'I've never enjoyed teaching so much': Turning teachers on to learning technologies Barnard Clarkson School of Computing, Information and Mathematical Sciences Edith Cowan University

There is nothing more difficult to plan, more doubtful of success, nor more dangerous to manage than the creation of a new order of things... Whenever his (sic) enemies have the ability to attack the innovator they do so with the passion of partisans, while the others defend him sluggishly, so that the innovator and his party alike are vulnerable. Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince.

Introduction

There is sufficient evidence that learning technologies have an effect on the quality of the learning process to warrant careful investigation (eg Dwyer, 1992, Means et al, 1993, Software Publishers Association, 1994). Despite this the only study some educators are demonstrating is studied ignorance. Many people admit that they are happy non-users, even, sadly, our current state Minister for Education. What characteristics make some people more interested than others in adopting LT in schools?

It is too easy to be glib and supportive about the adoption of LT in schools; in fact Selwyn (1997) points out that much of the research about educational computing suffers from being either too overtly optimistic, or it avoids qualitative methodologies in its analysis of the role of computers and computing in education and society. This paper is part of a research project that seeks others' views and perspectives, without offering quick answers; the perspectives offered here are intended simply to provide an organising framework to begin analysis, and if that proves to have weaknesses then it too should be improved or discarded in the search for 'better' understandings.

Australians are renowned as embracers of technology and confident inventors, from the stump-jump plough to the wine cask. As a nation we have adopted television, installed VCRs, bought mobile phones and attached to the Internet faster than most other nations (eg ABC online news, 11 June 1998). In fact adopting technology seems to be an Australian enchantment. Nevertheless this willingness does not apply to everyone. Roblyer (1996) reported in an American journal that many people in our society have "a deep reluctance to using technology and will not use those resources that may be available to them to take the place of teacher-directed ones" (p.12), and I feel sure that most educators would agree the Australian experience is very similar.

Educational technology's availability has not empowered significant parts of the teaching profession; nor has it penetrated the most important part of schools, the classroom (Mehlinger, 1996). I therefore wonder what turns classroom teachers on to LT? Further, what steps should a school, a system, or a teacher take if they wish to participate in a technology-rich classroom? Is there in fact a series of steps? Are these steps immutable or is fast-tracking possible? And on the flip-side, what factors turn educators off LT and technology-rich classrooms?

An organising perspective

To provide an organising perspective, I propose to address four categories, namely global, local and personal and developmental factors. Between them they may prove the basis for an analytical sweep that may provide some useful understanding about the challenge of integrating LT into schools and universities.

Both global and local factors are external to the teacher. Global or environmental factors include the political and social environments which may be publicly supportive of the use of technology in classrooms; the media's coverage of LT in schools, politicians support etc. Local factors include attitudes to change at the school at which they teach, the peers with whom they mix, the encouragement and empowerment from their principal etc; including the teaching styles and professional development models espoused. Personal factors include personality traits and previous experiences which affect the decisions a teacher may make about using LT in their teaching. Developmental factors consider the characteristics which determine and alter the process of change over time.

Global and local factors

Let us be clear, the intention is not to make schools technological oases or technological deserts; most LT supporters are genuinely interested in more fundamental change in learning environments, and it is clear to them that LT seems be a catalyst to make schools better places of learning, not technology.

Media coverage of communications technology topics like the Internet and the World Wide Web has increased markedly over the last two years; for example more and more newspapers have added a web version of their paper (see for example the Australian website at [http://www.TheAustralian.com.au]). This increase in public coverage could affect teachers who have been on the outer of LT users in their school.

Local factors include how the teachers feel supported by their community, whether their principals encourage the integration of LT, and even uses it themselves, and what programs the school runs in support. Active CyberCafe groups in schools like Beckenham Primary School in WA [http://www.eddept.wa.edu.au/schools/5084.htm] do provide some encouragement for all staff. Schools that run more significant change programs for example the ACOT (Apple Classrooms of Tomorrow) program should provide good modelling for other teachers, which may be very important. An Australian ACOT site of interest is Apollo Parkways Primary School in Melbourne [http://www.apollo.vic.edu.au/]. The ACOT researchers describe an evolutionary process with stages that they label Entry, Adoption, Adaptation, Appropriation and Invention. The evolution is the result of new patterns of teaching and learning which have tended to emerge at all their ACOT sites (their longitudinal research has been active since 1985).

Nevertheless it is also clear that different schools have adopted LTs at different rate; some are hardly using them, and others regard themselves as highly integrated users of educational technology. Therefore, although public and local support may be important, the personal factors must also be important.

Personal factors

The groups are Innovators (about 2.5%), Early adopters (about 13.5%), Early majority (about 34%), the Late majority (about 34%) and the Laggards (about 16%). There are three important features of his model. Firstly, the traits of the groups are predictable, but still fit within the community values of that group - so even a community of Klu Klux Klan members may possess the relative trait differences, even if not one of them was as innovative as a large alternative community in the deserts of New Mexico (which would also evidence such internal differences). Secondly, no matter what the innovation or the societal level, similar proportions of people fall into these trait groups; and finally, the opinions of the most innovative members of any social system are often not trusted by most of their peers.

These people are responsible for introducing change, and this very process is unsettling for most people. The first person with a web page is regarded as a social deviant rather than a person to model. It is when the next group, the Early adopters, start to move that those in the larger groupings take notice. Rogers calls this second group opinion leaders, and it is this group who can help the process of change by making non-users more receptive to an innovation adoption. According to Rogers opinion leaders tend to be more cosmopolitan, have slightly higher social status, and tend to be at the hubs of the systems' interpersonal webs.

It is these opinion leaders in a school or district who, by informal communication for example, and by will be more persuasive in any change process. Clearly it would be useful to identify such people in any school or district group and charge them with a change role; but Rogers warns that these people can lose their value if overused because they will lose their 'normal' status within that community.

Developmental change

Some applications

Simple psychographic or reductionist analyses are not enough, however, as sometimes whole schools are confident technology adopters, and yet other schools have few or even no adopters. Consider River Oaks School in Canada [http://www.riveroaks.edu.yorku.ca/Riveroaks/Riveroakshome.html] and Springfield State Elementary School in Queensland. Springfield has joined the Apple Classrooms of Tomorrow (ACOT) International program, an Apple Computer initiative and one of the world's leading research programs that studies what happens when teachers and students are given routine access to technology. Springfield School is unique in the ACOT program as it is the only school designed from the ground up as an ACOT model, according to press releases last year in ABC Informatica, March 4, 1997, media release at [http://www.abc.it/News/Marzo/ACOT_AU.html]

Conclusion

References

Cohen, D. K. (1988). Educational technology and school organisation. In R. S. Nickerson and P. R. Zodhaites (Eds), Technology in education: Looking towards 2020, 231-264. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum & Associates.

Dwyer, D. C. (1991). Changes in teachers' beliefs and practices in technology-rich classrooms. Educational Leadership, May, 45-52.

McKenzie, J. (1998). Secrets of Success - Professional Development. http://fromnowon.org/eschool/secrets.html [10vi1998]

Means, B. et al (1993). Using technology to support education reforms. Report for US Department of Education, Washington DC.

Mehlinger, H. (1996). School reform in the information age. Phi Delta Kappan, Feb, 400-407.

Roblyer, M. D. (1996, September). Is research giving us the answers (and the questions) we need? Learning and Leading with Technology, 24, 14-18.

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

Selwyn, N. (1997). The continuing weaknesses of educational research. British Journal of Educational Technology, 28, 305-307.

Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organisation. Doubleday/Currency.

Barnard Clarkson School of Computing, Information and Mathematical Sciences Edith Cowan University b.clarkson@ecu.edu.au Please cite as: Clarkson, B. (1998). 'I've never enjoyed teaching so much': Turning teachers on to learning technologies. In C. McBeath and R. Atkinson (Eds), Planning for Progress, Partnership and Profit. Proceedings EdTech'98. Perth: Australian Society for Educational Technology. http://www.aset.org.au/confs/edtech98/pubs/articles/clarkson.html