Christopher D. Sessums :: Blog :: Factors Affecting Technology Use in Schools

This is a long post. The report on which it is based is available here. I highly encourage you to read it if you have the time. I have attempted to capture some of the key elements herein and share them with you.

At the bottom of the post is a call for “change agents” and professional development personnel to share their thoughts regarding both the authors’ suggestions and my own. I look forward to hearing from many of you soon.
-cds

---

Many studies exist offering diverse accounts for why teachers do not use technology to its full potential and in innovative ways that lead to measurable or remarkable teaching and learning experiences.

In an article titled An Ecological Analysis of Factors Affecting Technology Use in Schools, Zhao and Frank (2003) examine this phenomenon using an ecological framework that draws parallels between the invasion of exotic species into a stable ecological environment as a way of understanding computer uses in schools.

Resistance to change
The authors cite research which argues that schools are “naturally and necessarily” resistant to change which exerts pressure on existing practices. Such factors of resistance can be categorized as cognitive, social, organizational, psychological and technological:

• Technological or physical structures – limited classroom space, the bulk and size of computer workstations, a lack of willingness to take students to computer labs, and lack of student access to computers at home.

• Teacher pedagogical beliefs – teaching styles of instructors and the idea of their changing practice (e.g., from a transmission model to a learner-centered model).

• Diffusion of innovation – instructor attitude and expertise with computers

• Educational Value of Computers – many instructors do not see the value of using computers, while others do

• Time and Effort – staying current with computer applications takes time and effort

• Technological considerations and support -- temperamental tendencies of hardware and software lead to unease and discomfort. Lack of tech support adds to lack of adoption.

The authors suggest that, in many cases, the factors that affect technology use have been studied in isolation from each other with little attention being paid to understand how these factors “dynamically interact with each other and technology uses” (p. 6).

Zhao and Frank conduct their analysis of computer uses in schools in ecological terms by creating four metaphorical equivalents:

• Classrooms as ecosystems
• Computer uses as living species
• Teachers as members of keystone species
• External educational innovations as invasions of exotic species

Classrooms as ecosystems
The authors suggest that there is a diversity of species both biotic (i.e., caused or produced by living beings) and abiotic (i.e., non-living components of an ecosystem) interacting in a teaching and learning environment: teachers, students, principals, parents, books, desks, grades, subjects, state and national educational systems, etc. The roles and characteristics of each continuously affect one another, adjusting and adapting their relationships with each other. Of course, the biotic species adjust and adapt more readily than the abiotic ones, but the point is that there is a continuous interplay between each.

Computer uses as living species
Here the authors argue that technology follows a process of evolution similar to organic species. The “diffusion of computer uses” is subject to a principle similar to “survival of the fittest:” some uses are better suited than others in a given environment and are more likely to endure and propagate.

 
Teachers as members of a keystone species
As a keystone species, teachers affect many other species. Teachers draw on each other for assistance in adopting innovations in the classroom, and as such a form of reciprocal altruism -- you scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours – builds social capital.

External educational innovations as invasions of exotic species
In an ecosystem, the introduction of a new species affects equilibrium. The authors suggest that the resulting introduction can lead to the following possibilities (p. 13):

1. the invader “wins” and wipes out existing species;
2. both win and survive, in which case some other species may perish or the ecosystem may eventually become dysfunctional due to its limited capacity;
3. the invader loses and perishes; and
4. both go through a process of variation and selection and acquire new properties.

Thus, we can infer that whether computers are adopted by teachers and “become permanently established depends on their compatibility” within the teaching and learning environment.

Interaction within the Teaching Environment
Zhao and Frank propose that there are two main types of uses in terms of the purposes of computer use in the classroom: a) for students and b) for teachers.

When teachers are the only users, computers benefit the individual but the system as a whole may suffer. When students are involved in using computers, the innovation takes on deeper roots, as it were, and the innovation becomes shared in greater numbers throughout the system, giving greater odds for survivability of the innovation.

Qualities of the Invading Species and Characteristics of Computer Uses
The authors argue that successful innovations demonstrate three key attributes:

• Longevity – degree of permanence or durability
• Fecundity – the ability to propagate quickly
• Copy-fidelity – reliable and successful reproduction
  

In the teaching and learning environment, when teachers and students have more opportunities to work with computers, the greater chance that computer-usage will become a permanent part of the curriculum.

Interacting with the Environment and the Role of the Teaching Ecosystem
An instructor’s teaching context is part of a greater multi-level ecological system. As many research reports and governmental white papers suggest, there is strong demand at the “societal level” to set up computers in classrooms, even with the ongoing debate concerning the “educational value” of computers.  States and local governments can often support purchasing hardware and connectivity, and provide some amount of training.  Thus, within the greater societal context, computer uses appears to be favored. Yet,  even though these larger institutions and policies affect technology use in the classroom, they are quite distant from any given teacher’s everyday classroom reality.  In this light they should be considered as “geological forces that shape the general landscapes that teachers inhabit as professionals” (p. 16).

The authors suggest that it is the school district that is more likely responsible for hardware, training and support and therefore more responsible for the spread of computer uses in the classroom.

We must also consider the school itself which controls the amount of release time that allows teachers the opportunity to use the technologies and attend training sessions as well as offer time and support to colleagues in getting them up to speed.

Zhao and Frank also note:

Technology infrastructure (network, location  of computers, availability of computer hardware and software), scheduling, and physical  layout of the building, and subjects and grades teachers teach make up the abiotic  component of the school ecosystem, which influence the types and frequencies of uses.  For example, some subject matters and grades are more conducive to certain types of  computer uses. Technology education, computer education, and business are subjects that  have unfilled niches for one type of computer uses (teaching technology as the subject  content), while special education courses provide the opportunity for drill-and-practice  type of uses. Physical locations of the computers (e.g., distributed in classrooms or  concentrated in the computer labs) also create different patterns of computer uses (p. 17).

The authors also bring to bear the notion of competing resources within the school. Computer uses often compete with existing teaching and learning tools, such as books, copy machines, phones, etc. such that resources that once went to the library or media specialist are now directed towards hardware and software.

As mentioned earlier, computer uses compete with some teachers that engage in an instructor-centered approach to teaching and learning, thus serve more as a threat than an opportunity. Also, let us not forget the weight that standardized testing has brought to schools. For many instructors and administrators, computer uses are considered secondary and incompatible with test preparation.

Interacting with Keystone Species and Teachers’ Cost-benefit Analysis
Zhao and Frank argue that the survival of computer uses are mainly determined by their “compatibility with teachers” (p. 18). The authors also suggest that instructors make their decisions about computer uses on limited information. In particular, instructors make decisions of whether to use computers or not based on calculations of perceived costs and benefits. Benefits and costs ultimately translate into a) how much time will it take to implement computer usage and b) how will computer use positively impact student achievement. Value judgments also come into play in terms of an instructor’s current knowledge of computers, their beliefs, attitudes and classroom practices. Therefore, we can safely infer that a teacher’s choice is critical: their decision to use computers in the classroom affect others’ uses (other teachers and students) and opportunities for longevity, fecundity and copy-fidelity.

Zhao and Frank share the results of a study conducted that asks how computers were used by instructors in four separate school districts that already demonstrated a relatively high level of computer use and support.

Their study found that the most frequent activity involving computer uses were teachers communicating with parents and preparing for instruction, while least frequent activity involved students using computers. The authors suggest that this finding confirms the assumption that “simpler technologies that require little change, thus cost less in terms of time and energy, are used more frequently” (p. 26).

The authors note:

It seems evident that like organisms in an ecosystem, teachers use computers to  address their most direct needs, which brings them maximal benefits, in ways that do not  demand excessive investment in time to learn and reorganize their current teaching  practices, thus minimizing costs” (p. 27).

Other findings revealed in Zhao and Frank’s research suggest that when the district level of attention focused on teacher professional development, was responsive to teacher needs and regularly assessed teachers’ needs, computer use among faculty and students was higher.

The authors data also suggests that English teachers find computers “a natural tool for student writing activities” (p. 35).

In terms of how social capital affects usage, the authors report that “teachers who perceived pressure from colleagues were more likely to use computers for their own purposes, and teachers who received help from colleagues were more likely to use computers with their students” (p. 36).

In terms of competing interests, Zhao and Frank report that teachers who perceived that their school “implements many new innovations were less likely to implement computers for student uses and moderately less likely to  use computers for their own immediate goals. There was also strong evidence that teachers who had opportunities to experiment with district supported software used  computers more for student purposes, and moderately so for their own purposes” (p. 37).

Most importantly, the more a teacher believed that computers were compatible with her teaching style the more the teacher reported using computers for herself and with her students (p. 37).

The authors also found that teachers reported more computer usage when they had time to explore new technologies on their own. This lends credence to the notion that the more contact teachers have with computers, the more willing they are to find ways to adapt them into their curriculum.

The general discussion items at the end of the report bring to light several key concepts that are best left in ecological terms (for a detailed explication of these ideas, I suggest you read the full report):

• Survival depends on where innovations settle.
• Many innovations can enter an ecosystem due to human activities and natural forces; some of these may survive while most do not.
• The compatibility between the new innovations and native species influence their survival.
• In the final phase, i.e.,  co-evolution, new innovations and the native species adapt to each other by changing  themselves.

Leaving the ecological metaphors aside, the following components were also found to affect how computers are used in schools:

• Informal teacher relations with colleagues affects computer uses.
• Informal social pressure that teachers bring to bear on one another affects computer use.
• Play and experimentation impact computer adoption and implementation.
• The informal social organization of a school affects computer use.
• Peer pressure plays a critical role on how teachers adapt computer uses.
• Colleagiality affects computer use and adoption.

Implications for policy and practice
In this section of the report, I found several items related to change agents worth noting:

• change agents can provide training opportunities… through in-service and professional development conferences.  But our evidence suggests that these activities may have little effect on usage in the classroom for the common teacher. Most likely they [change agents] operate through socializing teachers into different beliefs regarding the value  of technology (p. 45).

• change agents can provide various opportunities to explore and learn about new technologies. These have surprisingly strong effects on both teacher and student use of computers. This suggests that districts could do well simply to allow teachers release time to engage technology and consider its applications within their specific contexts (p. 45).

• change agents can leverage change through the social context.  By giving teachers opportunities to help one another and to interact, schools may be able to increase the overall level of technology use.  But leveraging through the social context is a double-edged sword.  As help is most important when coming from a colleague, those with few colleagues may not be able to access the type of help they need to implement computers.  Also, social pressure can be as strong a force working against technology as in favor of technology. This suggests that change agents should be very aware of the social structures and the school cultures in which they operate, and should deliberately address shortcomings and pitfalls. This recommendation is also consistent with the finding that teachers implement computers less when they are asked to implement many other new things. Change agents should thus be aware of the stress on the social context and culture before attempting to implement further innovations (p. 45-46).

• change agents must account for the extent to which organisms in the ecosystem are prepared to accommodate change, they  must allow opportunities for co-adaptation, they must allow for adaptation through the social processes of the system, and they must not overburden the system (p. 47).

Zhao and Frank end with four proposals for school administrators that summarize their findings as they relate to computer use in the classroom (p. 46-47):

1. Consider teaching style as it complements computer usage when hiring teachers.  
2. Give teachers opportunities to experiment with software and demonstrated applications;
3. Consider providing opportunities for teachers to interact instead of standard professional development;  
4. Focus on a small number of innovations at any given time.

Speaking as a person keenly interested in teacher professional development and computer use in the classroom, I recognize that the authors do not wholly embrace the notion of professional development. Based on previous experiences in professional development settings, I can clearly understand their apprehension. In light of their findings and recommendations, I feel I have a better understanding of how I can best serve teachers as a professional developer.

• Work with a self-selected audience of teachers willing to share their knowledge with others.
• Find out what their interests are and adapt lessons and objectives to meet both of our needs and desires.
• Develop a reasonable timeline for communicating and feeding back for proposed course objectives.
• Create assignments that require lots of hands-on activities where follow-up occurs online at regular intervals over a determined period of time.
• Make time to check-in at unscheduled times to receive feedback and see how things are going.
• Keep assignments and lessons simple and unassuming.
  

I would love to hear from the other professionals who make their living providing professional development and hear how they organize their lessons, objectives and follow-up.

Reference:

Zhao, Y. and Frank, K. A., (2003). “An Ecological Analysis of Factors Affecting Technology Use in Schools.”  American Educational Research Journal, 40(4): 807-840.