Examining Teachers' Beliefs about the Role of Technology in the Elementary Classroom.

AN0002780718;RCE01FAL.99;2000Feb15.16:58;v4.1

EXAMINING TEACHERS' BELIEFS ABOUT THE ROLE OF TECHNOLOGY IN THE ELEMENTARY CLASSROOM 

Abstract

Although teachers today recognize the importance of integrating technology into their curricula, successful implementation often is hampered by both external (first-order) and internal (second-order) barriers. This study was designed to examine the relationship between first- and second-order barriers to technology implementation by observing and interviewing several teachers within a single school who had achieved varying levels of integration. Although first-order barriers constrained all teachers' efforts in this school, teachers responded differently to these constraints based at least in part on their beliefs about what constitutes effective classroom practice. Strategies for technology staff development are discussed. (Keywords: educational change, teachers' beliefs, technology integration.)

Despite the fact that the number of computers in teachers' classrooms has increased dramatically in the last 20 years (Office of Technology Assessment [OTA], 1995), researchers and educators alike still report that integrating technology into classroom curricula is not easily accomplished. Researchers have identified many barriers, including limited equipment, training, and time (e.g., Hadley & Sheingold, 1993; Ringstaff & Yocam, 1994), as well as teachers' preferred instructional methods and their corresponding beliefs about teaching and learning (Hannafin & Savenye, 1993; Hativa & Lesgold, 1996).

Brickner (1995) extended the concept of first- and second-order change (Cuban, 1993; Fullan & Stiegelbauer, 1991) to categorize these obstacles as first- and second-order barriers to change. First-order changes "adjust" current practice to make it more effective or efficient, leaving underlying beliefs unchallenged. Second-order changes confront beliefs about current practice and lead to new goals, structures, or roles. Barriers to change are "the extrinsic and intrinsic factors that affect a teacher's innovation implementation efforts" (Brickner, p. xvii). Thus, first-order barriers to technology integration are described as being extrinsic to teachers and include lack of access to computers and software, insufficient time to plan instruction, and inadequate technical and administrative support. In contrast, second-order barriers are intrinsic to teachers and include beliefs about teaching, beliefs about computers, established classroom practices, and unwillingness to change. Although many first-order barriers may be eliminated by securing additional resources and providing computer skills training, confronting second-order barriers requires challenging one's belief systems and the institutionalized routines of one's practice (Brickner). Thus, in terms of technology integration, eliminating such barriers may require reformulating basic school culture notions regarding what constitutes content and content coverage, what constitutes a textbook, and what constitutes learning and engaged time (Fullan & Steigelbauer). If second-order change is required for educational innovation to become practice (Cuban, 1993; Fullan & Stiegelbauer, 1991), it is important to examine how teachers' current classroom practices and beliefs support or inhibit classroom technology use. Clearly, changes in classroom practices will not occur simply because computers are more available in the classroom (i.e., first-order barriers are eliminated). Baker (as cited in Miller & Olson, 1994) described teachers as viewing the computer as either an inspiration or an intrusion depending on the meanings and values they assign to technology. For example, if the computer does not teach what the teacher stresses, teaches things the teacher does not, or requires types of intelligent activity the teacher does not emphasize, it is unlikely the teacher will assign high value to its use. On the other hand, if the teacher perceives that the computer addresses important instructional and learning needs, the perceived value will be higher. Given these differences in value, it is expected that teachers' uses also will differ. Furthermore, these differences might be expected to occur even when first-order barriers are similar. Although time, equipment, and training are deemed critical for shaping technology use, higher levels of use might be expected to occur when perceived value is high and resources low than when perceived value is low and resources high (Harrington, 1993).

Researchers have suggested that teachers' beliefs about the role of technology in the classroom may either reduce or magnify the effects of first-order barriers (Becker, 1991; Campoy, 1992; Hativa & Lesgold, 1996). Miller and Olson (1994) argued that the existence (or lack) of innovative practice has more to do with teachers' preexisting conceptions of practice than with the advent of technology: "Teachers do things for good reasons" (p. 123). Marcinkiewicz (1993) agreed that teachers, not technology, hold the key to achieving integrated technology use: "Full integration of computers into the educational system is a distant goal unless there is a reconciliation between teachers and computers. To understand how to achieve integration, we need to study teachers and what makes them use computers" (p. 234).

It is generally acknowledged that teachers' uses of classroom technology evolve as they gain experience (Hadley & Sheingold, 1993; OTA, 1995). Whereas teachers' initial uses tend to support existing teaching styles and methods, these approaches appear to change over time (Sandholtz, Ringstaff, & Dwyer, 1997). Teachers' adoption and integration of technology is commonly described as being developmental--that is, progressing through a series of stages from nonuser to expert user (Hooper & Rieber, 1995; Marcinkiewicz, 1993; Sandholtz et al., 1997; Willis, 1992). As teachers advance through these stages, their technology use becomes more frequent, more sophisticated, and more creative--that is, they use more types of applications more often and more flexibly (Hadley & Sheingold, 1993).

Recognizing that levels of use represent more than a tally of how often teachers use different applications, this study examined teachers' technology use in relationship to the classroom curriculum (e.g., was it used to reinforce skills, enrich current topics, or extend topics beyond current levels?). Figure 1 depicts this conceptualization, suggesting that levels of use relate not only to how closely that use is integrated within the current curriculum, but also to the extent to which the curriculum is allowed to grow in response to new opportunities afforded by technology (President's Panel on Educational Technology, 1997; Salomon & Perkins, 1996). Thus, in this view, the "best" fit is not one in which there is complete overlap between technology and curriculum (concentric circles), but one in which technology facilitates learning beyond what is currently possible (spiraling circles). Whereas teachers might begin by using technology in ways that are completely supplementary to the curriculum (e.g., during free time or as a reward for completing "regular" classroom assignments), they tend to progress toward uses that reinforce or enrich the current curriculum and, in time, to capitalize on the potential of technology to take students beyond the current curriculum (Hooper & Rieber, 1995). Although Figure 1 suggests that these levels are sequential, with higher levels of use on the right of the continuum, teachers are likely to use technology at more than one level simultaneously. Furthermore, uses may continue at one level indefinitely because of the relative stability of teachers' beliefs about classroom practice (Miller & Olson, 1994), and their beliefs about the use of technology within that practice (Hativa & Lesgold, 1996; Kerr, 1996).

The literature provides examples of teachers who have successfully moved through these stages, or levels, of integration to achieve effective technology use (e.g., Fisher, Dwyer, & Yocam, 1996; Goldberg & Richards, 1995). Typically, these examples describe how teachers are using technology in schools that have access to a tremendous amount of resources (for example, the Apple Classrooms of Tomorrow, or ACOT). Missing from the literature, however, is a description of what the integration process is like for teachers who have limited resources--that is, those who experience a greater number of first-order barriers. It is unclear whether the results reported by ACOT (Fisher et al.) would be replicated in classrooms that lack the extensive resources that these schools and classrooms enjoy.

PURPOSE

Currently, the relationship between first- and second-order barriers to technology integration is not clearly understood (e.g., do all teachers face second-order barriers? does the strength of second-order barriers affect the perceived difficulty of overcoming first-order barriers? can we address second-order barriers before eliminating first-order barriers?). This study was designed to examine the relationship between these barriers by exploring differences in teachers' uses of technology, their perceptions of the value or role of technology in the classroom, and their beliefs about what constitutes effective classroom practice. Based on the assumption that teachers within a single school face similar first-order barriers, comparisons between different levels of use might reveal underlying second-order barriers. Furthermore, teachers' descriptions of "critical" barriers to integration were expected to reflect their perceptions of the relative importance of the different types of barriers. Thus, our primary research question focused not only on bow teachers were using technology in their classrooms, but why they were using it in the ways they were, as this may reveal the beliefs and values that supported or hindered effective use.

Specifically we asked:

How are teachers using computers in the classroom? How do these uses relate to their beliefs about the role of technology in the curriculum? What value do teachers assign to technology? What are their reasons for use? What are the perceived barriers to use? How do teacher beliefs about classroom practice (e.g., role of technology or management style) shape perceptions of critical barriers to technology use?

METHODS

Overview

We collected survey, interview, and observation data to examine teachers' uses of technology and to explore their perceptions regarding how and why they used technology. Observations were made in seven primary teachers' classrooms (Grades K-2) during a period of six weeks to determine teachers' and students' technology use. Three semistructured interviews were conducted with each teacher to assess perceptions regarding the value of technology in the curriculum, and perceived barriers to use. Qualitative analysis methods were used to search interview and observation data for patterns of beliefs, values, and practices as related to teachers' classroom technology use.

Role of the Researchers

This research was conducted by a faculty member and four graduate students enrolled in an educational technology research course at a large midwestern university. Based on the instructor's past year's efforts directing a technology integration project at Midland Elementary, a local K-5 school, student researchers were challenged to search for reasons underlying differences in teachers' levels of technology use at the selected site. All four students had completed several graduate courses in educational technology, were proficient computer users, and had previous experience teaching in classroom or corporate settings.

Description of Site and Participants

Midland is one of 11 elementary schools in a local school district with a total enrollment of 281 students, including 31 students with special needs. Serving the surrounding urban neighborhood, Midland is comprised of a mixture of lower and middle socioeconomic class students, representing approximately 200 families. The school has two Kindergarten, two multi-age (1 lower elementary and one upper elementary), and five self-contained (one each of Grades 1-5) classrooms. The participants in the study included the seven primary teachers. All seven teachers were female with an average of 12 years of teaching experience. Survey data indicated that all but one of the teachers had limited formal computer training, yet they all had participated in a variety of informal workshops and inservices. The newest teacher on staff had relatively more training than the others, having taken courses in both high school and college and having participated in a technology integration project prior to her student teaching. Despite the lack of formal training, survey data indicated that all teachers rated themselves as being moderate to very comfortable with word processing and all but one teacher rated herself as being moderate to very comfortable with instructional software. In general, teachers felt "frequently in control" when learning about new technologies. Table 1 summarizes demographic information for the participating teachers (using pseudonyms).

At the time of this study, Midland's technology resources included one Power Mac, 1-2 LCII's, and a printer in each classroom (classroom computers were not connected to the Internet). Some classrooms also had a few Apple II's that were set up in "stations" for student use. An outdated but heavily used IBM lab contained 10 working computers. A full-time staff member directed activities in the lab, with classes of children scheduled to work with specific drill-and-practice software applications for 30-60 minute time blocks, two to five times a week. Eight new Power Macs in the library, with Internet connections, were used by the library media specialist to provide all students in Grades 1-5 with a half-hour of training per week. When not in use, the minilab was scheduled by teachers on a first-come, first-served basis. None of the teachers who participated in this study were observed to schedule any additional time in the minilab.

Procedures

In fall 1997, the instructor of the research course solicited participation of the seven K-2 Midland teachers. Teachers were selected based on the perceived similarity of their instructional needs as well as their somewhat limited access to technology resources. This was the instructor's second year in the school; previous efforts to help teachers use technology had established both credibility and trust. All seven teachers agreed to participate and signed an informed consent agreement. Based on teachers' classroom schedules, student researchers selected one classroom for the purposes of data collection. Because the MAL (multi-age lower) classroom contained three teachers, one student collected observation and interview data from all three MAL teachers. The course instructor also selected one teacher to observe and interview, for a total of seven participating teachers from five classrooms.

Data Collection

Each participant completed a short survey at the beginning of the year indicating years of teaching experience, computer experience, comfort with software applications, goals for classroom technology use, and a personal definition of technology integration. Surveys were designed by a team of Midland teachers and researchers during the previous year's work in the school. Based on feedback from two earlier uses, the current version had been modified to be clearer and easier to complete. Formal reliability and validity measures were not obtained, as surveys were used primarily as the starting point for additional data collection.

To examine teachers' and students' uses of technology, each researcher set up a weekly observation schedule with their selected teacher(s). Observations occurred during a six-week period, lasted at least one hour each, and took place in either the classroom or IBM lab. During initial observations, it was noted that the lab instructor independently planned and conducted lab activities without teacher input; all remaining observations occurred in teachers' classrooms. During each observation, extensive notes were taken regarding how the teacher(s) and students used technology. In particular, data were gathered to substantiate the types of uses teachers had described on their initial surveys. Informal conversations with the teachers also occur-red during these sessions. In addition, each researcher spent time in at least one other participant's classroom to gather confirming or disconfirming data.

To examine teachers' beliefs about technology use, two 30-60 minute interviews were conducted with each teacher during the six-week observation period. An additional interview was conducted and a final survey was completed near the end of the year to obtain an update on teachers' ideas about classroom use. Once again, surveys asked teachers to list their goals for technology use and their definitions of technology integration. In follow-up interviews, teachers were asked to clarify and elaborate on survey responses. Interviews also included open-ended questions about teachers' beliefs about effective teaching and learning, and their reasons for using or not using technology. Interviews were audiotaped and transcribed by the researchers.

Data Analysis

The research team worked collaboratively to analyze the data. Each researcher began by searching his or her own data set for patterns and themes, using a constant comparison analysis technique (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). Weekly meetings were used to exchange field notes and interview transcriptions and to discuss emerging themes in the data. Electronic mailing list discussions provided further opportunities to pose questions, clarify issues, and solicit ideas and feedback from other team members. As data collection continued, particular attention was paid to teachers' beliefs, particularly those related to the role of technology in the classroom. These beliefs provided the focus for our second interview and became the basis for constructing teacher profiles for each participant in the study. As a final analysis step, profiles were compared and perceptions of first- and second-order barriers examined--as suggested by teachers' beliefs about, and use of, technology in the curricula.

Issues of Validity and Reliability

To increase validity, four data sources were used to combine and cross-reference the findings of each researcher. For example, surveys provided background information about the participants, and an indication of their comfort levels with various technology applications. Observations revealed teachers' actual technology use in the classroom. Formal and informal interviews helped us understand how teachers' beliefs influenced classroom practice. The triangulation of data sources provided consistent evidence, thus reducing the possibility of making false or misleading interpretations.

Reliability was increased through the use of consistent data collection methods. Each researcher used the same data collection methods and conducted his or her observations and interviews using similar instruments and procedures. Conducting multiple observations and interviews followed by weekly discussions and exchange of information further increased the reliability of the study. In addition, Midland teachers examined interview transcriptions and field notes as a means of ensuring accuracy.

INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS

Guided by our overall question--"How are teachers using technology in the classroom, and what are their reasons for use or nonuse?"--teachers' and students' uses were observed for a period of six weeks and in-depth interviews were conducted to examine teachers' perceptions regarding the role of technology in the curriculum. In this section, our overall findings are presented, supported by teacher quotes, to highlight differences in teachers' levels of and reasons for technology use. These examples illustrate how teachers' beliefs about classroom practice influenced their technology use. In some instances, beliefs appeared to function as second-order barriers to use; in other instances, first-order barriers appeared to hinder actualization of more facilitative beliefs.

How Are Teachers Using Computers in the Classroom?

Amount of Use

Teachers' classroom technology use ranged from infrequent to daily. Two of the seven teachers, Joan and Janet, rarely used computers with their students. In fact, Joan often apologized before our observations by explaining, "You won't see any computer today." A third teacher, Chris, set aside one-and-a-half hours for computer use each week, but often used this time to meet other classroom needs (e.g., field trips or oral reading). "There are just so many other things we should be doing." Bea kept her computer on all day so that kids could use it whenever they wished, but after other work was done. The remaining three teachers (MAL teachers) used their classroom computers during "Discovery"--thematic instruction scheduled for one hour four times a week. Other "unscheduled" uses also occurred in the MAL classrooms throughout the week (e.g., first thing in the morning or during "choice" time on Fridays). In general, these differing amounts of use did not seem related to student grade level, but more to the ways in which the teachers structured their classrooms.

Kinds of Use

Almost all uses observed by the researchers, as well as those described by the teachers, involved the use of some type of instructional game or informational CD-ROM or laserdisc (e.g., encyclopedias or subject-specific databases). When asked what software they used, teachers mentioned a variety of games, a few types of exploratory software, and some specific instructional CD-ROMs. Most of the teachers indicated that they wanted their students to use ClarisWorks (now AppleWorks, 1991-1998) and HyperStudio (1993-1999) later in the year, but only one teacher, Lola, described any current classroom use.

Context for Use

The majority of teachers' and students' uses occurred within the context of a learning station set up in the back or corner of the room. The four teachers who taught in self-contained classrooms tended to structure these so children could use them independently, with the selected software being somewhat, although not directly related to, the current curriculum. The MAL teachers used similar types of software in teacher-led small-group lessons. In the MAL rooms, students gathered around the computer station to participate in content- or skill-related lessons. The computer typically was used as a presentation tool, providing additional resources and engaging visuals to enhance current lessons. All seven teachers rotated kids through the stations in about a week's time. Lola also described using the computer as part of a whole-group math lesson, and on at least one occasion, engaging her students in a group writing activity.

How Do Teachers' Uses Relate to Their Beliefs About Technology?

In our interviews we asked teachers to describe the role technology should play in the curriculum, to elaborate on their goals for technology use (as described on their surveys), and to provide an example of successful computer use. Using Figure 1 as a conceptualization framework, we searched teachers' responses for words or phrases that illustrated different perceptions of the role of technology. We describe each type of use in the following sections, using teacher quotes to illustrate differences in their beliefs about the role of technology in the curriculum.

Using Technology as a Supplement

Joan, Janet, and Bea emphasized using technology as an incentive for students to finish work or as a reward for the completion of assigned work. For example, Joan explained, "It's a good motivator to say, 'I'll make sure you get to be first on the computer if you will just do this.'... I use it mostly for 'after you finish your work, you may go and do activities on the computer.'" Bea explained, "I see the classroom computer not as a teaching tool but kind of as a reward kind of thing, like when kids are done with their work." In Janet's room, the computer was set up as an optional activity: "I might have it [the computer] as a station during playtime and...when the weather's crummy outside and we have to play inside."

Chris explained that she did not approve of using the computer for "games" because "then first graders are not going to spend their time on their work." Yet, like Janet and Joan, she believed that technology did not play a central role in her first-grade curriculum. Chris explained, "I kind of see it [technology] on the outside. It's still touching [the curriculum] but it's not my focus."

Although these four teachers provided software that helped students practice skills, computer use was described as being "an add-on" (Joan), an "optional activity" (Janet), "supplemental" (Chris), and "a way to keep kids busy" (Bea). Computer time was commonly granted after "regular" work was done; teachers did not perceive that the computer provided main classroom content. If students did not get a turn to work on the computer, teachers did not perceive that they missed anything important. Teachers expressed concern, however, if kids used the computer during "regular" instructional time. As Joan explained, "The problem is which two [students] do I pick [to work on the computer] and what are they missing that the rest of us are doing?"

Although these four teachers expressed the belief that technology was important for kids to learn how to use, they did not see the relevancy to the designated curriculum, which they felt obligated to cover. Other skills were more important. As Chris stated:

I still believe that first graders need to learn how to write, they need to work their little fingers. I don't really think that they should be writing on the computer. That's a secondary thing. They need to learn to write on paper first. They still need to have time with paper, they still need to spend time cutting. I guess I don't feel like in first grade it is necessary to have a computer.

This quote illustrates the belief that the established curriculum covered essential skills that could not be replaced. Furthermore, this belief was expressed by teachers at all three grades sampled in this study (K-2). Thus, in this view, technology was considered to be additional or supplementary to the existing curriculum.

Using Technology to Support the Existing Curriculum

In this study, teachers described how technology "supported," "reinforced," "enriched," and "enhanced" their classroom curricula. Every teacher, including the four described previously, made some reference to how technology supported their curriculum by reinforcing skills or providing students with extra practice. Joan stated, "I select a variety of CDs that they put in and use depending on the skills I want them to work on that day." Janet stated that she did not depend on the computer to teach new skills but "more to reinforce what I have taught." Chris agreed, "I use it more to just reinforce what I am doing, kind of like a drill-and-practice session."

The three MAL teachers also used technology to help their students master skills but focused, more on the excitement that computers brought to their theme-based lessons. Julie, Patty, and Lola noted how various computer resources (e.g., CD-ROMs and laserdiscs) augmented their lessons with powerful visuals that helped students attend to and retain information. Julie described how technology was "a wonderful enrichment, wonderful motivation. The children love it." Patty elaborated:

I look at it [technology] as a motivator and an enhancer. I think it adds that extra dimension. It has color and sound. I have been trying to use technology during our reading time; it is so much more fun [for the kids] to make a word with Mr. Spinhead...he's the game show host on this one CD and the kids just love it. So that adds an interest that I cannot add. It's colorful and quick and fun.

Based on their beliefs that technology enriched the existing curriculum, the MAL teachers made efforts to integrate technology into their thematic lessons. Even with limited resources (one computer per room that was CD-ROM capable), the MAL teachers had organized their classrooms such that they could use the computers to teach their lessons to small groups. Although they could have taught without it, Patty explained that the MAL teachers preferred to "use some kind of technology to present it [information], reinforce it, or motivate them [students]."

For the most part, teachers at Midland had not yet used technology to expand their curriculum into new areas. The MAL teachers chose their themes and planned their lessons based on the existing curriculum, and then searched for technology resources that could support those lessons. In fact, all but one of the teachers indicated that they did not think that their curriculum would or should change because of technology. Joan explained, "I don't think it would change my curriculum, but it could add to it....Or [I could use it] to motivate the kids to do something I want them to do anyway."

Lola suggested, however, that it was possible to plan for better use, "If there were more thought at the forefront about how we were going to use it, I think we could use it a lot more. Maybe even breaking it down into, this is what is best for these kids; this will work best for those kids." Lola pointed out an important difference between using computers to present instructional information and using computers to let kids create things themselves. Although the MAL classrooms emphasized the former, she hoped to include more of the latter. Lola was the only teacher in our study who described how she would use the equipment differently if she had more of it--not only to present information but also to enable student performance. This suggests additional uses and roles for technology that Lola hoped to incorporate when more resources became available. It is important to note that as a relatively new teacher in this setting, Lola's early uses were modeled after her co-teachers' established uses. However, Lola's interview comments suggest that she envisioned, and planned for, additional uses in the future.

Using Technology to Facilitate an Emerging Curriculum

As indicated previously, teachers in this study made few references to using technology to go beyond current curricula. Although we did not observe any "emerging" uses of technology, our interviews with Lola suggested that her perceptions of the role of technology were changing in this direction.

In her first interview, Lola described how her students' computer use was mostly supplemental, "It's sort of a place for them to go and do something completely supplemental...[it's] basically letting them reinforce skills." In her second interview, Lola described the role of technology as that of supporting and strengthening the curriculum. Although Lola believed, at this point, that if technology were fully integrated, it would "be a key part of the instruction in the classroom" she also cautioned:

I think it's important not to let it necessarily drive the curriculum. I think we could get carried away and the fundamentals still need to be in place. We shouldn't lose something just for the sake of getting on the computer. But I think it [technology] is a very powerful way to support it [the curriculum].

In her third interview, Lola described how her facilitation of a computer-centered math lesson changed some of her ideas about how she could use technology with her students. Not only was she able to introduce new concepts through the use of technology, but the lesson also prompted her students to work collaboratively to solve problems. Lola explained:

The first day I sat there and drove it [the software] the whole time because there's a lot of talking and a lot of animation you need to get through. My role at first was basically to introduce the software and then explain what the different components of it were. And then the second day I had them take turns coming up to do a portion of it. I just stood back and they did the whole thing and they were real comfortable. I didn't feel like a lot of it was just a review process. We had never done symmetry before. That was totally driven by the technology to introduce that concept, to practice that concept. I thought, "This is going to be hard for them." But while one was up there, the rest of them were shouting out things for them to do and ways to help solve it.

It was interesting to see that the computer, the technology, was captivating for them to watch and it was teaching them. It held their attention better than any other math I have ever done with them.

According to Lola, the unexpected success of this lesson challenged her to reconsider her beliefs about the role that technology played in the curriculum. In this final interview, Lola described multiple roles for technology, including "driving" the curriculum.

I want to use it to drive instruction sometimes, and use it to create products, and then we can use it to review. I know when I started the year I thought I was pretty set with technology, because I felt really comfortable with it. I see how much I've learned from learning bow to use it with kids.

Lola had not discarded her previous beliefs about technology, yet this quote suggests that her beliefs now included using technology to take the curriculum in new directions.

Incentives and Barriers to Classroom Technology Use

As with the adoption of most innovations, using technology in the classroom presents teachers with a range of both benefits and challenges. In this section we describe why teachers at Midland were motivated to use technology in their classrooms, and then discuss the barriers that affected use in different ways.

Teachers' Reasons for Technology Use

When asked why they used computers in their classrooms, teachers cited five main reasons, four of which were related to how students benefited from their use. All seven teachers mentioned how exciting and motivating computers were for their students ("I think it turns the kids on a lot. That's my incentive--they get more excited."--Lola). Six teachers mentioned how students needed to use technology to be prepared for the future ("I know that kids are going to need to know it."--Bea). Additionally, five teachers (MAL, Joan, and Janet) described how technology made their lessons more interesting to students, either through direct interaction or by providing the teacher with access to more interesting materials ("I like having the resources there because of thematic teaching. And I think if you're creative with it, you can do so much with it."--Patty). Four teachers (Bea, Joan, Julie, and Lola) made special mention of how technology enabled them to reach students with learning or attention problems ("Sometimes it's more appealing to work on a computer and I think it's more motivating to those who are really struggling."--Joan). On a more personal level, four teachers (Bea, Joan, Julie, and Patty) described their own enjoyment in using technology and becoming more competent ("I'm so much more comfortable with it. I just enjoy it."--Julie).

Perceived Barriers to Technology Use

Despite teachers' beliefs that kids benefited from learning to use technology, Midland teachers experienced a number of barriers that made integration difficult, if not impossible, to achieve. As expected, the barriers mentioned most frequently included first-order barriers (lack of equipment, time, and classroom help), although second-order barriers (lack of relevance, mismatch with classroom management style, lack of confidence) were also noted. Although teachers pointed to many of the same barriers, they appeared to weight them differently based, at least in part, on their perceptions of the role of technology in the curriculum. These differences are described in more detail in the next section.

The Effects of Beliefs on Perceived Barriers

Teachers' beliefs about classroom practice appeared to shape their goals for technology use as well as the weight they assigned to different barriers. Although every teacher mentioned that the lack of equipment was a barrier, teachers had different reasons for wanting more. For example, Chris, Joan, and Janet indicated that they needed more equipment so that they could get a whole group on it at one time. Chris explained, "In order to use the computer in first grade you need more than one. We need enough for at least six to eight kids to work on it... One computer is basically worthless with the way I organize my classroom. I need enough for a small group."

Patty wanted to have more computers so that she could "have more than one station going at a time. I would like to have at least four learning stations and have them sometimes doing the same program so I could control it. I would love for them to be able to do the same thing." Julie stated that having more would let her "do more of what we're doing, but do it more efficiently." Lola, on the other hand, wanted to have more computers so her students could spend more time producing things in HyperStudio (1993-1999) or ClarisWorks (AppleWorks, 1991-1998): "If I had more computers, the way I would use the equipment would be a lot different. I think that I would just use the end of it, not really the presentation end, but the performance by them [the students]. I think that every day there would be something that would be produced because they use the computer." Thus, "lack of equipment" held different meanings for these teachers and affected what they accomplished with current resources in different ways. Lola used computers, but not to the extent she wanted; Janet, Joan, and Chris struggled to find effective ways to use what they had.

Lack of time was another barrier that was interpreted differently depending on classroom practice and beliefs about the role of technology. For example, the MAL teachers used the computer as a resource and a presentation tool during "scheduled" instructional time. Thus, these teachers did not perceive "lack of time to use computers" to be the significant barrier that Joan, Chris, and Janet did, who regarded technology as an add-on to the curriculum. The few times that the MAL teachers mentioned time as a barrier, it was related to the need to learn new software or the desire to have kids create products on the computer. In contrast, Bea never mentioned that students did not have enough time to use computers, possibly because the computer was used as a reward in her room. Bea was not concerned if every student did not use the computer.

In general, the four teachers in this study who described using technology as a supplement experienced more second-order barriers than the other teachers. The teachers in this category expressed concern about the relevance of technology and could find few ways to use their limited resources within their existing classroom structures. As Joan explained, "In my classroom, it's not a priority. And I probably won't make it a priority. I just don't believe it's as important as those other skills they have to have. I feel like if they get their basic skills [here], then in fourth and fifth grade the computer might be a great place for them."

The classroom practices of the MAL teachers, who believed that technology supported and enriched the existing curriculum, were similar to those described by the previous group. However the barriers they experienced were different in two important ways. First, none of these teachers mentioned "lack of relevance" as a barrier. Second, the MAL teachers addressed the first-order barrier, "not enough help," by having parents and university students help manage the classroom during Discovery stations. This allowed the teachers to work with small groups of students at the computer while the other students worked on various activities, directed and supervised by helpers. Like the previous group, the MAL teachers used the computer as a rotating station for small-group work, but unlike the previous group, teacher instruction occurred at the station, rather than away from it. Still, Julie and Patty, particularly, perceived that classroom management was a critical barrier and that they needed more equipment and more help to make their instruction more efficient. Using their current rotation procedures, it took a long time for all students to cycle through the one computer station in each room. Although Lola also used the computer station in this way, she did not describe "managing the classroom" and "lack of help" as critical barriers. Perhaps because her goals for technology use were broader or because her level of expertise was higher, Lola did not describe barriers that might be interpreted as second-order. Although Lola appeared to be moving in the direction of using technology to facilitate an emerging curriculum, her efforts seemed more constrained by first-order barriers--lack of equipment and time for students to create products. Lola's perception of critical barriers seemed directly related to her vision for technology use.

Summary

Although these seven teachers all experienced similar barriers in terms of limited resources and time, these barriers did not affect teachers' technology use in the same way. Even within this one school and among these seven teachers, levels of use varied, suggesting that other factors were also involved. Although our results are tentative, given the design of the study and the small number of participants, they suggest that teachers' beliefs interact with first-order barriers to facilitate or limit teachers' technology use. In this study, first-order barriers were noted by all teachers, although for different reasons and to different degrees. Second-order barriers (relevance and classroom organization) were mentioned most by teachers who used computers as a supplement to the curriculum. The second-order barrier of classroom organization also appeared critical to teachers who used computers to support the curriculum. Second-order barriers were not apparent in the one teacher who envisioned higher levels of use.

DISCUSSION

Achieving meaningful technology use is a slow process that is influenced by many factors including both first- and second-order barriers. When educators and researchers look for reasons why teachers are struggling to use technology effectively, it may be important to look at what they have (in terms of beliefs and practices) in addition to what they do not have (in terms of equipment). Whereas first-order barriers may be more readily observed and more easily addressed, second-order barriers are likely to be more persistent and require major changes in daily routines and underlying beliefs about effective practice (Sandholtz et al., 1997). Knowing that teachers need more equipment or more time to plan for technology use is critical, but it may not be enough. Understanding teachers' goals for technology use and their beliefs about teaching and learning may be necessary to support teachers' efforts to initiate and sustain the kind of second-order changes required for innovation to become practice (Fullan & Steigelbauer, 1991).

According to Ringstaff, Sandholtz, and Dwyer (1991), "Increasing attention is being paid to the idea that lasting change in the classroom must be accompanied by changes in teachers' beliefs about the purpose and nature of instruction, and that these belief systems are remarkably resistant to change" (p. 7). Depending on where teachers are in their development and use of technology, different strategies may be needed to advance and sustain their efforts. Sikes (as cited in Fullan & Hargreaves, 1992) indicated that it is important to "understand what change means for the individual teacher and to develop strategies which take these differential meanings into account" (p. 49). In the next section, specific support strategies are described for teachers at each level of technology use discussed in this paper.

Matching Support Strategies with Teachers' Levels of Use

Traditional staff development efforts have been based on the assumption that teachers can easily make the connections between the need for technology and identified instructional priorities (Moersch, 1995). Yet in this study, teachers who used technology as a supplement struggled to make these connections. Staff development at this level might begin by challenging the belief that technology is an add-on. Demonstrations by peers, mentors, or development staff can illustrate ways to use technology to teach existing and expanded content. Time to learn skills, preview software, and explore available resources were considered critical by the teachers in this study. In addition, teachers might benefit from opportunities to observe and interact with other teachers who have resolved related concerns and problems in similar contexts. Relevance might be established further through testimonials--from the literature, peers, or students--that provide evidence of meaningful outcomes.

Teachers in this study who used technology to support and enrich the existing curriculum used technology within their established routines of classroom practice. Although these teachers were convinced of the relevancy of technology, they might benefit from developing a vision for use that goes beyond current topics and skills. This vision needs to be accompanied by ideas about how to support and manage students' exploration of individual topics. Observing or interacting (through conferences, site visits, and electronic discussions) with teachers who use problem-solving and application software in both whole- and small-group contexts can provide useful ideas and initiate meaningful discussions about alternative beliefs and practices. Involvement in Internet-based projects can introduce teachers to how others structure higher levels of use and provide additional excitement and motivation because of its collaborative nature.

Although we did not observe teachers in this study who were using technology to facilitate an emerging curriculum, we anticipate that teachers at this level would benefit from increased interactions with other teachers, mentors, and even researchers. According to Sandholtz and colleagues (1997), "Teachers need increased and varied opportunities to see other teachers, to confront their actions and examine their motives, and to reflect critically on the consequences of their choices, decisions, and actions. They need opportunities for ongoing dialogue about their experiences and for continuous development of their abilities to imagine and discover more powerful learning experiences for their students" (p. 51). In addition, these teachers should be encouraged to publish and present their experiences at local and national conferences as well as electronically on the World Wide Web as one way to support novice users who are struggling with issues they have already overcome or resolved.

Limitations and Directions for Future Research

Besides the small number of participants, several components of this study limit its generalizability. First, the study was conducted within a relatively short time frame. Given that teachers' technology growth is expected to evolve over a period of years, we were able to view only a tiny part of this evolutionary process. Describing if or how teachers' beliefs change as they obtain more equipment and support could extend our understanding of the relationship between first- and second-order barriers. Second, all of the teachers in this study worked with primary students. It is important to examine the beliefs of middle and high school teachers to determine how they differ from these teachers. How does the relationship between barriers at higher levels compare to the results reported here? Finally, we did not observe teachers use technology in ways that facilitated an emerging curriculum. It is important to understand more about the beliefs and practices of these teachers, as well as to describe the process of becoming an "exemplary technology-using teacher." By understanding the process, we may be in a better position to identify strategies that can help move other teachers to similarly high levels of use.

CONCLUSION

According to Hativa and Lesgold (1996), "The problems of technology generally arise from their novelty and their mismatch to the world of schooling.... This does not mean that the classroom culture never changes. However, change is slow and stimulated primarily by a perception among teachers that new tools or approaches are valuable, easy to use, and likely to endure in predictable form" (p. 135). Before teachers embrace technology as an effective tool for teaching and learning, they must "believe that what they are being asked to do will work and that it is the best available solution to an identifiable educational problem" (Kearsley & Lynch, 1992, p. 52). If teachers are not convinced that student outcomes will improve through the use of technology, they have less incentive to incorporate it. As Joan stated, "With the constraints I have, it's more feasible to say, 'Everybody take a sheet of paper; we're going to do a story.'" The results of this study have implications for classroom teachers and educators involved in technology training efforts. It is important to recognize that teachers deal with both first- and second-order barriers to change. Second-order barriers may persist even when first-order barriers are removed. Based on these results, we recommend that first- and second-order barriers be addressed simultaneously, as different types of barriers may be more or less critical at different levels of use. Based on the results of this study, plus those reported in the literature, we recommend using the following strategies to address barriers at each level of integration.

1. Incorporate a dual focus on technological and pedagogical issues during training efforts.

2. Foster a broader vision of technology integration. 3. Provide instructional resources (models, mentors, peers) during the change process. 4. Provide opportunities for reflection, collaboration, and discussions with peers.

As with any professional development endeavor, it is critical that we "know where we want to go, figure out how information technologies will help us get there;... involve teachers deeply and continuously in on-site learning; hang in with them as the inevitable squalls of turmoil blow and recede; and, finally, have patience, for such changes in belief and practice will take years (Cuban, 1997, p. xiv).

Portions of this article were presented at Syllabus98 in Rohnert Park, California, July 1998.

Table 1. Demographics of Midland Teachers

Legend for Chart: A - Participant B - Grade C - Years of Teaching Experience D - Computer Experience E - Comfort Rating: Word Processing F - Comfort Rating: Software A B C D E F Bea K 11 1 formal course very moderate Janet K 9 1 formal course very moderate Chris 1 5 1 formal course very very Joan 2 6 Formal training through district moderate little Julie MAL[a] 25 2-3 informal moderate moderate Lola MAL[a] 1 High school classes; College course; Project INSITE very very Patty MAL[a] 27 1 formal course moderate-very moderate-very

a Multiage Lower (Grades 1-2).

DIAGRAM: Figure 1. Teachers' use of technology in relationship to the curriculum.

References

AppleWorks [Computer software]. (1991-1998). Cupertino, CA: Apple Computer Corp.

Becker, H.J. (1991). How computers are used in United States schools: Basic data from the 1989 I.E.A. Computers in Education Survey. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 7(4), 385-406.

Brickner, D. (1995). The effects of first and second order barriers to change on the degree and nature of computer usage of secondary mathematics teachers: A case study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN.

Campoy, R. (1992). The role of technology in the school reform movement. Educational Technology, 32(8), 17-22.

Cuban, L. (1993). How teachers taught: Constancy and change in American classrooms 1880-1990 (2nd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.

Cuban, L. (1997). Foreward. In J. H. Sandholtz, C. Ringstaff, & D. C. Dwyer, Teaching with technology: Creating student-centered classrooms (pp. xi-xiv). New York: Teachers College Press.

Fisher, C., Dwyer, D. C., & Yocam, K. (Eds.). (1996). Education and technology: Reflection on computing in classrooms. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Fullan, M., & Hargreaves, A. (Eds.). (1992). Teacher development and educational change. London: Falmer Press.

Fullan, M., & Stiegelbauer, S. M. (1991). The new meaning of educational change. New York: Teachers College Press.

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New York: Adline Press.

Goldberg, B., & Richards, J. (1995). Leveraging technology for reform: Changing schools and communities into learning organizations. Educational Technology, 35(5), 5-16.

Hadley, M., & Sheingold, K. (1993). Commonalties and distinctive patterns in teachers' integration of computers. American Journal of Education, 101, 261-315.

Hannafin, R. D., & Savenye, W. C. (1993). Technology in the classroom: The teachers' new role and resistance to it. Educational Technology, 33(6), 26-31.

Harrington, H. (1993). The essence of technology and the education of teachers. Journal of Teacher Education, 44(1), 5-15.

Hativa, N., & Lesgold, A. (1996). Situational effects in classroom technology implementations: Unfulfilled expectations and unexpected outcomes. In S. T. Kerr (Ed.), Technology and the future of schooling: Ninety-fifth yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, part 2 (pp. 131-171). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Hooper, S., & Rieber, L. (1995). Teaching with technology. In A. C. Ornstein (Ed.), Theory into practice (pp. 155-170). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Hyper Studio [Computer software]. (1993-1999). El Cajon, CA: Roger Wagner Publishing.

Kerr, S. T. (1996). Visions of sugarplums: The future of technology, education, and the schools. In S. T. Kerr (Ed.), Technology and the future of schooling: Ninety-fifth yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, part 2 (pp. 1-27). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Kearsley, G., & Lynch, W. (1992). Educational leadership in the age of technology: The new skills. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 25, 50-59.

Marcinkiewicz, H. R. (1993). Computers and teachers: Factors influencing computer use in the classroom. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 26, 220-237.

Miller, L., & Olson, J. (1994). Putting the computer in its place: A study of teaching with technology. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 26, 121-141.

Moersch, C. (1995). Levels of technology implementation: A framework for measuring classroom technology use. Learning & Leading with Technology, 23(3), 40-41. Available: www.iste.org/L&L.

Office of Technology Assessment, U.S. Congress. (1995). Teachers and technology: Making the connection. (OTA-EHR-616.) Washington, DC: U. S. Government Printing Office.

President's Panel on Educational Technology. (1997). Report to the President on the use of technology to strengthen K-12 education in the United States. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Ringstaff, C., Sandholtz, J. H., & Dwyer, D. (1991, April). Trading places: When teachers utilize student expertise in technology-intensive classrooms. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.

Ringstaff, C., & Yocam, K. (1994, April). Integrating technology into classroom instruction: Creating an alternative context for teacher learning. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans.

Salomon, G., & Perkins, D. (1996). Learning in Wonderland: What do computers really offer education? In S. T. Kerr (Ed.), Technology and the future of schooling: Ninety-fifth yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, part 2 (pp. 111-130). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Sandholtz, J. H., Ringstaff, C., & Dwyer, D. C. (1997). Teaching with technology: Creating student-centered classrooms. New York: Teachers College Press.

Willis, J. (1992). Technology diffusion in the "soft disciplines": Using social technology to support information technology. Computer in the Schools, 9(1), 81-105.

By Peggy A. Ertmer; Paul Addison; Molly Lane; Eva Ross and Denise Woods

Peg Ertmer is an assistant professor of educational technology at Purdue University. She received her bachelor's and master's degrees in elementary and special education, respectively, and her doctorate in instructional research and development. Dr. Ertmer's experience with technology focuses on examining the theory and strategies that support meaningful classroom use. Paul Adddison is the K-12 Outreach Coordinator for the Department of Computer Sciences at Purdue University. Paul's experience includes programming, training, consulting, and teaching. He holds a master's degree in educational computing and will complete an educational specialist degree from Purdue in educational technology in 1999. Molly Lane has a master's degree in educational technology from Purdue University and currently is employed as an instructional designer by Bank One in Indianapolis. Her interests include strategies for adoption and implementation of technology innovations. Eva Ross is a doctoral student in educational technology at Purdue University. She has experience in database development in a corporate setting. Her research interests focus on motivational factors that support technology integration in the classroom and the workplace

Denise Woods is an assistant professor in the School of Technology at Purdue University. She has experience in both the elementary classroom and the corporate boardroom. Her current research interests focus on the role of technology coordinators in the integration process. (Address: Dr. Peggy Ertmer, Purdue University, 1442 LAEB, West Lafayette, IN 47907-1442; pertmer@purdue.edu.)