Dr Boris Handal

University of Technology Sydney

Email: Boris.Handal@uts.edu.au

The so-called computer revolution in schools never took placeas expected. Teachers’ instructional beliefs are to a certain extentresponsible for such a disappointment because a significant number of teachersdo not support the principle that technology is a powerful tool for teaching andlearning as recommended in current curriculum guidelines. Teachers’instructional beliefs act as a filter through which teachers make instructionaldecisions in class rather than relying on their own pedagogical knowledge orcurriculum guidelines. It is indispensable that teachers’ instructionalbeliefs match principles underlying current constructivist reform, particularlyin regard to incorporating technology in the classroom, so that effectiveeducational change can take place.

Teachers’ instructional beliefs have become a central issuein education. It has been argued that those beliefs have a strong impact onteaching and learning (Handal, Bobis, & Grimison, 2001; Lovat & Smith,1995). Teachers’ instructional beliefs reflect personal theories of knowledgeand knowing. Such nature has been seen as influencing teachers’ curriculumdecisions. Teachers’ beliefs have been conceptualized as a set of assumptionsthat teachers hold on various educational processes such as curriculum,schooling, students, teaching and learning, and knowledge (Lovat & Smith,1995). The term teachers’ beliefs have been used to represent teachers’conceptions, practical knowledge, personal knowledge and experientialknowledge" (Anderson & Bird, 199; Marland, 1994; Pajares, 1992).According to Lovat and Smith (1995) these beliefs also act as mental modelsdriving teachers’ practice and processing of new information. Theseinstructional beliefs seem to act as mediators between curriculum goals andtheir actual implementation since teachers are to make curricular decisionsbased on their own affective and cognitive schemes.

Lack of implementation of educational reform can be theresult of teachers’ instructional beliefs not matching the original goals of aparticular innovation (Haynes, 1996; Koehler & Grouws, 1992). If teachers’beliefs do not match those goals, it is likely that resistance will be generatedresulting in a low take-up (Burkhardt, Fraser, & Ridgeway, 1990).Conversely, if teachers’ beliefs are more compatible with educational reform,it is probably that new ideas will be accepted and adopted in the classroom.Teachers therefore can be either obstacles or conveyances of change (Prawat,1990). Consequently, it is very important that prior to any educationalinnovation, teachers’ instructional beliefs are explored, identified, anddealt with to determine whether they are appropriate or not (Handal &Herrington, in press, a). In Cuban’s words (1993, p. 256): "Theknowledge, beliefs, and attitudes that teachers have… shape what they chooseto do in their classrooms and explain the core of instructional practices thathave endured over time."

In the last decade, there has been an increasing interest forthe study of teachers’ instructional beliefs and their influence on curriculumimplementation. The low degree of success in many educational reforms has beenseen as a major reason why teachers’ instructional beliefs need to beconsidered (Fullan, 1993). It is very improbable that teachers can amend theirown instructional practice if their beliefs on teaching and learning remainunexamined. There is more than just transferring resources to schools ifeducational change is to be attained. Teachers’ instructional beliefs need tobe confronted and re-appraised in terms of the beliefs and principlesunderpinning an innovation. Otherwise, changes will be only"cosmetics" or a "travesty" of the original innovation goalsas it has happened in the past with a large number of large-scale innovations (Burkhardt,Fraser, & Ridgway, 1990).

There have many studies showing that technology, that is,computer-related tools, when used regularly in class, they bring positiveeffects on students’ cognitive and attitudinal outcomes (Cotton, 1997;Godfrey, 2001a; King, 1997; Newhouse, 1998). Despite this strong evidence andthe fact that governments are putting resources in place, there is a body ofresearch suggesting that technology has not been adequately adopted in schools (Maddux,LaMont Johnson, & Willis, 1997; Mann, 2000; Newhouse, 1998). Exciting earlylearning expectations have evolved since the early times when computers wereintroduced in mass to schools to the disappointments of the past decade thathave led some critics to assert that computers in education were a failingrevolution (Maddux et.al, 1997, Norman, 1993). In the words of Ertmer, Addison,Lane, Ross and Woods (1999, p. 54): "Despite the fact that the number ofcomputers in teachers’ classroom has increased dramatically in the last 20years, researchers and educators alike report that integrating technology intoclassroom curricula is not easily accomplished". Similar issues have beenidentified in Australia by Bowes (1998), Fifoot (2000), and Mann (2000).

Many reasons have been offered as an explanation for this lowtake-up. These reasons include lack of supporting teachers’ beliefs,traditional teaching practices, lack of teacher training, no enoughinstructional preparation time, unavailability of adequate educational softwareand hardware in general, among others (Godfrey, 2001a; Handal, Handal, &Herrington, 2003; Hadley & Sheingold, 1993; Ringstaff & Yocam, 1994). Anumber of studies which are discussed below seem to indicate that the lack ofteachers’ supporting beliefs and traditional teaching practices appear to bethe major factors in the low take-up of technology in schools.

For example, Ertmer, Addison, Lane, Ross and Woods (1999)examined barriers to technology implementation by interviewing and observingseven primary teachers. The authors classified these barriers between first(external) and second (internal) order barriers. First order barriers includedthe practical aspects of implementation such as availability of hardware andsoftware, administrative support and insufficient time to prepare instructionaltasks. Second order barriers (internal) refer to teachers’ instructionalbeliefs and attitudes towards the implementation of technology in education andestablished classroom practices. According to the authors, the effect of manyexternal barriers can be ameliorated by providing adequate training and byconfronting teachers’ beliefs. However, changes in the classroom will not bevery effective till teachers adopt more positive beliefs about technology. Intheir study, the authors concluded that internal barriers were determinant inachieving higher levels of use of technology and argued that resistance toimplement technology were still there even when external barriers were removed.Teachers with a poor perception of technology as an instructional tool referredto computers as "an add-on", an "optional activity","supplemental", and "a way to keep kids busy". A teachercommented that "I kind of see it [technology] on the outside. It’s stilltouching [the curriculum] but it’s not my focus". (p. 62). Anotherteacher saw the "classroom computer not as a teaching tool but kind of as areward kind of thing, like when kids are done with their work" (p. 62).

Another important factor for explaining resistance to usetechnology are teachers’ traditional instructional styles (Hannafin &Savenye, 1993; Hativa & Lesgold, 1996). These styles are characterized forlecturing, lack of groupwork, classroom organization of desks by rows, and useof the blackboard as the main instructional tool. Many teachers have beeneducated in teacher training colleges and schools, at a time in which computerswere absent of the educational landscape. In fact, the average age of a NSWschool teacher is 47 years (Godfrey, 2001b). Many teachers tend to repeat theinstructional pattern they learn while sitting in classroom during many years ofschooling. This follows the apprentice style of learning which is predominantlyin their trades such as mechanics, carpentry, among others, in which the learneractually learns by watching. Godfrey (2001a), citing a number of researchstudies, adds that teachers’ are "reluctant to hand over control of thelearning environment to their students" (p. 15).

Recent instructional theories draw on a constructivist viewof learning and teaching as opposed to a transmission mode of acquiringknowledge. In the constructivist view, teachers are facilitators of knowledgeand students are encouraged to construct their own knowledge throughproblem-solving tasks. In the transmission mode, the teacher is the only sourceof knowledge and students are encouraged to acquire that knowledge withoutdiscussion (Niederhauser & Stoddart, 1994). Constructivist learning tasksmay include problem-solving tasks, reflective and investigative learning andopen and plenty discussions. Translating these two views on technology in theclassroom implies a bearing towards a constructivist view if successfulimplementation of technology is to occur in the classroom (Handal &Herrington, in press, b). Along those lines, Godfrey (2001a, p. 30) definestechnology in education in the following terms:

Computer technologies enable the manipulation of environments and events to afford multiple perspectives on complex phenomena. Such representations are important for building flexible knowledge assembly and construction processes in complex learning domains. Furthermore computers afford flexibility, making it possible for teacher to adapt the tool to their particular approach, incorporate a number of supporting pedagogical features into instruction, and cater for individual differences.

 

 

A number of studies show that the current nature of teachers’beliefs are not favourable to adopting technology. Newhouse (1998) surveyed 60Australian teachers and found that even, when teachers had technical skills,they were reluctant to implement technology in their classroom. Teachers werenot convinced about the benefits of computers in education and supported verylimited roles of technology in the classroom. The author concluded that one thefactors for such resistance was teachers’ preference for traditional methodsof instruction. Similarly, Mills and Ragan (1998) examined the instructionalpractices of U.S. 30 elementary teachers in their implementation of educationalsoftware in their classrooms. The findings showed that they were substantialdifferences on they way teachers implemented the innovation. They were alsodifferences in the levels of use of the software which were attributed todifferent beliefs on the role of the software.

Niederhauser and Stoddart (1994) surveyed 2170 schoolteachers and found two groups of teachers. The first group associated with theconstructivist view believe that computers "are tools that students use incollecting, analysing, and presenting information" (p. 2) while the secondgroup associated with the transmission view believe "that teaching machinesthat can be used to present information, give immediate reinforcement, and trackstudent progress" (p. 2). In the former constructivist group, teachersstrongly believe that computers can be used as tool to generate knowledge andlearn with understanding. Likewise, Becker (2000) investigated beliefs andinstructional practices of 4083 middle and high schools teachers and found thatteachers with a higher constructivist inclination towards teaching and learningwere more likely to use technology in the classroom. Similar findings wereobtained by Fulton and Torney-Purta (2000).

In addition, there are many teachers that dislike usingtechnology in instruction because there are not enough numbers of computers inschool as well as their lack of maintenance and availability (Andrews, 1995;Erickson, 1993). In the area of mathematics and science education, many primaryand secondary teachers believing that calculators do not contribute to learningand therefore should be banned from the classroom (Brosnan, Edwards, &Erickson, 1996; Fine & Fleener, 1994; Ford, 1994; Howard, 1992; Reed, 1986;Rogers, 1983; Schmidt & Callahan, 1992). This is contrary to the NationalStatement on the use of Calculators for Mathematics in Australian Schools (AustralianAssociation of Mathematics Teachers, 1987) and several other curriculum reportsendorsing the use of calculators as an instructional device to enhanceproblem-solving skills. Writing in terms of gender, Bobis and Cusworth (1994)stated that "female [preservice teachers] are more likely to displaynegative attitudes to teaching mathematics when calculators and computers areinvolved" (p. 14). Moreover, McDougall (2001) has noted that in Australianschools there are more boys than girls undertaking computing studies courses atthe secondary level.

Are these beliefs changing? There is evidence from a six-yearstudy conducted by Medcalf-Davenport (1998) that there has not been majorchanges in teachers’ attitudes towards technology in education. In the author’swords: "The computer is still viewed as the curriculum rather than as atool for teaching the classroom". There is resistance and fear in theintegration of anything new into the classroom and teachers do not recognize theusefulness or necessity of using technology for teaching and leaning" (p.1).

The Information Revolution appears not to have reachedadequately education. Lack of training, availability of hardware and educationalsoftware, no enough preparation time, and traditional teachers’ beliefs andpractices seem to be the major factors to this dissonance. In particular,teachers’ resistance in the form of traditional instructional beliefs may beacting as major negative factor in the implementation of technology ineducation.

The implications are clear. If technology is to be adopted inthe classroom then curriculum designers are to take in account teachers’beliefs and attitudes in any implementation process. The times of thewell-polished, ‘teacher-proof’ curricular documents are gone andpolicy-makers should no longer assume that curriculum implementation is aprocess that translates directly into the classroom reality. Likelydiscrepancies between teachers’ opinions and the ideas underpinning atechnology-based curriculum innovation need to be foreseen, analyzed andaddressed.

The current links between technology in education andconstructivist learning environments will succeed more favourably if teachers’beliefs are considered and confronted. Otherwise, despite the quantity ofresources poured in the purchase of hardware and software in schools may resultin a waste of energy and resources. Certainly, a more grass-root perspectiveadoption is needed in implementation approaches.

Andrews, P. (1995). Teachers’ perception of the availability of computer hardware. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 11, 90-98.

Australian Association of Mathematics Teachers. (1987). A national statement on the use of calculators for mathematics in Australian schools. Canberra: Curriculum Development Centre.

Anderson, L.M., & Bird, T. (1995). How three prospective teachers construct three cases of teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 11(5), 479-99.

Becker, H.J. (2000). Secondary Teachers of Mixed Academic Subjects: "Out-of-Field" Problem or Constructivist Innovators. Paper presented at the 2000 meetings of the American Educational Research Association. Available at: http://www.crito.uci.edu/tlc/findings/aera/out-of-field.pdf

Bobis, J., & Cusworth, R. (1994). Changing preservice primary teachers’ attitudes toward mathematics and science/technology. Forum of Education, 49(2), 9-20.

Bowes, J. (1998). State of the Nations Reports: Tasmania. Journal of the Australian Council for Computers in Education, 13(2), 13.

Brosnan, P.A., Edwards, T., & Erickson, D. (1996). An exploration of change in teachers’ beliefs and practices during implementation of mathematics standards. Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics, 18(4), 35-53.

Burkhardt, H, Fraser, R., & Ridgeway, J. (1990). The dynamics of curriculum change. In I. Wirszup & R. Streit (Eds.), Development in school mathematics education around the world, vol. 2 (pp. 3-29). Reston, VA: NCTM.

Cotton, K. (1997). Computer-Assisted Instruction. School Improvement Research Series (SIRS).

Cuban, L. (1993). How teachers taught: Constancy and change in American classrooms: 1890-1990. 2^nd edition. New York: Teachers College Press.

Erickson, D.K. (1993). Middle school mathematics teachers’ view of mathematics and mathematics education, their planning and classroom instruction, and student beliefs and achievement. Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the American Educational Research Association. Atlanta, GA. (ERIC document ED 364 412.)

Ertmer, P.A., Addison, P., Lane, M., Ross, E.,& Woods, D. (1999). Examining teachers’ beliefs about the role of technology in the elementary classroom. Journal of research on Computing in Education, 54-72.

Fifoot, B. (2000). The new task of the computer-able teacher. Journal of the QLD Society for Information Technology in Education, 75, 18-19.

Fine, A., & Fleener, M.J. (1994). Calculators as instructional tools: perceptions of three preservice teachers. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 13(1), 83-100.

Ford, M.I. (1994). Teachers’ beliefs about mathematical problem solving in the elementary school. School Science and Mathematics, 94(6), 314-22.

Fullan, M. (1993). Changing forces: Probing the depths of educational reform. London: Falmer.

Fulton, K., & Torney-Purta, J. (2000). How teachers beliefs about teaching and learning are reflected in their use of technology: Case studies from urban middle schools. Paper presented at the International Conference on Learning with Technology, Temple University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Available at: http://l2l.org/iclt/2000/papers/126a.pdf

Godfrey, C. (2001a). Computers in school: changing technologies. Australian Educational Computing, 16(2), 14-17.

Godfrey, C. (2001b). Computer technologies: Scaffolding tools for teaching and learning. Australian Educational Computing, 16(2), 28-30.

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

Handal, B., Bobis, J., & Grimison, L. (2001). Teachers' mathematical beliefs and practices in teaching and learning thematically. In J. Bobis, B. Perry & M. Mitchelmore (Eds.), Numeracy and Beyond. Proceedings of the Twenty-Fourth Annual Conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia Inc (pp. 265-272), Sydney: MERGA.

Handal, B., Handal, P., & Herrington, A. (2003). Training teachers in evaluating educational tutorial software. Electronic Journal for Technology in Education, 2(1). Available at: http://ejite.isu.edu/Volume2No1/handal.htm

Handal, B., & Herrington, T. (in press, a). Mathematics teachers’ beliefs and curriculum reform. Mathematics Education Research Journal.

Handal, B., & Herrington, A. (in press, b). Re-Examining categories of computer-based learning in mathematics education. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher education.

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.

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 year book of the National Society for the Study of Education, part 2 (pp. 131-171). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Haynes, M. (1996). Influences on practice in the mathematics classroom: An investigation into the beliefs and practices of beginning teachers. Unpublished Masters Dissertation, Massey University.

Howard, P. (1992). Teachers’ attitudes toward the student use of calculators in K-6 mathematics classes. In K. Owens, B. Perry, & B. Southwell (Eds.), Space, the first and final frontier. Proceedings of the 15^th Annual Conference of the Mathematics Research Group of Australasia (pp. 325-336). Sydney: MERGA.

King, T. (1997) Technology in the classroom: A collection of articles. Australia: Hawker Bronlow Education.

Koehler, M.S., & Grouws, D.A. (1992). Mathematics teaching practices and their effects. In D.A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 115-126). New York: Macmillan.

Lovat, T.J., & Smith, D. (1995). Curriculum: Action on reflection revisited. Australia: Social Science Press.

Maddux, C.D., LaMont Johnson, L., & Willis, J.W. (1997). Educational computing: Learning with tomorrow’s technologies (2^nd ed.). Needham Heights: Allyn & Bacon.

Martand, P.W. (1994). Teaching: Implicit theories. In T. Husen, & T.N. Postlewaite (Editors-in-chief). The international encyclopaedia of education (pp. 6178-6183).

McDougall, A. (2001). Issues and challenges in information technology education in Australian schools. Australian Educational Computing, 16(1) 18-19.

Mann, B. (2000). Internet provision of enrichment opportunities to school and home. Journal of the Australian Council for Educational Computing, 15(1), 17-21.

Medcalf-Davenport, N. (1998). Historical and current attitudes toward and uses of educational technology: A work in progress. (ERIC document ED427721.)

Mills, S.C. & Ragan, T.R. (1998). An implementation model for integrated learning systems. Clearing House: IR019093. Oklahoma.

Newhouse, P. (1998). The impact of portable computers on classroom learning environments. The Australian Journal of Educational Computing, 13(1), 5-11.

Niederhauser, D.S. & Stoddart, T. (1994). Teachers’ perspectives on computer-assisted instruction: Transmission versus Construction of knowledge. (ERIC document ED374116.)

Norman, D.A. (1993). Things that make us smart. Addison Wesley: Reading MA.

Pajares, M.F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of educational research, 62(3), 307-332.

Prawat, R. (1990). Changing schools by changing teachers’ beliefs about teaching and learning (Elementary Subjects Center Series, No. 19). Lansing: Michigan State University, Center for the Learning and Teaching of Elementary Subjects Institute for Research on Teaching.

Reed, W.M. (1986). Teachers’ attitudes toward educational computing: Instructional uses, misuses, and needed improvements. Computers in the Schools, 3(2), 73-80.

Ringstaff, C., & Yocam, K. (1991, 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.

Rogers, E. (1983). Diffusion of innovations. New York: The Free Press.

Schmidt, M.E., & Callahan, L.G. (1992). Teachers’ and principals’ beliefs regarding calculators in elementary mathematics. Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics. 14(4), 17-29.