeacherEducation,16(4),385‐410.
Martins,C.B.M.J.,Steil,A.V.,&Todesco,J.L.(2004).FactorsInfluencingtheAdoptionof the Internet as a Teaching Tool at Foreign Language Schools. Computers andEducation,42(4),353‐374.
Merriam,S.,B.(2009).QualitativeResearch:AGuidetoDesignandImplementation.SanFrancisco,CA:Jossey‐Bass.
Mertens, D. M. (2005). Research and evaluation in education and psychology:Integrating diversitywith quantitative, qualitative, andmixedmethods. ThousandOaks,Calif.:SagePublications.
Moore, G. C., & Benbasat, I. (1991). Development of an instrument to measure theperceptionsofadoptinganinformationtechnologyinnovation.InformationSystemsResearch,2(3),192‐222.
Moore, J. M. (2007). Virginia technology education teachers' implementation ofstandards for technological literacy. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, VirginiaPolytechnicInstituteandStateUniversity,Blacksburg,Virginia
Mosley, B. F. (2005). Development of a technologymentoring programusing Rogers'Diffusion of innovations. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Virginia PolytechnicInstituteandStateUniversity,Blacksburg,Virginia
Niederhauser, D. S., Lindstrom, D. L., & Strobel, J. (2006). Addressing the NETS forstudents through constructivist technology use in K‐12 classrooms. Journal ofTechnologyandTeacherEducation,15(4),483‐51
163
Nyirongo,N.K. (2009).Technologyadoptionand integration:Adescriptivestudyofahigher education institution in a developing nation. Unpublished doctoraldissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg,Virginia.
O'Mahony,C.(2003).Gettingtheinformationandcommunicationstechnologyformularight:accessability=confidentuse.Technology,PedagogyandEducation,12(2),295‐311.
Oncu, S., Delialioglu, O., & Brown, C. A. (2008). Critical Components for TechnologyIntegration: How do Instructors Make Decisions? Journal of Computers inMathematicsandScienceTeaching,27(1),19‐46.
Ozaygen,S.Altay,(2005),DiffusionofFreeandOpensourceSoftwareasInnovation:ACaseStudyofMETU,STPS ‐ScienceandTechnologyPolicyStudiesCenter,MiddleEastTechnicalUniversity,Turkey
Patton,M.Q.(1990).Qualitativeevaluationandresearchmethods(2nded.ed.Vol.532p.:).NewburyPark,Calif.::SagePublications.
Patton,M.(2002).Qualitativeresearchandevaluationmethods.3rded.ThousandOaks,CA:SagePublications
Perkins,R.A.(2003).Theroleofcontextininstructionaldesignacasestudyexaminingthere‐purposingofweb‐basedmaster'sdegreecoursesforuseinMalawiAvailablefromhttp://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd‐09142003‐141456
Pierson, M. E. (2001). Technology Integration Practice as a Function of PedagogicalExpertise.JournalofResearchonTechnologyinEducation,33(4).
Rogers,E.M.(2003).Diffusionofinnovations(5thed.).NewYork:FreePress.
Rogers, P. L. (January 01, 2000). Barriers To Adopting Emerging Technologies inEducation.JournalofEducationalComputingResearch,22,4,455‐72.
Rosenfeld, B., &Martinez‐Pons,M. (2005). Promoting classroom technology use.TheQuarterlyReviewofDistanceEducation,6(2),145‐153.
Rossman,G.B.,&Rallis,S.F.(2003).Learninginthefield:anintroductiontoqualitativeresearch(2nded.).ThousandOaks,Calif.:SagePublications.
Safar,A.H.(2001).SelectiveperspectivesofimplementingcomputertechnologyinK‐12education in the State of Kuwait. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of
164
Tennessee,Knoxville.
Seavers,V.(2002).Goingbacktotheclassroom:canIpracticewhatIpreach?(FeatureNo.0731‐4388).
Seidman, I. (2006). Interviewing as qualitative research : a guide for researchers ineducationandthesocialsciences(3rded.).NewYork:TeachersCollegePress.
Sooknanan, P., Melkote, S. R., & Skinner, E. C. (2002). Diffusion of an EducationalInnovationinTrinidadandTobago:TheRoleofTeacherAttitudesandPerceptionstoward Computers in the Classroom. International Communication Gazette, 64(6),557‐571.
Sugar, W. (2002). Applying human‐centered design to technology integration threealternative technology perspectives. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education,19(1),12‐17
Surry, D. W., & Ely, D. P. (2002). Adoption, diffusion, implementation, andinstitutionalizationofinstructionaldesignandtechnology.InA.Reiser,Dempsey,J.V.(Ed.),Trendsandissuesininstructionaldesignandtechnology.NewJersey:MerrillPrenticeHall.
Surry,D.W. (1997).Diffusion theory and instructional technology. Paper presented atthe Annual Conference of the Association for Educational Communications andTechnology(AECT)
Surry, D. W., & Farquhar, J. D. (1995). Adoption Analysis and User‐OrientedInstructionalDevelopment.
Taylor, J. A., & Duran, M. (2006). Teaching Social Studies with Technology: NewResearchonCollaborativeApproaches.HistoryTeacher,40(1),9‐25.
TheNationalMidDecadeReportonEducationforallintheStateofKuwait(2002‐2006).MadinatAl‐Kuwait:KuwaitNational Commission forEducation, Science&Culture(UNESCO)MinistryofKuwait.
The National Report: Development of Education in the State of Kuwait (2004‐2008).Madinat Al‐Kuwait: Kuwait National Commission For Education, Science ANDCulture(UNESCO),InternationalBureauOfEducation,MinistryOfKuwait.
Tiene,D.,& Ingram,A. (2001).Exploring current issues in educational technology (1sted.).Dubuque,IA:McGraw‐Hill.
165
Usluel,Y.K.,Askar,P.,&Bas,T.(January01,2008).AStructuralEquationModelforICTUsageinHigherEducation.EducationalTechnology&Society,11,2,262‐273.
vanBraak,J.(2001).Factorsinfluencingtheuseofcomputermediatedcommunicationbyteachersinsecondaryschools.Computers&Education,36(1),41‐57.
Venezky, R. L. (2004). Technology in the classroom: steps toward a new vision.Education,Communication&Information,4(1),3‐21.
Warschauer,M.(2007).InformationLiteracyintheLaptopClassroom.TeachersCollege Record,109(11),2511‐2540.
Wenglinsky,H.(2005).Usingtechnologywisely:thekeystosuccessinschools.NewYork:TeachersCollegePress.
Williams, J., & Easingwood, N. (2007). Primary ICT and the foundation subjects. NewYork:ContinuumInternationalPub.Group.
Wishart,J.(2008).ChallengesFacedbyModernForeignLanguageTeacherTraineesinUsingHandheldPocketPCs(PersonalDigitalAssistants)toSupportTheirTeachingandLearning.ReCALL,20(3),348‐360
Wozney,L.,Venkatesh,V.,&Abrami,P.(2006).ImplementingComputerTechnologies:Teachers'PerceptionsandPractices. JournalofTechnologyandTeacherEducation,14(1),173.
Yates,B. L. (2001).ApplyingDiffusionTheory:AdoptionofMediaLiteracyPrograms inSchools.PaperpresentedattheInternationalCommunicationAssociation.Retrievedfromhttp://ezproxy.lib.vt.edu:8080/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=ED453564&site=ehost‐live&scope=site
Yavas,U.,Luqmani,M.,&Quraeshi,Z.A.(1992).Facilitatingtheadoptionofinformationtechnologyinadevelopingcountry.Information&Management,23(2),75‐82.
Yildirim, S. (2000). Effects of an Educational Computing Course on Preservice andInservice Teachers: A Discussion and Analysis of Attitudes and Use. Journal ofResearchonComputinginEducation,32(4),479‐495.
Yin,R.K.(2003).Casestudyresearch:designandmethods(4thed.).LosAngeles,Calif.:SagePublications.
Yin,R.K.(2009).Casestudyresearch:designandmethods(4thed.).LosAngeles,Calif.:
166
SagePublications.
Zhao, Y., & Frank, K. A. (2003). Factors Affecting Technology Uses in Schools: AnEcologicalPerspective.AmericanEducationalResearchJournal,40(4),807‐840.
Zhao,Y.,Pugh,K.,Sheldon,S.,&Byers,J.L.(2002).ConditionsforClassroomTechnologyInnovations.TeachersCollegeRecord,104(3),482‐515.
167
AppendixAInvitationLetter
Date:February2010
DearVolunteer:
As many of you know, technology integration is beneficial as it can facilitate your teachingmethodsandassistyou in teachingstudents.Thisstudy isdesignedtobetterunderstandtheperceptionsoffemaleteachersontechnologybasedonRogers’theoryonperceivedattributesandwhetherthistheoryisapplicableinKuwaitischools.ThestudyisbeingconductedaspartofmydissertationprojectthroughtheDepartmentofCurriculumandInstructionandisbeingsupervisedbyDr.JohnBurton.Toinvestigatethisaspect,weaskforyourassistancebysharingyourviewpointswithus.Webelievethatyourexperiencesandthoseofotherfemaleteacherswill helpus tobecomeawareof the issues you face and accordinglyhow tobetter integratetechnologywithinthepublicschoolsystemswithinKuwait.
Thestudyconsistsoftwophases.Youwillbeaskedtoparticipateina45minutetooneandahalfhourinterviewbymeinthefirstphase.Intotal,thetimecommitmentisnotexpectedtobelonger than one‐and‐a‐half hours. However, we would appreciate you answering all of theinterview questions because we feel that each question is relevant to understanding yourexperiences. Furthermore for verification of some of your answers, I might need to get incontact with you again. Youwill not be identified by name in thewritten paper, or in anyreportordissertationresultingfromthisstudy.Thesecondphasewouldbetoobserveyouforan hour or so each week. I will be taking notes related to how you deal with technologywhetherwithyourstudentsorinyouradministrativeworketc.PleasebeawarethatIwillnotdistractyouinanywayduringyourteachingbutIwouldneedtobeinclassorinyourofficewhendoingthat.AftertakingthenotesImightneedyoutoclarifysomeaspectsofmynotessoImightcontactyouagainwheneveryouyourtimepermits.
Thefinaldecisionaboutwhethertoparticipateinthisstudyisyours.Allinformationprovidedby the participantswill be combined, and the findings from this studywill be shared in thedissertation but the names of the participants will not be revealed and will be assignedpseudonym. These findings may prove to be a valuable resource for other primary publicschoolsinKuwaitandotherGCCcountriesaswellasschooladministratorsandteachers.
Ifyouwouldlikemoreinformationconcerningthisresearchprojecttohelpwithyourdecisionaboutparticipating,pleasefeelfreetoemailDr.JohnBurtonatjburton@vt.edu.IwouldliketoassureyouthatthisstudyhasbeenreviewedandreceivedapprovalbytheInstitutionalReviewBoardatVirginiaTech.Ifyouhaveanycommentsorconcernsresultingfromyourparticipationinthisstudy,[email protected].
Thankyou,inadvance,foryourconsiderationofthisrequest.Wehopethisstudywillfurtherstrengthentheabilityofpeopletohelponeanother.
Yourssincerely,
RandaAbdelmagidPhDGraduateStudentVirginiaTech
168
AppendixB
SampleSelectionQuestionnaire
Pleaseanswerallthefollowingquestions:
1. Whatisyourfullname?
2. Whatisyournationality?
3. Howoldareyou?
4. Whatsubjectareadoyouteach?
5. Whatgradeleveldoyouteach?
6. Howmanyyearsofexperiencedoyouhaveinteaching?
7. Doyouteachonly_____ordoyouteachandsupervise___?
8. Doyouusetechnology(computers,projectors,laptops,TV,CD‐Rom,andDVDetc)?
9. Areyouwillingtobeinterviewed(audiorecorded)?
10. Areyouwillingtobeobserved?
171
MinistryofEducationCapitalRegionEducationalAdministrationOfficeoftheDirectorofEducationalAffairs
Madam: DirectorofAlishbiliyaElementarySchoolforGirls DirectorofAaminaElementarySchoolforGirls Director of Latifa Albarak Elementary School for
Girls DirectorofSumayaElementarySchoolforGirls
Greetings
WeareaskingyourassistanceinfacilitatingthemissionofDr.FahadAbdallahAlkhezziandtheworkingteamfromtheInstructionTechnologyDivision,CollegeofEducation,KuwaitUniversityduringtheirvisittoyourschools.Theirmissionistogatherinformationneededforastudyregardingtheuseoftechnology in education. They are expected to visit yourschoolsduringtheperiodFebruary1–March13,2010.
WeappreciateyourcooperationinthismatterSignedManagerAdministrationofEducationalAffairs
Letter#1:Translation
173
MinistryofEducationCapitalRegionEducationalAdministrationOfficeoftheDirectorofEducationalAffairsMadam: DirectorofMaryamAbdelmalikAlsalehElementary
SchoolforGirls DirectorofAl’adiliyahElementarySchoolforGirls
Greetings
WeareaskingyourassistanceinfacilitatingthemissionofDr.FahadAbdallahAlkhezziandtheworkingteamfromtheInstructionTechnologyDivision,CollegeofEducation,KuwaitUniversityduringtheirre‐visittoyourschools.Theirmissionistogatherinformationneededforastudyregardingtheuseof technology in education. They are expected to visit yourschoolsduringtheperiodFebruary1–March13,2010.
WeappreciateyourcooperationinthismatterSignedManagerAdministrationofEducationalAffairs
Letter#2:Translation
174
AppendixEInterviewQuestions
InterviewprotocolMynameisRandaFouadAbdelmagidandIamdoingmyresearchontheadoptionanduseoftechnologybyKuwaititeachersandwhetherRoger’stheoryisapplicableontheKuwaitischool system. The questionnaire will be divided into groups addressing several coreissues.Generalinformation1. Whatisyourname?2. Howoldareyou?3. Whatisyoureducationallevel?4. Howmanyyearshaveyoubeenteaching?5. Howmanyyearshaveyoubeenteachingatthisschool?6. Whatsubjectareadoyouteach?7. DidyoutaketheICDLtraining?
• Ifyes,didyoucompleteit?• Ifno,whydidyounottakeitorwhydidyounotcompleteit?
UsefulnessandApplicability(RelativeAdvantageandCompatibility)8. Doyoubelievethattechnologyisuseful?
• Ifyes,inwhatwayisituseful?Doyouseeanybenefitforyourprofession?• Ifno,whydoyoubelievethatisnotuseful?
9. Doyoubelievethattechnologyshouldbeusedinteachingchildren?Givereasons?10. Doyoubelievethatusingtechnologyinteachingisbetterornotthanteachingthe
traditionalwayandgivereasonsforthatbelief?ChangeProcess11. Inyouropiniondidtheuseoftechnologychangethewayyouteach?12. Did that change affect you? In what way? Was it a problem? (anxiety teacher
characteristics)Results&Outcomes(Observability)13. Didyouwitnessanychangeinyourstudentswhenyouusedtechnologywiththem?14. Didyouwitnessanychangeinyourselfwhenusingtechnology?
AccessibilityIssues(Observability)15. Doyouhaveaccesstothetechnology?
• Ifyes,doyouhaveaccesstothetechnologyatalltimes?Wheredoyoufindandusethem?
• Ifyoudonothaveaccesswhatarethereasonbehindnothavingaccesstothem?16. Doyouthinkthathavingtechnologyaccessiblewillencourageyoutouseit?17. Ifyouhadthechancetohaveaccesstotechnology
175
• Whattechnologywouldyoumostlyuse?• Whattechnologyyouwouldleastuse?
TechnologyUse18. Whattypeoftechnologiesdoyouuseandwhatdoyouusethemfor?19. Doyouusetechnologyforadministrativeorteachingorboth?Howdoyouuseitin
either?20. Whichofthetwodoyoumostlyusetechnologyfor?Howfrequentdoyouuseit?
EaseofUse(Complexity)21. Whatisthemostdifficulttechnologyyouuseandinwhatwayisitdifficult?22. Whatistheleastdifficulttechnologyusedandinwhatwayisitnotdifficult?23. Whatotherdifficultiesdoyoufacewhenusingtechnology?24. Areyouabletodealwithtroubleshootingissues?
• Ifyes,howdidyoulearntodothat?• Ifno,whodoesitforyouandwhyareyounotabletodoitbyyourself?
Training(Trialability)andPriorKnowledgeandExperience25. Wheredidyou learn touse technologyandwhat technologieswereyou taught to
use?26. Arethesethesametechnologiesyouareusingnow?
• Ifyes,howlonghaveyoubeenusingit?• Ifnodifferentiatebetweenwhatyoulearntbeforeandwhatyouareusingnow?
27. Doyouthinkyourpriorexperiencewithtechnologiesmakeyouuseitnowinyourprofession?
28. Inwhatway did the ICDL/ Computer Literacy training play a role in your use oftechnology?
29. WhataspectsoftheICDL/ComputerLiteracydidyoubenefitmostlyoff?30. WhataspectsoftheICDL/ComputerLiteracywouldyouliketoseechanged?31. Doyouthinkothertrainingprogramswouldbebeneficial?
AdministrativeSupport32. Doestheschooladministrationpromotetheuseoftechnology?
• Ifno,whatdoyouthinkistheproblem?• Ifyes,howdotheyencourageyou?
33. Howcantheschooladministrationimprovetheirsupporttoyou?34. Doesthedepartmentheadpromotetheuseoftechnology?
• Ifno,whatdoyouthinkistheproblem?• Ifyes,howdoessheencourageyou?
35. Howcanthedepartmentheadsupportyoumore?DecisionMaking36. Areyouinvolvedindecidingtouseornotusethetechnology?
• Ifno,whatdoyouthinkistheproblem?• Ifyes,howareyouinvolved?
37. Areyouinvolvedindecidingwhattypeoftechnologiesyouuse?
176
• Ifno,whatdoyouthinkistheproblem?• Ifyes,howareyouinvolved?
ClosingQuestion38. What other issues that was not covered here that you believe is relevant to this
studyandyouwouldliketodiscussit?
177
AppendixFTechnologyrelatedLearningProgramsQuestionnaire
TechnologyrelatedLearningPrograms
PleasecompletethefollowingtableindetailinArabic.Pleasereturntomeassoonaspossible.Foranyquestions,pleasedonothesitatetocontactmebyemailrfabdelmagid@gmail.comorbyphoneat99592478.Thankyouforallyourkindefforts.Wheredidyoulearntechnology?e.g.college,trainingprograms,etc.��� ������ ������������ ���� ������� ����� �������� ���.
Whatisthenameofthetrainingcourse?�� ��� �������� �������� / ������ ��������
Whendidyoulearnit?��� �������
Howlongdidittake?�� ��� �������� �������� / ������ ������� ���� ��������
Whattopicsdidyoulearn?�� �� �������� ���� ���������
Didyoucompleteit?�� ����� �������
Whoarrangedit?�� ��� ������ ��� ��������
1.
2.
178
AppendixGObservationsofPhysicalArtifacts
Description CaseStudyNo._____
DepartmentHead&TeachersRoom
a)SettingsHowmanyteachersstayintheroom?
Whatistheroomsize?
Howisspaceorganizedtofitall?
Arethereanycomputersavailableandhowmany?
Arethecomputerssharedoristhereavailableonesforeach?
Whatothertechnologiesareavailablefortheiruse?
Whatisthephysicalenvironmentoftheroom?E.g.lights,fans,electricalsocketsetc
b)TeachersUseWhatdotheteachersusethecomputersfor?
Whatdotheteachersusetheothertechnologiesfor?
Doteachersassisteachotherwithtechnologyissues?
Doteachesdiscussissuesregardingtechnology?
Doteachersdiscusstechnologicalissuesregardingthesubjectareataught?
179
AppendixHOrganizationalStructureoftheKuwaitiMinistryofEducation
AdaptedFrom:TheNationalReport,2004‐2008,MinistryofEducation,StateofKuwait.UsedunderFairuseguidelines,2011
180
AppendixIDefinitionsofTermsandAbbreviations
DOI: DiffusionofInnovationTheory.
GCC: GulfCooperationCouncilCountries.ThesecountriesareOman,Bahrain,Kuwait,Qatar,SaudiArabiaandtheUAE.
MOE: MinistryofEducation.
ICDL: International Computer Driving License. It is composed of 7 units: Information Technology; Using Computer and Managing Files; Word Processing; Spreadsheets; Presentations; Database and Email and Internet.
CLP: Computer Literacy Program. It consists of Word, PowerPoint,ExcelandtheInternet.
Abla: ReferstoteacherintheArabiclanguagespecifictofemales.
Datashow: AterminologyusedbyKuwaititeacherstorefertoadocumentprojector.
OverheadProjector: Aprojectorthatusestransparenciesandslides.
TheClub: Aterminologyusedbytheteacherstorefertotheroomswheretechnologies other than the audio‐recorder and overheadprojectorareinstalledandused.Eachcontentareahasitsownclub and is decorated with representations related to thecontentarea.
Technology: Comprisesalldevices, applicationsand teaching tools that areusedbyKuwaititeachers.
TraditionalTeaching: Refers to teaching using narration, repetition of information,andstudentsareactivity‐directedinthistypeofteachingstyle.