Reprinted with permission of copyright holder.
WHAT DO TEACHERS NEED TO
INCORPORATE INSTRUCTIONAL
TECHNOLOGY INTO CLASSROOM TEACHING? A SURVEY.
Michael Szabo, Ph.D.,Professor of Educational Psychology, University of Alberta, Edmonton,AB Canada Mike.Szabo@Ualberta.ca
Kathy Schwarz, Coordinator of Courseware Production , New Brunswick Community College, Miramichi, NB
Educators have been accused of being slow to employ instructional technology in their classrooms relative to the rate at which other professions have adopted computer technology. In addition, others assert that instructional technology has failed to havea reforming impact on the way education is conceived and delivered. While a good argument can be made for the lack of sufficient time for instructional technology to take hold, the authors sought to identify issues, in the opinions of teachers which might influence them to make greater or more productive use of computers in their classes. As survey of a stratified sample of Alberta teachers was conducted. Questions were grouped according to three tenets of innovation, namely training, infrastructure and empowerment. The results are presented below.
The purpose of the survey was to identify the elements needed for change through instructional technology and the extent to which they ate present or absent as perceived by public school teachers. A key assumption of the survey is that ideal learning occurs in a learner centered environment in which instructional computing is used as a tool to solve problems and accomplish task, as well as a tutor to promote effective, efficient and affective or enjoyable learning.
The research sought to answer the question "What is the status of training, infrastructure and empowerment in support of instructional computing as applied to the applications of tool and tutor usage and to promote reform. The status was determined based on the perceptions of practicing full time public school teachers in the Province of Alberta.
Methodology
A survey technique was used to gather data to answer the research question. Three categories which cut across the elements of training, infrastructure and empowerment were created for the survey. Specific items were developed for the categories of Organizational,Training and Resource Needs. The last two categories were further subdivided into current levels and future needs in order to promote the use of instructional computing. A separate research question sought to ascertain differences in these categories among four different divisions of teachers, namely K-3, 4-6, 7-9 and 10-12.
There were eighty eight items for these categories, plus six questions of a demographic nature. Respondents were also given the opportunity to add free response comments to the questions.In order to reduce the burden of completing such a large survey, the questions were largely restricted choice and every respondent was given a subsection to complete.
The survey was mailed to teachers with the assistance of the Alberta Teachers Association as part of a regular mailing. Respondents were give stamped and addressed envelopes in which to return the surveys.
Sample & Data
The sample consisted of three randomly drawn samples of 1000 full time teachers from each of the four divisions and representing all grade levels. The population consisted of 26,500 employees in the Province of Alberta in 1995-1996. The data were summarized as percentages according to the categories and divisions represented.
Space permits only a sampling of the findings, organized into Infrastructure, Empowerment and Training to be placed here. Teachers agreed with the statements:
Infrastructure
Empowerment
Training
Opinion of the respondents toward selected aspects of instructional computing were also obtained as part of the survey. Six hundred ninety eight completed surveys contained the following information. While most respondents stated that students at all division levels should use computers, the response was stronger as a function of grade level and a considerable number stated that K-3 students need not use computers.
When asked who should use computers with students, 71% of the sample responded "only those teachers] interested in doing so." Ninety nine percent indicated the ideal number of minutes perweek of computer use by students should fall between 30 minutes and 8hours. The ideal ratio of computers to students was between 1:1 and 1:2 according to 87%.
Theory: Instructional Computing as Innovation and Reform
Instructional technology has great but unrealized potential for reforming educational systems, e.g.,increased use of technology in daily classrooms and some fundamental restructuring of the way education is viewed and carried out. Past explorations as to why the potential is unrealized have focused upon attempts to get people to change and the complexities of instructional use of computers. Failure of these attempts has led us to turn to the innovative nature of the issues. Our study has led us to conclude that although innovation is widely lauded as a concept, it is rarely carried out to a successful end, either in education or other fields of endeavor.Those rare instances of successful innovation have a common set of characteristics, including the presence of training, a supportive infrastructure, empowerment of those who carry out the work, and a visionary who puts aside common goals to achieve the dream. We call this person or group "the keeper of the dream
These elements comprise only a partial list of the environment of successful innovation but they have been described elsewhere [Szabo, 1996]. We focused on three areas for the current study:Training, Infrastructure and Empowerment.
Training involves the acquisition of competencies necessary to 1) add instructional computing, 2) apply it to issues of curriculum, instruction, and evaluation, and 3) provide leadership to colleagues in teaching and administrative positions. To this we would add that reform must have a large mass of teachers who are competent in instructional computing. A simple analysis shows there ate currently not enough trainers to do the job. We must find alternative ways to prepare educators.
All would agree that infrastructure requires hardware, software and telecommunications. Beyond that, however, it demands the strong vision which is held by senior administrators and shared by everyone else in the system. Vision is critical in innovation since very few can predict the ultimate direction innovation will take. As Alan Kay of Apple Fellow fame observed, the best way to predict the future is to invent it. Infrastructure also involves a significant commitment of time and other resources. Innovation is inherently risky and a tolerance for making progress through risk-taking characterizes successful innovation.Infrastructure also means immediate access to credible and understandable support for all aspects of the application of instructional computing to teaching.
Empowerment simply means the granting of authority to adapt the vision to local needs while preserving its basic goals. It also means providing temporary teams of people and enabling them to decide how their organizational unit will play out the vision to reality. It rests on the premise that if people share a vision, are given the to carry out the vision along with the freedom to decide what the vision will look like, they are more likely to become committed to it, to own it, and become keepers of the dream.
A sample of teachers in Alberta was surveyed to ascertain their perceptions of the roles of training,infrastructure and empowerment in the furtherance of instructional computing in their schools. There was widespread agreement on the need for several issues. Vision for use of instructional computing together with planning for ways in which to achieve the vision are critical. The vision and planning need to begin with Education Departments and continue right down to the school districts, school building and classroom level. The vision and plan cannot be dictated, rather it must be shared and the plans adopted for local application. At each level, the training, infrastructure and empowerment issues must be addressed simultaneously if instructional computing is to grow and have an impact on the reform of public education.
Fullan 1991] Fullan,M. (1991). The new meaning of educational change. Toronto:Ontario Institute for the Study of Education Press.
Goodlad & Klein 1970]Goodlad, J. I., & Klein, M. F. (1970). Behind the classroom door. Worthington, OH: Charles A. Jones Publishing.
Schwarz 1996] Schwarz, K.(1996). Perceived harriers to instructional use of computer technology in Alberta schools. Edmonton: University of Alberta unpublished masters thesis.
[Sheingold 1991] Sheingold, K.(1991). Restructuring for learning with technology: The potential forsynergy. Phi Delta Kappan, 17-27.
[Szabo 1996] Szabo, M. (1996,June). Professional development, faculty renewal and alternative delivery systems. A paper presented at the World Conference on Multimedia and Hypermedia, Boston.