If...,...., .

(héz‘ .53....
0.1 u :0

.. .l‘ni.d§$

.t-IJ... .9 0». ‘il

F. .‘c o. .. .3.¢I.o
0/0.

3%.”:

no
'

. is.” _ u r.
9., 0
5.1.5.0.... .
I 4.10.131.

.- .
. 13“, 5.3.39
H. p’ h.“ ‘i‘
3.. £835.... a.
i- I64. I ' 0.3.

ac?

o
. .
C .dp...mlrmhflu1}..0§ltzv! .
. . . 2')
n.» .330»... . Ivan-“0......
Ii... 1.
'.o. ....',o...§~
.0. .
. ..

u.

‘0‘... 9.

’3.

  

O D! l‘
.1 4... o... . 7...
‘ . . ....o..‘o- .n'....‘oo.
.5 . X 53-..:
{#35

U .3.“ .30.

. n 't
.uL.u."€.1 2.... 1..

....‘:£‘

5....- . .
‘ «fl...tw..t.
no 5 . .3. , a.
.00...." .0.....’..
'\.9‘
01—1103... .
. 6.9.1.,

. I
3“ r
‘ ....JI..£...
.— 1... . ‘v’.
.q‘floro 0..
at]
.....A..u¢’o.‘
.13..

r........kh.. .. .
v- .
‘a .1. .53 . .

.1]. ho
. :8...

CAO

 

to...
".-“¢..¢:v
1.3.02. ......
0 0.... .n....
1...). o... u

. . OI.
.3! ..Y‘...43.o
. :31... ...

 

6)..~ll.

..o.‘-Vs -
.10.. .‘w...’
._. I324.

. . in. .

.93.}...- V
J. 7.2...-
.32.... .I O. .0

.I’.I
v .
0.4 o . . OI... ....... 1..
.93 o 3......
L «4‘0. 13‘ .
. .r.‘ .0-
1 .a

‘5 . .<o
.0. no.4.o‘
:‘1 .1013!

 

I v I
t... 1......
2... I.-.»

. CD. I

0.4..
7..

. . r. o
‘ a. '3: 31......-
. ...‘.....

«3.!

._ . 5..

 

'.. A
o....l.|l.o
. f.
. v0.0...-
4.... I...
L . .
.q! .. Lu.
8.7.4

A s

I.
J url...

. ‘ . . D
...|’ .93...
x. .

_ \‘..u

00.. I...

 
    

,. . . _ .
. Avbflvbf.’ . \ .. .. I 0 .
7 J... . aafiufiufiflh um...” ....;.
..- . 2...... ".0“. 1...... ‘3“... 0....
t .s» u 2. . . . 3“. I: . t 3...

1

:v .‘39‘. 0....
. $9... 3
c 3.. .0. 8

t3!
1...... .3 .

 

. 2.30.
$003.59.

tn. v.6....o....
.oou’r‘o. ‘9, 5.

. ...&rlf .c
vs“. a, Outoob.-a"..v.. 0' ul...‘: I
93.....32..)|..‘ :9.
.P.nr.ll. no... 0“... :3
8‘5... .Ifo.".“o0.. Q...
0. .‘ u... .1! .,
.."'.. ‘.o.;.A'¢Qoa
Q 3‘3‘!w.l... . .
5......Q o ‘1 41¢ 90.0.0 4
318‘ . $3.25....
tutu-b... ~-..¢.
I. 3-. 1......" — 5‘. o, |-
Cut... 2.39..

o I...
v, in; 391....V.
.3..Q..‘...0'\.0

(000‘:
.u .0. ...‘o.-.o:

6.
0..“ Q 7....
19’. 05.

 

V.

v... 1..

I‘vz...c.’0-' o.‘
«{8‘.3.o 1.4).! .,
..D‘l3..t!. 1.. 300.1:
2.2,. 32!... ‘3'? t... :4.

*q‘ill, .'..I

.O,..,.4.I.......lu .

. .83... 29
. on. $71.!

.0.
0.32 r I. ..'.. .
.o-loo.‘l 30:1.

.02 5’.

 

.
'v.’ 0 0.
ul"?

V .‘:\. ..7 O
‘0‘. . |.|O‘.:"

. $9....Iurccvo.
‘- 0......
1.... .1

 

.A‘. 0.31....
. - ~31.I.I.’\ 00
1...... ‘10..
‘V‘Q..V..¢.

.00...
0:..‘OH.
3...! An!— .
8. . A... a.“
3.0.4,. o a...
.n'..lo: Q .

. oi... ......Q.....
.‘............s...-. .
. v“... ‘9. Q
.00-

00}... .
'99..¢.‘a.‘
.9v7 A’..vli .
.35.. .3... .3 ..

.....'.90.!....
1C... .0...

{I Elia-.21 ‘ I

. . .21...t..9?lfi.9
9.. 9... '..o.o.ovfo..o.o.. .
. 6 f. 50.23:!-

... Q..5‘Otl 9. O.‘! v
........o.k.¢un i .

.v D

 

P...
a. .4...- .

~v... {000... T
c Q... "

 

 

z. IQ...
. 39... ...‘.o... i.
.I...~(..O.....'X~ 8...
.0003"!
......!'...!O.:o.l..-..
i’éY’Q
.. 3! .0.
O. . v...’ 3..
.1

 

.1.
O.

I.
9‘.
.1... 3’-

30: u... .. .

O I... I. .
i... onlooooo‘ .A. .o..- u.
3.2.. 3.1.2....7 .. '.
.3. (3.....Ol. .
.!.u...;....¢..
. .? 53,,Ysc'
. . .. l
..!...-.O..O‘..I.X

0.

.‘ . u.
‘1. sol.

 

90.1.... p..
33...».6g....
.,.O ‘I..O.I.f .

no.

bio-o! ..
It. :3.
3.3.9:...

.‘b 0"
‘

 

. ‘.C.'-..
2......

.2. v... 3: .

.o 0‘... O.
....I 'o.

C . .
.0 .0 ..-.-...I‘)..o¢‘. .
..o...v.l.o...c ... .:.. . . ..
.y. 6. .‘di..!.. . . . ..
n . . u ...o 0‘ n . .-
. . 2.1.... .9

_ o , A... 9...
. 8...! .0.....o.o.ol.7
.

3.. .3...
.v ..

L.-
. .o

. ....
i... .o
..

. . .. .

.....l... .. . . .

.0: .2 . I... .53 Z!
x . ..,I._

IA...
. .1...
.

Sour...

to. .. ...-.O....

. .. . .

. ... -

.05....0...
. 7

OD
Y..T....... . Jo
, 0.. v. a .

k
‘..

 

h.‘..

..,\v.;...
on .s. 3.. ‘.7..‘.
2"»... '0.
’r‘..Q..

u"'o.:o.%1. .
. I-.

6. 9.1...
.' I}

. :7

. I.
.v.!..
a’. .

l. . . 32....-. .
I . ...v§..¢..; 2 Q. .....
.. 7.71.9 72......” .

p.

. . -12... v t. t
. Qt. .. .. . ,,

. ..‘.

.1... I...

 

..
.f‘

. 01.. u.

.6... . t.
.7223...
..

.. .
on. ..
so .

.. $ . ..
.. ...-. 3... a 0:.

. .:.. v . . ...
. t...

. O 90 .U...

I..1:J ‘
.....I?Qf ’1...r..
. ' .‘ll:-:0

.5‘...

. .
32.....13: 3.x?!
.v...o..v . 1:... ..
e... 9..

O.-

.-2- 0.. 90..
v. ‘1’.
'.

O. . :- - .. .oQ.
I... 0-0... P 4. "1.9 . . .eo. ..
.. .

=33... .

75.
c... ... o. I

3...- v...
.I..{{. P... ..I....
‘7'... 1.. 4

C .

L!.~ f
.I’. U. .-
4.....990129

, I 1.910..

 

.. .A‘"
r!

 

.o.u.’n."..
11.. 20...,
f

I.
:7... by.

f. 2..
, 1... $0..
. D. .

:-

. ,

 

.

.. 3...

.!\. $3...
. ..

 

.l'... .
\71 in .. .....

.. 3.90...

 

I 0.0.0....-
..o. 3.. ._v...
.90

.1
21..
....| n.

,ul’

 

.0
l. .md' o.-

. ....o..f... 00......
O.

9...! fl 3%..

. 39.7. .. ..¢o...‘.iv.

L10...
:0 . 990......7.

9 A. .0.

‘t T": 2. o... o
O... a...

. I..
3;... .
v ..

ct

f .‘.....
.. 0 .Co).

 

’ .

.. .t.
....o... . .71
.. o...

 

.. . . to
0. :33. ..
.. .. ‘ - .ul

,1. u.
c o

‘ la. . ,
.. . - ... tic. ..
a ..

 

I
3..
O

.1
. f... o 5.0

..
... .
I.fi....n
.. L ..

..t
.4... .u. . (0......
. «no-v...-

, .

0‘...

 

           

 

.10.... 9“.

_ #\.9:I£.. 9.2.1.59...-
... .. 70".
s

. ‘Q- A
1.... O..v

c... t.

 

.01. .

..,..':‘ 1|. :11Al
.32..3'.........;.9....V \ a.
3.1..‘..!. .79.! ...\LI
.9... :‘O‘sé .0) 7....

he

 

I . .
1’ I r.
$3.933...
. «.333... m.

1 0 la“... 0.”
In... 3.9.9.... . L. .0

~99! {’3}? ($01.. .fi 1.
Jaw-3.....mflfis. ‘3 $1“ .
{$6.1 $5.99.... .. «g

”a;

Sad... ..
1.. .
.?1Ԥw..v.o:.n

. in...
.. 3 ,0, . 6

. 3’
fr...

2.... for. ..
9 l u at...)
. . .o..\, 0»

s I...
.C. {I

 
 

» ‘.
.L... .
‘3 -4...
Oe’uloo‘...
I...

O

. 45..., .93.. . I
.,o.‘9.\....3 .. 3......

Vs .2..—l~.93¢...

:. 2 .10.... 2“:

1..!?..O.Q..¢J. .
.o..~o;5.ul...!3

.693 .3; I. .1

.
\.

 

I.I .-

«a,
5..
5%..«9b.
. :1}
9.1 .7
Jaw-.1 .mhtl
.z...” 0-.
2...... .9"?! .09..
‘. L. 3....6.

1 3.9..."
.I.‘ 1' 32.6....
. 3.... 3

1211‘s....
.. 0.. “V.

1001‘.

 

 

‘1... t .0
32.33....6 .
3......“9Ao.
53¢... Batty...
19.3

1.0.33.4... .
1.. J.
.31“?
. I).

O...
v!’a.’. 9:0.»

. 9...-

..9... .

2......Tt 0,:

'3'. o...

..‘..

9,-213. 1...
.t I \9 ......Il..
owc. .

’o.'v I E.
Q

. 90.6.9 39...!
I.
I ’3‘. 9.
0.... 1.

5...};
. .95....
:39...‘ 1!
0 '6.0.'I- I. 5..
O.‘ a
'0 .0.‘ o,:...
2. 3.8L. . u. c.
.. 0...: . n1. 1‘...‘
"fd—Iao. . .
90 v',
. O. o u. C...
. ..3"..’
a.

‘n.
. I. ’0 r
0.. 3,. 9'3... I... :O
.‘915.1Ao. in

H3...“

.34.‘ O.‘.'9~I‘.

3 Q tit. .. 5 ‘9 rl‘
i

3....
.u‘o-\‘o 91.1..
.Q... .-.,F.1§.

. A . . .. .

1‘
9‘9 3’0...

.nfi.......1.......
1!. 9"

39 lt’. ‘3'”...
v.9... ‘3 3. 3..

1...”."0 D0 5...
2 .‘lo.
.593. 02'5"!
o..- .l :‘I Q...
.l 9. :90. ‘03:!
a a 22,035.. .V- 21.0.. 0 ‘30.
x9 9.... in
V! inn. '1...- _
1r..l.’...9t....9 .r
. ‘ ‘i?"
«V _

 

'82:...
.z9l1fo .‘1!

9915.... 2A.. $11.3...
I .II30209 .1752‘10
4.... 20.32... 9...... 3...}...299393
.5) . . 1. I. ... titan); OI.
.‘ . 22......

.2”
’9‘.
.I v. .3

.0 ..v¢.‘-..0.
l‘.

‘5..9..l.?oc2...5.!.
.5990 3104.330... 3 .O
. .1‘. 7....‘59‘30 .i". Eu...
. . 9.4‘..§.. .1 1.... 5..
. 3... Via-O... .
‘Ianv’.
‘0. :fi.

_ ..'.’.
10.9.10

80
..l...0...:.
. s. o . ..Oo.v..I.o >‘.O

‘0'..

.. I..--

.‘.. o . 0

w. . 0. 0.9,... b

%!._GVO.q-'....1al1‘u O.
3'0!

 
 

1.. f?"
9"". oi...

. o . ‘6... o 0
.~ v.0

I
9.0....
...-p..o.n
.......
....

.v0\.

.0-....'..ou.0
0.. .... .5-

n .c -
.t

. .Ho.
I..0.9o
IVI.

. .
.0.11 a
~ .

   

. .
3-! O

   

 

 

I . . .
.-O.-|f.' OI II.\ «0 O
.a. ‘61... '7‘! 0 :V .0
....3.P.b...oI\._U:.l~l.....I.....-O.....oo..o. .‘1... L202... 9. Own .. - ....|u..m .. .. V o
.o ‘09:.l ....1.... 0:07.92 o.-'..onguo...v 'm .‘b.._’. J. .00 ...o..ovold..-.... 2...! . O c . - . .
. . 2.0.2.. . . ...Q ‘ ._ ... .o a . . .#. 0.. 9.0 0.7.3.... . «3...!..n Z. .1. . . . . ... . . . o . I ‘ .
. . . v .10! . . . . .‘.. I... v... _. ... .n. v..'. . . . -o. u . . .
. . n . . O .I . . . .oso . . .t 0.. . .u . o. .o ..o.00\.-IA...|5..52 . .-
. . o. . . t . c . . . . . .v...‘ .-‘....Yan< ..3....o.o...v..... .2 Q
. , a... . n A o... . Q..Y..Q.Lo..ul0’tc.§ 00 y . . . .o - (Q .
l.,...a.......-.O.I.I. u. c .. to 00..
[III lily .‘n A . . o n I .00 . _. 0.. n I
4‘
.l
'l'
'1'
1|
‘
III: 'II’ 1“

 

.,’ I. \\\

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

This is to certify that the
dissertation entitled

On Becoming Technology Fluent:
Digital Classrooms and Middle Aged Teachers

presented by

Sandra Kay Plair

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

Ph. D. degree in Cun'iculum, Teaching and
Educational Policy

 

<T/ww kJeJM

 

Major Professor’s Signature
MA [‘1 ‘2, CM O
J .

Date

 

MSU is an Affinnafive Action/Equal Opportunity Employer

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
To AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE

DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5/08 KIProi/AccauPres/CIRCIDateDue.indd

 

 

lMMl/l/ilMll/‘lllllilllllmlMW

 

!

#10

I’ll; -, Wm

 

ON BECOMING TECHNOLOGY F LUENT:
DIGITAL CLASSROOMS AND MIDDLE AGED TEACHERS

By

Sandra Kay Plair

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILSOPHY

Curriculum, Teaching, and Educational Policy

2010

 

 

Abstract

ON BECOMING TECHNOLOGY F LUENT:
DIGITAL CLASSROOMS AND MIDDLE AGED TEACHERS

By
Sandra Kay Plair

This dissertation, organized in chapter format, is comprised of a collection of case
studies designed to explain why some teachers are not prepared to meet the challenges of
the National Education Technology Plan despite the pervasive evidence of technology in
our personal and professional lives. The first case study is the personal history of one
teacher who “battles the machine” and is reluctant to alter what works in her current
practice. The next chapter is a multiple case study that examines the issues and
challenges experienced teachers faced in their efforts to become more fluent in the use of
educational technology. Using an extensive technology related professional development
event as an intervention, the study explores teachers’ use of technology before and after
the inservice, the role of professional development in building technology skills, and
matters related to the sustainability of skills. Teachers stressed the need for ongoing
support in the form of a knowledge broker to assure continued efficacy and proficiency
while integrating technology into their content and their practice.

The fourth chapter, afier a five year lapse, revisits two teachers from the previous
multiple case study and introduces a new tech savvy teacher who shares her experiences
as a new integrator of technology. Self report is used to examine the issues and
challenges these experienced teachers faced in their efforts to become more fluent in the
use of educational technology. The teachers in this multiple case study participated in a

number of technology related professional development interventions over a period of

approximately four years. This chapter includes their reflections on the successes and
failures as they continue to grapple with the challenges of increasing their technological,
pedagogical, and content knowledge or TPACK and create change in their practice.
Included is an essay presenting a proposal for a framework of five phases of
professional development to support the federal government policies of No Child Left
Behind and the National Education Technology Plan. The framework is upheld by five
principles of professional development considered crucial for effectively changing
teacher practice to incorporate instructional technology into the curriculum. By '
superimposing these principles: duration, content, active learning, and collaboration, this
essay then positions technology related professional development as ongoing with the
support of professional learning communities or networks and knowledge brokers as a
means of sustaining and expanding the efforts teachers make toward technology fluency.
The concluding chapter discusses how education systems constrain teachers’
effort or ability to changes. Recommendations are provided on how relations among
teachers and institutions might be reconfigured to promote more and better professional

learning and practice in technology,

C0pyright by
Sandra Kay Plair
201 0

Acknowledgement

I would like to give special thanks to Dr. Steve Weiland who patiently guided me
through my doctoral program. Returning to the world of academia after 30 years was not
an easy thing to do. Dr. Weiland’s constant encouragement kept me moving forward
when I thought of throwing in the towel.

More than anything I am grateful to my husband, Ronald Faimot, who believed in
me every step of the way. His support and encouragement were never ending though I
think he was as surprised as I was when at the age of 56 I decided to return to the life of a
college student.

I would also like to thank Pamela Thomas and Sharon Bernard for constantly

letting me know how proud they were of their mother becoming Dr. Mom.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

 

 

 

 

LIST OF TABLES viii
LIST OF FIGURES ix
CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION 1
Defining Terms ........................................................................................................... 3
The Role of Educational Technology for Teachers and Students ................................... 5
Purpose of the Study ....................................................................................................... 9
About Research Design and Methods ........................................................................... 10
Seeking Understanding Case by Case ....................................................................... 11
Using Portraiture to Paint a Narrative Picture .......................................................... 12
Snapshot of the Chapters ............................................................................................... 13
Limitations of the Overall Study ................................................................................... 18
CHAPTER 2 “I HAVE NEVER HAD AN INTIMATE RELATIONSHIP WITH A
MACHINE”: REMAINING DIGITALLY DISTANT 20
Developing the Initial Sketch ........................................................................................ 21
Selecting the Portraitist’s Tools ................................................................................ 23
Exploring the Artist’s Palette .................................................................................... 24
Portrait of a Technologically Challenged Teacher ....................................................... 24
Historical Perspective ............................................................................................... 24
Constrained by Limited Knowledge ......................................................................... 27
The Battle Rages On ................................................................................................. 29
Developing a Professional Self ................................................................................. 31
Collegial Support ...................................................................................................... 33
Interpretation of a Portrait ............................................................................................. 35
Student Knowledge of Technology ........................................................................... 37
Control versus Technology ....................................................................................... 39
Making Use of the Unknown .................................................................................... 39
Final Thoughts .............................................................................................................. 43
CHAPTER 3 _FROM WHENCE COMETH MY HELP: A CASE OF
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 48
Beginning the Search for Answers ................................................................................ 48
Other Artist’s Perspective ............................................................................................. 49
Making the Most of Professional Development ........................................................... 53
Background ................................................................................................................... 59
Selecting the Portraitist’s Tools .................................................................................... 61
Exploring the Artist’s Palette .................................................................................... 63
Introducing the Participants .......................................................................................... 64
Thematic Revelations .................................................................................................... 65
Initial Teacher Technology Use — Pro Training ..................................................... ... 65
Teacher Perspective on Professional Development in General ................................ 69
Technology Related Professional Development ....................................................... 73
The Influence of ‘Fear’ on Learning to be Technologically Fluent .......................... 75
Subsequent Teacher Use of Technology — Post Training ......................................... 78
A Question of Sustainability ..................................................................................... 81

vi

Reflections across Cases ............................................................................................... 85

 

 

 

 

Reflections of Professional Development ................................................................. 90
Reflections on Teacher Use ...................................................................................... 91
Reflections on Sustainability .................................................................................... 92
F inal Thoughts .............................................................................................................. 97
CHAPTER 4 A TALE OF THREE TEACHERS: “RUNNING AS FAST AS I
CAN” 100
Background ................................................................................................................. 102
A Tale of Three Teachers ............................................................................................ 103
Meet the Teachers ................................................................................................... 103
It’s All About Trust ................................................................................................. 104
Bring It On - I’m Fearless ....................................................................................... 114
Fear of Failure Resolved ......................................................................................... 121
Making Sense of it All ................................................................................................ 129
CHAPTER 5 SHIFI'ING THE PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PARADIGM:
COACHES, CHEERLEADERS, OR BOTH 135
Background ................................................................................................................. 136
Framing Technology Related Professional Development .......................................... 140
Building Individual Skills ....................................................................................... 143
Knowledge Acquisition and Skill Application ....................................................... 145
Ongoing Support ..................................................................................................... 149
Programs That Work for Knowledge Acquisition ...................................................... 151
Shifting the Professional Development Paradigm for Technology Fluency ............... 155
The Role of Social Networks in Professional Development ................................... 155
How Knowledge Brokering Works ......................................................................... 158
Knowledge Broker Roles in Professional Development ......................................... 161
Final Thoughts ............................................................................................................ 164
CHAPTER 6 IN CONCLUSION: ADDING A FINISHING TOUCH OR TWO .165
Policy and Professional Development ........................................................................ 173
APPENDICES 178
Appendix A - Interview Protocols .............................................................................. 179
Appendix B - Methods Section .................................................................................. 185
WORKS CITED 196

vii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 - Chapter 2 Research Questions, Themes, and Codes ....................................... 191
Table 2 - Chapter 3 Research Questions, Themes, and Codes ....................................... 192
Table 3 - Chapter 4 Research Questions, Themes, and Codes ....................................... 193

viii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Framework for Professional Development ....................................................... 141

ix

Chapter 1

Introduction

Technology permeates almost every aspect of our lives and our society. From the
supermarket check out counter to the dentist office, some form of technology can be
found and reliance on it is everywhere. Classrooms, or schools in general, seem to be the
last institutions to embrace technology, especially as an instructional tool. With the
emphasis in recent years focusing on student learning of STEM — science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics, —the need for classrooms to include technology rich
curriculurns has increased. This can only be accomplished if teachers are prepared to
offer instruction that is rich in technology. Part of the reason for the late arrival of
technology in education is due not to lack of funding, but the lack of technology fluency
or technological knowledge among the nation’s teachers. This has been especially true
for experienced teachers, that is, those with fifteen or more years in the classroom. While
computers have been available for classroom use for almost thirty (30) years, not all
teachers have embraced their use or many other technological innovations to the degree
that technology is the norm for instruction and student learning.

In recent years the federal government has become more involved in changing the
dynamics to assure technology is a more integral part of the learning process for the
nation’s students. The National Educational Technology Plan (NETP) (Partick, 2004)
and No Child Left Behind (N CLB) legislation included technology competency for
students with an assessment for the nation’s eighth graders. These two government '
driven mandates required K — 8 teachers to reevaluate their teaching practices and their

curricula in order to infuse technology into their content. Data from the National Center

for Education Statistics (N CES) found that experienced teachers, 65% of teachers
included in the study, were less likely to use technology in their classrooms (N CES,
2003; Prasad, Lewis, & Farris, 2001). With only 35% of the nation’s remaining teachers
self reporting as being prepared or likely to use technology in their classroom, the future
of the nation’s students becoming technologically competent seems unlikely. For
experienced teachers, with little prior knowledge of technology, learning to be fluent in
technology has been frustrating and stressful. Many have been avoiding the use of
technology either personally or professional. For some teachers technology has been
viewed as just another educational fad destined to fade away at the entrance of yet
another promising solution to add to their repertoire. However, with a national focus on
the failure of schools to prepare students for the information age or knowledge society
(Hargreaves, 2003) teachers have been forced to assess their inadequacies in the area of
educational technology. While the literature points to generalizations to explain why
there is a lack of technology fluency (Ertmer, 1999), studies explaining individual
decisions by experienced teachers to avoid technology are sparse.

The purpose of this dissertation is primarily to give experienced teachers a voice
as they share their experiences on their way to increasing their level of technology
fluency. By sharing their reflections they help us to understand why the change to
technology infused instructional practices has been delayed and how we might help
teachers and others involved in educational change when the next educational reform

surfaces.

Defining Terms

Before proceeding it may be beneficial to clarify how critical terms are referenced
throughout this dissertation. The terms technology, technology integration, technology
fluency, and technology integration specialist carry different connotations among the
advocates of technology in education.

Technology, in this dissertation, refers to the myriad of tools available for
classroom use. Computers no longer represent the primary technological advances found
in classrooms. Students are exposed to digital cameras, graphic calculators, hand-held
computers (PDAs), flash drives, cell phones, and MP3 players/iPods both in and outside
of classrooms. Teachers have available video projectors, SmartBoards, and document
cameras changing the ways instruction is presented to students plus a wide variety of
software applications both on and off the lntemet. The computer is one component in an
array of innovative tools now available for instructional purposes.

Technology integration is the seamless incorporation of technology skills into
instructional content and practice. Technology integration is a goal for teachers to attain
by melding pedagogy, content, and technology (Hawkes, Halverson, and Bockmueller,
2002; Pierson, 2001; Koehler and Mishra, 2005) in ways that support and enhance
student learning. Technology integration is the way in which teachers use technology to
promote and enhance student learning using a variety of technology tools. It is not
merely adding drill and practice software as classroom rewards (Pierson, 2001; Becker,
2000) or ways to fill student time when assigned activities are completed. Teacher use
alone (preparing lessons, recording grades, or preparing slide shows for lesson delivery)

is not indicative of technology integration. Providing ways to reinforce computer skills,

such as having students convert homework essays to word processed documents, should
not be confused with technology integration. This is a keyboard skill reinforcement
activity rather than an example of integration of technology. True technology integration
renders the technology as “invisible” (Trotter, 2005). The role of technology becomes a
commonplace part of the classroom environment used by students and teachers as
routinely as paper, pens, and textbooks.

Since technology integration refers to the infusion of technology in the
curriculum, content area, or subject matter, teachers will need to acquire new skills to
meet this change in pedagogy and accommodate changes in the culture of classrooms.
Rather than isolated technology related skills such as the creation of a word processing
document or the ability to save and retrieve files, technology integration utilizes simple to
complex technology related skills to support the learning of subject matter or
instructional objectives. Combining lntemet research with desktop publishing to create a
newsletter exhorting the injustice of taxation without representation is but one example of
technology integration. Creating this desktop publishing product may be one of many
technology components melded in a unit of the causes of the American Revolution. A
process for students to collaborate online, such as Google Docs, while preparing such a
newsletter can lead to changes in classroom dynamics and the practice of teachers.

Technology fluency might best be explained as a state in which teachers and
students view technology as a seamless, fluid part of instruction and student learning
(Resnick, Rusk, and Cooke, 1998).

Technology integration specialist is introduced in Chapter Five and refers to a

resource or “knowledge broker” (Oldham & McLean, 1997) whose purpose is to support

and advocate for the integration of technology into the curriculum throughout the school.
This broker of knowledge should not be confused with technically trained staff
responsible for the “nuts and bolts” (Marcovitz, 2000) or hardware support, school web
page design and maintenance, network administration, or school wide software
installations. The technology integration specialist’s prime function is that of an agent
for changing teacher practice and providing an information channel (Coleman, 1988) or
conduit guiding teachers through various technology options appropriate to a specific
content. Experienced classroom teachers with strong technology related skills who excel
at blending pedagogical, content, and technological knowledge while creating
opportunities to enhance student learning would be ideal candidates for supporting less
skilled teachers.

It should also be noted that it is not my intent to present or advocate an all
encompassing approach to using technology in classrooms. Technology is a set of
multifaceted tools that can be selected from an assortment of educational resources.
There is value in using technology in classrooms for teachers and students. However, not
every aspect of the learning experience requires the use of technology. In fact, it may be
the worst choice for certain learning practices. I do contend that teachers should be
aware of technology alternatives for engaging students and enhancing learning and
through this dissertation I hope to reveal the trials, struggles, and difficulties encountered
by experienced teachers who have found it challenging to become fluent in technology.

The Role of Educational Technology for Teachers and Students

In the struggle to support teachers’ efforts to become more fluent in technology

lies the need to understand why technology should be a part of a teacher’s repertoire and

students’ learning. Despite the ubiquitous presence of technology in our daily lives, how
this same technology should be infused into classrooms is often challenged (Cuban,
2002). Hargreaves (2003) conversely noted that because of changes from an industrial
society to one where information and knowledge dominate the economy, skills for the
i 21 st century are markedly different for those needed to prepare workers for industrial,
manufacturing employment. Being able to create, communicate, and collaborate in a
global economy drives the skills needed in an information age society. Employers need
innovative and critical thinkers to maintain a competitive edge in a global marketplace.
Our students need to be prepared to meet those needs and our teachers need to be able to
help them to achieve let century skills. As the lntemet continues to make information
and others more accessible, students will need to learn how to be responsible digital
citizens. They also need the skills for discerning the validity of the information acquired
from electronic resources.

While teachers must be prepared to lead students in this era of information and
ubiquitous technology; they, also, must be prepared to fimction in a different more
technology rich classroom environment. The lntemet has become an invaluable resource
for finding content, retrieving critical curriculum information, for supporting the
differentiation of instruction, using data to make instructional choices (Hobe, 2010) and a
place for cost effective professional development. Increasingly for economic reasons as
consumers we are being directed to online resources for the services once distributed in
the form of paper copies. Payroll, banking, and prescription refills must be retrieved
using a company’s online services. Today’s students may never see a paper payroll

check or bank statement in their adult lives. Schools and classrooms will be the places to

.m‘

prepare them for a world that does business from anywhere in the world, at any time of
day, using some form of technology.

The dilemma for most teachers is how to integrate technology into their current
curriculum without sacrificing their content. Many teachers are still trying to teach
technology instead of teach with technology. Harris and Hofer (2009) encourage
teachers to rethink how they plan for the use of technology in their content lessons. The
authors suggest teachers change their approach to integrating technology by thinking of
how it -

. Focuses on students' standards based learning needs rather than the specific

features of particular tech tools and resources

. Is easily adaptable to multiple teaching styles and levels of technological

proficiency

. Can be learned and applied relatively quickly, with few, if any, additional

resources required, even in resource-scarce settings

0 Is predicated upon teacher ownership of the planning and implementation process

to ensure long-term use (p. 23)
Hofer and Harris (2009) have begun a collaborative effort to create informal taxonomies
matching curriculum activities with a particular set of educational technologies that
effectively support each activity. These informal taxonomies are being developed as a
tool for teachers to increase their technological knowledge to match their pedagogical and
content knowledge or PCK. (See examples of work in progress at
h@://gctivitvtvnes.wmwilds.net) This added competency creates TPACK or
Technological Pedagogical And Content Knowledge and according to Koehler and
Mishra (2005, 2008) teachers can no longer limit themselves to knowledge of pedagogy
and knowledge of their subject matter. Shulman and Shulman (2004) identified able,
teachers of today as those who have the ability to use technology daily in the life of a

classroom when preparing for and delivering instruction.

McCrory (2006) suggests we consider the ‘affordances’ for learning using
technology. With technology students have the opportunity to engage in meaningful

learning experiences such as:

0 Representation: Providing representation of ideas and processes that are difficult
or impossible to represent without technology
Information: Providing access to data and content
Transformation: Changing the nature of tasks in which students engage

Collaboration: Facilitating communication and collaboration with peers and
experts (p. 145)

Additionally, McCrory offers ‘affordances’ for teaching with technology that “support
the work of teaching for meaningfirl learning (p. 148).” She encourages teachers to
consider five dimensions in which technology (from pencils to computers) can support
teaching.

0 Boundaries: What are the topics the technology supports and where will students

work on them?
0 Stability: To what extent, and at what pace, will the technology change over

time?

Authority: To what extent does the technology provide authoritative content?

Pedagogical Context: To what extent, and with what tools, does the technology

support managing, monitoring, and evaluating student work?

0 Disciplinary Context: To what extent and in what ways does the technology

provide a coherent flow of ideas in the domain or structure the development of

skills or processes? (p. 148)
Finally, McCrory reminds us that not every type of technology fits every dimension.
Teachers need to make every effort to understand the appropriateness of a given
technology as they consider adding technology to their learning activities or to their
practice.

In order to support teachers in this process of technology fluency, as with any
reform, teacher learning considerations are critical. The research literature reminds us
that teachers, as adult learners, have agency over their learning (Davis & Krajcik, 2005)

which implies they are able to choose what to learn and often when such learning is to

occur. Since teachers learn through the actual act of teaching, learning is situated in the

daily practice of teaching (Putnam & Borko, 2000). While subject matter is a primary
goal for teachers, a strong sense of pedagogy combined with technological knowledge are
also important for teaching the 2 1 st century learner. According to Shulman and Shulman
(2004) teacher learning requires vision, motivation, understanding, practice, reflection,
and community. King and Newmann (2000) contend teacher learning must focus on
student outcomes, incorporate opportunities for experimentation and study, allow for
collaboration, and include teacher influence over professional development decisions.
Davis (2003) in her work, “Change is Hard” encourages professional development
providers to acknowledge that some degree of ‘dissonance’ is required before teachers
are willing to change their existing practice. Some teachers are willing to change solely
for the chance to do something new and different in their classroom, especially, if they
believe it will enhance the learning of their students. Davis also points out that any
professional development experience must provide a modicum of time for teachers to
maintain and sustain new practices.
Purpose of the Study

This dissertation, qualitative in nature, is organized as a series of individual and
independent essays of case studies focused on the following interrelated research
questions:

0 How do experienced teachers rationalize excluding educational technology from
their practice?

0 What obstacles do experienced teachers face once the decision is made to become
fluent in technology?

0 How does the theory of “knowledge brokering” support technology fluency ’
especially for the experienced teacher?

0 What changes in existing professional development experiences will promote
increased fluency in technology?

In the chapters that follow, the voices of teachers have been used to bring greater
understanding to the difficulties teachers encounter while working to change their
practice. The teachers include a university instructor and K — 12 content area teachers.
Most of these teacher participated in extensive technology related professional
development outside of contractual hours and without additional compensation. They
encountered a variety of obstacles along the way and received less than significant
support from local or district administrators.

Within these chapters, teacher change and teachers as learners are emphasized. None
of these teachers have been directed to change. In other words, infusing their curriculum
with technology was not part of any reform mandate at the local level. This lack of
‘requirement’ is often at the heart of why the integration of technology has been avoided
and teachers have been allowed to include technology as an option for how they present
instruction or how they help students to learn. Each teacher has chosen her own path and
the only commonality may be the researcher who also functioned as facilitator for some
of the technology related professional development mentioned in their individual stories.

About Research Design and Methods
Case study, with data collected through semi-structured interviews, and
portraiture were used as the research methods for this dissertation. These methods were
selected as being better suited to accommodate the open ended questions used in the
interviews and for creating the narrative. I decided these methods provided the best
options for meeting my goal of ‘getting inside the heads’ of my experienced teacher ,

subjects.

10

Seeking Understanding Case by Case

Case study method was selected because much can be learned when attention is
directed toward a single case (Stake, 2005). Using cases would allow for a more
individualized examination of the research subjects. Both intrinsic case study, the case of
a university instructor, and instrumental case study (Stake, 2005), with multiple cases,
made it possible to investigate a specific subset of teachers, those identified as
experienced with at least fifteen years in the classroom, and the phenomenon of
becoming fluent in technology. This method was also useful for identifying any patterns
of behavior that might be meaningful for interpreting how subgroups might function
(Stake, 2005) within the larger group. Further, as Stake explains, the case study method
creates a way for the researcher to “understand the case in the most expected and
respected ways” passing “along to the readers some of their personal meanings of events
and relationships . . . reconstructing knowledge (p. 455).”

Yin (2003) provided the structure for the analysis of the interview data collected.
By using theory-building structures a sense of organization and order was created from
seemingly disconnected data. The theories or themes were used to break down areas of
commonality and identify differences from each teacher’s individual story. Later these
structures were reexamined using cross-case analysis (Yin, 2003) to form a set of
generalizations from all the cases within a particular study. With this option I could
focus on the individual teacher first and then redirect the focus to the group as a whole.
This made understanding of the problems of technology fluency clearer and pointed out

any overarching theories about possible causes and solutions.

11

The multiple cases used in this dissertation followed the same basic format for the
collection, analysis, and the reporting of data. Teachers were interviewed using a semi -
structured interview protocol with probing questions interjected in spaces to provide
clarity or where the context took an ‘interesting’ turn. All interviews were audio
recorded then transcribed and reviewed by the researcher. The research questions for
each set of cases were used to guide the creation of the narrative including some data
which revealed unexpected information that took on more of a presence then initially
anticipated. Data was coded thematically and each case was analyzed using theory
building structures followed by a cross case analysis to develop generalizations where
possible. All teachers, with the exception of the university instructor, were interviewed in
their classrooms to encourage a more informal, relaxed setting in which to paint their
portraits.

Using Portraiture to Paint a Narrative Picture

Portraiture was selected as the method for narrating the stories of the various
teachers in the cases presented. My relationship with the teachers had already been
established and since I would continue working with them as a facilitator for professional
development, I recognized that the relationship between the subjects and the researcher
could potentially influence my ability to remain completely objective. Portraiture as a
method is based on the relationships that emerge or evolve between the researcher and
the subject(s) and encourages a sense of informality unlike other research methods.
Using this method allowed me to paint a picture while creating a work that includes “both
analytic rigor and human connection, both inquiry and intervention (Lawrence-Lightfoot,

2005, p. 10).” As a result the reader will find my voice interspersed through out the

12

narrative of the cases. This interference occurs in an effort to “shift away from questions
that emerge out of perceived gaps in the academic literature to research seeking to
respond to problems in the field” (p. 8) — that is, how are experienced teachers coping
with the need to be fluent in technology? The use of portraiture permits my voice to be
peripheral and occasionally central. The nature of this method introduces “the person of
the researcher” (p. 11) that is more apparent and discernible than other research structures
(Lawrence-Lightfoot, 2005).

Using this method I tried to give life to the teachers so that their plight might be
better understood as seen through the eyes of an intimate who has often worked side by
side with them. In essence, the “voice of preoccupation” (Lawrence-Lightfoot & Davis,
1997, p. 93) shapes the lens through which I see my colleagues. As an educational
technology advocate, an educator, and a trainer of teachers, I have expectations and
standards that differ from other researchers with dissimilar backgrounds. Occasionally,
my “voice as autobiographer” (p. 95) slips into the pages though I have tried to minimize
these instances to places in the narrative where clarity and interpretation evolve though a
more ‘knowledgeable’ perspective associated with my personal background.

Snapshot of the Chapters

In the narrative chapters that follow, we encounter one teacher who makes us
wonder if efforts toward technology fluency are futile and another who has tried to ride
the technology band wagon and decided the ride is not worth the bother after all. We also
hear from a group of teachers who share their attitudes about educational technology

before and after a professional development intervention. And, finally, we meet two

13

teachers who are determined to infuse technology whenever it is practical and beneficial
to their students.

In Chapter Two, “I ’ve Never Had an Intimate Relationship with a Machine”:
Remaining Digitally Distant, using a case study and portraiture, I examine the attitudes
and practices of a single teacher who deliberately excluded the use of technology in her
practice. While a number of survey studies attempt to define the barriers (Ertmer, 1999)
or the levels of technology competency of teachers (Becker, 1999; Smerdon, Cronen, et
al. 2000) the reporting of aggregate data fails to get to the heart of why technology
fluency has been so difficult for some teachers. The study of one teacher who declares 'I
have never had an intimate relationship with a machine ...' allows us to examine why
some teachers seem to be reluctant to embrace technology. The fault may not lie in
equipment shortages, lack of expected support, or time to learn new uses (Ertmer, 1999).
Perhaps a teacher is simply fearful or apprehensive of any innovative tool found inside or
outside of a classroom. This chapter looks at just such a teacher who sees no reason to
change her practice to include technology. Her belief in the technology is overshadowed
by her avoidance of technology. In this case study or portrait of one teacher, the subject
and I, try to determine what issues prevent the inclusion of instructional technology as a
part of teacher practice.

Chapter Three, From Whence Cometh My Help: A Case of Professional
Development, examines ways in which issues of professional development of teachers
impacts the sustainability of skills. This chapter includes several cases of experienced
teachers who had recently completed an intensive technology related professional

development. Narrative in format, the chapter examines experienced teachers personal

14

and professional use of technology before and after the technology related professional
development. Teachers also reflect on some of the issues and concerns they faced while
attempting to gain 21 st century skills. Since professional development plays an
important part in teacher learning, experienced teachers shared their ideas about effective
professional development especially as it related to technology. The study also attempts
to delve into issues of sustainability once knowledge has been acquired. Rapid changes
in technology means teachers need support that continues after their time with facilitators
and workshop leaders is over. The concept of “knowledge brokering” is introduced in
this chapter.

Chapter Four, Tale of Three Teachers: “Running as Fast as I Can, ” also a
multiple case study, revisits two teachers after a five year lapse. A new teacher, one with
prior knowledge of technology, is introduced because of her late in career encounter with
technology integration. The chapter explores the ways three experienced teachers have
been coping with the challenges of becoming and remaining fluent in technology in the
ensuing years since the initial interventions. Semi structured interviews and portraiture
are the methods used to develop historical portraits of three teachers. Within the life
history format, these teachers were asked to discuss innovations available during the
course of their teaching careers. Technology takes on a Postman (1993) perspective
when we explore the use of classroom innovations such as opaque projectors, tape
recorders, and overhead projectors. The interview data permits scrutiny of how attitudes
toward technology integration have altered or become more established. Through their
eyes we gain a perspective of how teachers deal with the complexities of including

technology in their practice.

15

The study was designed to examine the efficacy of professional development
techniques for promoting technology fluency. The teachers in these cases wanted to
move beyond learning about how technology works to learning how to integrate
technology into their content (Windschitle & Sahl, 2002). They also wanted to motivate
students as a path toward increasing student achievement. Constructed as life histories,
these accounts were designed to seek out similarities to help understand what motivates
teachers to become late adapters (Rogers, 1995) in changing or altering their practice in
the area of educational technology. Did these teachers succumb to Ertmer’s (1999)
findings that barriers of time, support, and adequate training influenced their move away
from fluency? What kinds of professional development activities might have altered their
choice to delay or avoid implementing educational technology as part of their teaching
practice? Once the decision was made to become technologically fluent, what processes
did these teachers use to meet their goals? Finally, what techniques or resources were
identified as most efficacious for them within their content area and personal growth?

Chapter Five, Shifting the Professional Development Paradigm: Coaches,
Cheerleaders, or Both, takes a dramatic turn from empirical research to a call for
changes in policy. Persuasive in nature, this essay calls for the revamping of the current
professional development model to challenge the way technology fluency is handled
particularly for experienced teachers. Focusing on the theories of “knowledge
brokering,” the essay first examines generalized notions of effective professional
development and then expands them to accommodate a framework for the “knowledge
broker” as support for technology fluency. While conceding that “knowledge brokering”

may be beneficial to all teachers, this form of technology related professional

l6

development for experienced teachers, who are often reluctant to change, may be more
appropriate and appreciated.

To begin the process of developing technologically fluent teachers, I argue that
quality time, targeting content, active learning, collaboration and collegiality, and
ongoing support are the rudimentary requirements for effective technology related
professional development. While much of the literature about effective professional
development literacy includes eight categories (Hawley, 1999), in this essay I have
selected only those categories most likely to promote technology fluency:

0 Quality time — longer duration professional development events allow for more

variations in learning and time for elaboration and the fine tuning of skills (Cohen
& Hill, 2000).

o Targeting content - educational reform studies noted that teachers were more
likely to alter their practice when professional development focused on content
(Desimone, et al., 2002) and not generalities.

0 Active learning - teachers need opportunities to manipulate, explore, and grapple
with professional development content (Desimone, et al., 2002).

0 Collaboration and collegiality - effective professional development is often
categorized as learning in a shared environment where participant interaction is an
expectation (Hargreaves, 1999; Zhao & Frank, 2003)

o Ongoing support - Sugar (2005) points out the need to focus on those teachers
“who do not feel confident using computers and other technology tools in their
instruction. (p. 549)” beyond the initial inservice.

Knowledge brokering theory is introduced into the professional development
equation as an extension of ongoing support. I use the theory of knowledge brokering as
a fiamework for sustaining technology fluency through professional development
especially where experienced teachers are concerned. The concepts from Oldham and
McLean (1999) are used to argue that the knowledge broker is critical for the ongoing
support component in technology related professional development. White’s (1987)

notion of the teacher as a broker of scholarly knowledge is paired with Wenger’s (2000)

17

inclusion of knowledge brokers as explorers of uncharted areas tasked with bringing
knowledge back to the community for its benefit.

Each of these writers offers viable solutions to providing experienced teachers
with the knowledge they need through a different paradigm of the traditional professional
development configuration. Changes to how teachers prepare to infuse technology into
their pedagogy, their curriculum, and their personal knowledge base will impact the pace
at which they develop technology fluency.

Limitations of the Overall Study

There is a possibility for bias to be present in the cases since some of the teachers
were colleagues with the researcher and because of the researcher’s role as facilitator in
the Intel Teach to the Future inservice. Teachers may have wished to ‘please’ the
researcher or attempt to recount information they felt the researcher wanted to hear.

The small sample size of this study diminishes the potential for generalizations to
be made about all experienced teachers and their efforts to become more fluent in the use
of technology. However, the design of the cases does allow for a more in—depth
perspective of teachers that may be reflective of other experienced teachers who are not
tech savvy and may, therefore, permit the appreciation for the complexities involved in
becoming technology fluent.

Little regard was given to the cost associated with any implementation of
technology whether it is for equipment or professional development. Lack of funding is
often listed among the barriers to technology integration yet teachers, schools, and _

districts have found and used creative ways to fund equipment. A conscious choice was

18

made for this study to assume that cost was not a factor preventing teachers from gaining
access to knowledge about technology for either personal or professional use.

The role of leadership was not a consideration for this study despite understanding
that principals who are strong advocates of technology often are able to motivate and
encourage teachers to use technology by providing the resources they need. Building
administrators can be key players in the direction their staff takes to embrace technology
for student learning and increased achievement. This concept was deliberately avoided
unless a participant specifically made note of leadership. In the cases studied, none of the
participants indicated any influence by leadership to encourage or discourage their
involvement with educational technology.

Finally, all the teachers in the cases were female thereby leaving any notions of
technology fluency for male teachers unexplored. This lapse is due to the research
sampling that provided no male teachers able to meet the criteria. Few males participated

in the inservice and none met the criteria as an experienced teacher.

19

Chapter 2

“I Have Never Had an Intimate Relationship with a Machine”:
Remaining Digitally Distant

Despite the almost ubiquitous state of computers and other technology tools
available for classroom use, technology integration has not become a routine part of
teacher practice. Many second order barriers (Ertmer, 1999) intrinsic to teachers, which
“include beliefs about teaching, beliefs about computers, established classroom practice,
and unwillingness to change,” (p.48) are determining factors in the choices teachers
make. Pierson (2001) noted three descriptors teachers used to refer to integrating
technology in their classrooms. These references demonstrate the range of what it means
to integrate technology. The first descriptor referred to teachers’ messages to students
which presented views of the computer as isolated from the curriculum and a source of
entertainment. The second descriptor indicated teachers’ view of the computer as a tool
in the classroom to be mastered in and of itself. The final descriptor indicative of a more
realistic integration of technology, conversely, saw the computer as an appropriate tool
for an activity within the curriculum fiamework. Successful integration of technology is
dependent upon a teachers’ vision and the availability of modeling to demonstrate
examples of technology integration that support new and better ways of teaching and
learning. (Burns, 2002; Ertmer, 1999; Kanaya, Light, & Culp, 2005; Maddux & Johnson,
2005; Pierson, 2001).

Using portraiture, this single subject case study seeks to answer three questions
related to teachers and technology integration in schools. How does one teacher describe

her relationship with instructional technology? What aspects of her background add to or

20

detract from her proficient integration of technology? What role might professional
development play in supporting someone like her in the area of technology integration?
Developing the Initial Sketch

This is a case study of a single teacher reported through portraiture as the
methodology and, as a case study, it is more intrinsic than instrumental (Stake, 2005).
Though the selection of these research tools the goal is to study one teacher’s beliefs,
attitudes, and actions allowing the reader to make his/her own comparisons with others
[teachers] around them (Stake, 2005). Combining these tools with a relationship of trust
and a shared understanding of the need to examine a phenomenon, a fellow scholar who
understood my motives, my interests and my concerns about teachers and technology
became a valuable research resource. As Stake (2005) explains the “researcher can come
to understand the case in the most expected and respected ways. . . . pass along to readers
some of their personal meanings of events and relationships . . . reconstructing the
knowledge. (p. 455).” By close examination of one subject on the narrow topic of a
teacher and her relationship with technology, Janine’s “pattern of behavior may be useful
for the interpretation of the functioning of several subgroups” (Stake, 2005, p. 452) such
as teachers and teacher educators.

Presenting Janine’s story as a case study of one subject allows for a glimpse into the
larger body of teachers who struggle to avoid technology while acknowledging its place
in the world around them and that of their students. While we cannot explore the minds
of all teachers who remain among the “technologically challenged,” we can hope that
hearing one story will inform us in some small way and provide insights about other

experienced teachers (Stake, 2005). Portraiture was selected as a way to tell Janine’s

21

story because of “its ability to document the beautiful/ugly that are so much a part of the
texture of human development and social relationships (Lawrence-Lightfoot, 2005, p.
9).” Janine has something to say about her own feelings or concerns that needs to be
heard and needs to be shared by others like her. She is taking a risk bearing her soul to
an avowed techie and placing herself in a vulnerable position. By using portraiture the
relationship between researcher and subject can be minimized by the techniques ability
“to produce analytic rigor and human connection, both inquiry and intervention
(Lawrence-Lightfoot, 2005, p. 10).”

Meeting as classmates during work on advanced degrees allowed Janine and I to
develop a relationship of mutual trust and respect This relationship made selecting her
as a research subject comfortable and reduced the period of adjustment often required
between researcher and subject. Lawrence-Lightfoot (2005) noted as researchers ‘er
enter people’s lives, build relationships, engage in discourse, make an imprint . . . and
leave (p. 12).” For Janine it meant openly sharing her personal anxiety about technology
and revealing what might be construed as a deficiency in her classroom instruction. In
telling her story as portraitist I hope to give voice to her fears and concerns while
elucidating the needs to meet the challenges of inviting technology into classrooms and
acknowledging the role of teacher educators to do so. The purpose for telling Janine’s
story is to present a view of the part to understand the whole. For “as one moves closer
to the unique characteristics of one person one discovers the universal (Lawrence-

Lightfoot, 2005, p. 12).”

22

Selecting the Portraitist’s Tools

This mini-inquiry, in the form of a case study, is a portrait of one veteran higher
education teacher who admits to being technologically challenged. Janine‘, as the
research subject, teaches prospective teachers how to teach science and is a professional
development facilitator for a local community college working with inservice teachers.
She volunteered for this study while we were participating in a graduate level course.
The relationship as classmates seemed well suited for the use of portraiture methodology
as described by Lawrence-Lightfoot (2005) in that as a portraitist creating a narrative that
“fully attended to, recognized, appreciated, respected, and scrutinized” (p. 6) Janine was
critical for this study. What Janine would provide through the sharing of her professional
history would be a look at an instructor of preservice and inservice teachers in light of the
challenge presented in the National Education Technology Plan (Patrick, 2004) to include
technology rich curriculum in K — 12 classrooms. Janine’s story would be used to
explore what technology knowledge a teacher of teachers would bring to the issue of
preparedness for technology integration. Her sharing would offer a glimpse of this
knowledge not only for her own practice but that of students preparing to teach in K - 12
environments.

A ninety minute semi-structured interview consisting of eleven questions (see
appendix for interview protocol), which focused on general professional development
experiences, teaching experiences, personal use of technology, and technology use in
teaching practices, was used to gather initial data. The interview was audio taped for

transcription by the researcher. Janine, an experienced teacher, and the researcher also

 

1" .
Note subject’s real name.

23

had casual conversations, which provided either clarity or additional information. At
least one email exchange occurred in response to a missing probing question not elicited
in the initial interview.
Exploring the Artist’s Palette
The interview protocol focused on four categories or families of study:
The subject’s knowledge of technology in general;
The subject’s use of technology both for personal and professional use;
The subject’s involvement in professional development activities in general;

The subject’s teaching experiences and practices including but not limited to
any related to technology.

The audiotapes were reviewed and transcribed by the researcher. From the
transcription, efforts were made to match the subject’s commentary with the four families
of study noted above. After many iterative reviews of the transcript and the audiotape,
the data was analyzed through a lens of teacher change, teacher knowledge, and
professional development. Janine’s story does much to inform us about how and why
teachers acquire knowledge; why teachers are willing or unwilling to change their
practice; and what the influence of professional development might have on teacher
knowledge or change.

Portrait of a T echnologically Challenged Teacher ‘
I have never really had a truly intimate relationship with a machine.
(40)
Janine, 2005
Historical Perspective

The results of the data analysis were surprising and diverged significantly from the

scope of the initial queries. In a very short period of time, Janine, revealed the source of

her technologically challenged status. According to Janine, “I have never really had a

truly intimate relationship with a machine.” (40) Her interaction with anything

24

mechanical, let alone, technology oriented is adversarial at best. Janine craves simplicity
and requires household devices that follow her canon that “I just need the basics.” (42)
Her explanation raises a challenge for technology advocates: If teachers’ techno-phobia
can be explained as distaste for technology in most aspects of life, how can we convince
teachers to embrace it in their classrooms? However, upon further review, Janine offers a
great deal of insight into much about the role of instructional technology from the
perspective of a technologically challenged teacher who has watched the cycles of
changes in education ebb and flow.

Janine started her teaching career in the middle school and, due to family obligations,
left for a number of years to be a stay at home mom. After a brief return, Janine left K-
12 teaching again. Her return to teaching was at a community college where she has
worked for eighteen years with local area science teachers providing professional
development activities to keep teachers current of developments in the state’s changing
science curriculum. She also teaches other science related courses to the general
population of community college students. Janine also teaches at a nearby university
while working on her graduate studies.

The first indication that my interview is not going to be focused exclusively on
technology in classrooms surfaces with Janine’s explanation about her almost phobic
relationship with computers. She experiences symptoms one would recognize in
situations that elicit fear and anxiety when using what she calls ‘The Machine.’ “My
breathing changes” (63 & 65) or “It takes my breath away,” (1 l l) is stated on more than
one occasion. Explaining further she noted, “There’s something that happens inside my

body. I can feel physiologically different headed into a lab that has computers in it that I

25

am supposed to instruct with (177).” Her fear is based on knowledge that comes from
her place in life. Janine shares her images of computers comes from childhood memories
of computers portrayed in movies as big cumbersome machines, often ominous in nature.
These bulky machines were forever breaking down with merely an ill placed keystroke or
some other mishap. “Just the whole concept of pushing the wrong button and having
everything stop,” (36) explains Janine’s dread at the thought of using computers. In her
undergraduate years, Janine consciously selected a physics class which had long been
avoided, rather than face the fear of crashing the system in her other option of a

Computer Science class.

“I could either take Physics, which has threatened me all of my life or I
could take a Computer Science class. Well, at that time, that would be
1971, 70ish, computers filled a whole room. So I bit the bullet and I took
physics because I was so terrified.” (Nervous laughter.) (36)

This kind of phobia, whether based on imagined consequences or real occurrences,
has kept Janine at a distance when using many kinds of technological innovations. For
Janine, this is apparent in the simplicity she expects and accepts from the ‘machinery’ in
her life. She relates, “My washing machine is so simple. I don’t own a dishwasher. I
don’t own a can opener. I twist them (hand gestures of turning a can opener). I don’t get
along with them.” (40)

With a bit of coaxing Janine tells me more about other uses of technology in her life.
By asking her how she uses ‘The Machine’ she reveals the use of Word and the
attachments she sends with email. She is able to use Excel but cannot construct an Excel
spreadsheet. Janine has a printer with fax capabilities which she knows how to use and

she has managed to develop her own ways of using the technology around her.

26

[How do you use technology to take care of the things you need to do as a
teacher or as an instructor?] I’m thinking. The first thing that came to my
head is just going to be an unusual quote. You may not want to use this as
a quote. [Should I turn it (the recorder) offl] (Gestures to leave it on.)
When I think about what it is I have to do and I’m afraid because life is
extraordinarily full and I’m afraid that I might not remember that, I call
home and leave myself a message. So, on my phone right now... [So you
have messaging on your phone? That’s technology] On my phone right
now it tells me three things I will need to do tonight which are for packing
the StanoBox, the great big crate I carry of material that I don’t want to
forget for next Wednesday’s class. So I use that technology to help keep
order in my life. (202 —-— 209)

We can observe a paradox here. Though professing to be technologically challenged,
Janine seems to be handling the changes and the innovations as well as can be expected.
Constrained by Limited Knowledge

Janine is so convinced that she is lacking in knowledge about technology that her
responses to the question about how she uses technology both personally and for her
classroom resulted in requests for examples. To Janine, technology equals computer so
any other categories require specifics. Despite Janine’s reluctance, she has more skills
than one might expect and may not be as technologically illiterate as either of us
suspected when the interviewbegan. She has a good understanding of how to use basic
applications to make her work more productive. Word processing, email, and the lntemet
are staples in her productivity tool basket although she states she understands minimally
how to function in these applications. What is difficult is determining what skills and
knowledge Janine has about technology in general. In our interview it takes a great deal
of prodding and probing to find out exactly what Janine actually knows and what she is
able to do.

Janine has learned just enough to function in an environment that has a certain degree

of expectation, however, at times she must rely on others to accomplish some of her

27

teaching related tasks. For example, the additions to her syllabus and course pack require
a format, that of a typed hardcopy, rather than one that is handwritten. This socially
imposed sanction forced Janine to learn the rudiments of word processing which leads to
more technology use in that Janine must now learn to use her printer. The printer has
faxing capability so she gets to add more to her list. When she is unsure of a procedure
or can avoid learning new functionality she calls on a colleague in her office to handle
these needs. She uses an output that required tables as an example of a word processing
feature she has not learned how to do.

Much of her classroom communication is done by writing on the Whiteboards and “I
do speak a lot. I do talk a lot” (227) when students need directions for activities. Many
of the classrooms she uses are equipped with video projectors but Janine does not use
them. She knows what can be done but chooses to avoid the ever-impending danger of
losing control of the classroom environment when taking the risk of using what she

considers to be untrustworthy technology.

[In your classroom do you use the overhead?] I do. Oh, no. [The big
projector?] Oh, no. The one in the ceiling? [You don’t use that either?]
Oh, no. That has switches and has all sorts of buttons. Oh no. I don’t use
that. I use the overhead overhead. .. . (124 — 129) To think about
hooking up my laptop to that machine that projects is more overwhelming
than I could ever think about doing. I would have to come the night
before and test it and then, come very early in the morning and reset it up
to make sure it worked. I don’t trust it. There is a trust issue here. (135)

Janine is also an lntemet user and finds navigating through browser software less
complicated and cumbersome than other applications. Nevertheless, when a shortcut to
access a web site is missing from the desktop of the computers in one of the campus
computer labs, she is temporarily caught off guard. She has requested a link to a specific

web site be placed on the desktops, but fails to check to see if her request has been

28

honored. Too her dismay the link is not present “And so I had to very, very quickly I
tried to the pour from the memory where MiClimb is located, what the address is and
work fi'om there.” (157) Fortunately, she is able to remember the location and relieved
because “If I didn’t have such a strong understanding of where that’s located, that
classroom would have been a lost moment and a half hour of my precious three hours
with those students a week would have been gone.” (165)

One could hear the delight in Janine’s voice at being able to achieve what seems like
a very small thing — retrieve a web address — when the technology has proved again not
to be trusted. Janine credits her ability to overcome this potential disaster with her
personal effort involved in knowing how to access the site she needed. She has, in effect,
focused on the portion of a particular technology and garnered knowledge that is useful to
meet a specific need for her classroom. Janine makes it clear she does not want her time
with students squandered by technology problems and malfunctions. Fear and anxiety
seem to be intertwined when using technology for instructional purposes involving direct
student contact.
The Battle Rages On

For Janine the strife she experiences with The Machine is on-going and she makes a
great effort to maintain the upper hand. Queried about this intimidating situation, Janine

explains that

I battle the machine. Every day I am confronted with a new problem on

the machine and so you just grin and bear it and sometimes you say vulgar
words to it and then you try to get on with it. but the whole idea of not ‘
using it is ridiculous in this culture that we’re in right now. It’s such a
battle. (61)

29

It is little wonder that she has made the progress that she has. The Machine, marketed
by the technology manufacturer as user friendly and helpful, is all too often unforgiving

and unpredictable. Janine’s anxiety has led to what she calls an “issue of trust.”

I don’t trust it. There is a trust issue here. And I can talk about that trust
issue. When you depend upon something to work and even though it is
already to go and it did work before, there is no guarantee that is going to
work when you need it. And if your presentation or your work is counting
on that then I have found it very frustrating. (137)

Janine is not willing to relinquish or jeopardize that control for the whims of

technology that may or may not work as expected when needed.

I’m not willing to take that risk. I have X amount of time and if the
machine is not working then you spend; you spend precious moments
trying to figure out what is wrong. The pressure is intense. I would just
prefer to know that I’m ready with materials to do the work that I have to
do... (147)

Janine’s description of family responsibilities that created gaps in her professional life
might help explain what could be construed as a lack of interest in instructional
technology and why the battle continues. She has made choices about what she will learn

and when.

I graduated from Western with my undergraduate in 1973, so in the last 40
years it has been truly a revolution in technology. In taking a telephone
off the wall and being able to move out to your deck and make a phone
call. And now putting this little, tiny, little bitty square in your pocket and
it can take pictures and can text and it can do so many things. It’s been a
revolution in 40 years. If you’ve been a busy person being a mom and a
teacher and a wife and sometimes even being a self, how much more can
you put into a day? How much more learning is there?” (338)

The issue of priority surfaces and Janine is clear that when certain choices needed to be
made, like learning to be technologically literate, her priorities were, and still are, .
directed elsewhere. Janine feels badly about not being more technologically aware yet
makes no apologies at the same time. She speaks of priorities and the time needed to

commit to those priorities. “1 am forced to do some of this technology now. I’m

30

absolutely forced. And because I’m forced I spend the time but it takes me so much more
time to use the technology than to simply write something (347).” Paired with parental
responsibility, Janine’s selection in the past has been in favor of her family life leaving
her to struggle to meet today’s challenges of technology in the classroom after much of
the ground work has been laid.
Developing a Professional Self

The question of professional development is posed in the hopes that Janine has
experienced some of the workshops so prevalent in the early days of computers in
classrooms. However, her teaching career has provided little or no exposure to the
typical professional development experiences. She does, however, discuss being
mentored in the early stages of her teaching career when assigned as a Special Education
teacher, with little background in this area, she was mentored by several experienced
Special Education teachers who recognized her lack of preparation. One teacher in
particular joined Janine for lunch each day. “We had lunch together everyday, but we
never ate (3 2).” Janine explains her professional development opportunities in higher

education as follows:

[. .. what opportunities have you had to become more technologically
proficient? What kinds of professional development opportunities have
you had?] I would have to say I’ve had very few opportunities. I did sign
up to take a basic introductory computing class as a faculty member but
the class was full so I was unable to do that. And my schedule just does
not allow me to much more than I am presently doing. (101)

Any technology related professional development has been primarily informal
especially since Janine prefers to work one-on-one because she feels she needs the slower
pace to learn things. She explains that a colleague at the community college where she

teaches helps her in various ways. Sometimes a peer shows her how to do things and

31

sometimes she responds to Janine’s requests for items that can be created using

technology.

I have watched my fiiend do the work and then tried to duplicate that task
on the machine the next time a similar task is necessary. She is ever so
patient and tries multiple times to teach me the functions. My friend has

served as a personal tutor — providing patient and repetitive instruction.
(363)

Janine also a bit intimidated by classmates in technology related professional
development who appear to be more comfortable and skilled by comparison. Our
conversation below sheds some light on why avoidance and insecurity play into Janine’s

missing knowledge.

[Prior to your induction into the Ph.D. program were there not
opportunities for you to learn technology?] Probably. There were
probably. [And you didn’t use them?] I chose not to. [Why? If the may
be so bold as to ask.] It takes so long. It takes my breath away. There are
these little whippersnappers who are used to technology since the time
they were in kindergarten and the pace at which I have to learn is so much
slower than what they are able to do it. So even as I sat in a computer
class to see if that was the one I needed, I was trying to test to see where I
might begin this journey into computer understanding. I wasn’t able to
keep up with the instruction because it went it’s all very fast. So I’m
thinking about some of the instruction that they give at senior centers as a
very fine place to begin to get some of this understanding. Where the
instruction is more one on one and it’s slower. (105 — 111)

This leads to queries about how she remains current with new science trends and
innovations and she reveals that she does so through her colleagues. “Since I primarily
focus on education methods in science and have a broad network of colleagues, I am
introduced to programs that apply to the science field in that manner (367).”

Janine projects an image of a dedicated content or subject matter educator determined
to create teachers who are well prepared to handle inquiry based science to Support
student learning. She speaks of the dedicated teachers she works with at Saturday

workshops and explains her determination to promote inquiry based practices that

32

support the state content standards and benchmarks. This focus does not include

technology components and the use of technology comes off almost as an imposition.

I would just prefer to know that I’m ready with materials to do the work
that I have to do, because the computer is not that enhancing. It doesn’t

enhance the work that I have to do. Not only the work that I have to do,
but the work that I do with students. I don’t see it as an enhancing quality.
(147)

She is positioned in a space of comfort for herself and is confident in her choice not
to change what appears to be working just frne.

It should be noted that though Janine indicates she is unfamiliar with technology she
was involved in a program to bring science probes to teachers. Though she understands
conceptually how the probes can assist in soil and water study she does not actually know
how to use the probes. They are not a part of professional development activities she
conducts with inservice teachers or the classes she teaches to preservice teachers.
Teachers receiving probes are trained by the manufacturer and receive a personal probe
in addition to a classroom set. Janine did not receive that training, “because I am not part
of that program. I just helped decide that that would be a good method (261).”

Collegial Support

Janine does not plan to include teacher uses of technology in her instruction,
indicating the addition of technology beyond what she currently uses with students will
not enhance what she does. However, there is a university technology requirement for
her prospective teachers and Janine has found a way to compensate for her fear or anxiety
with technology by using the resources around her. Acknowledging her lack of skills,
Ishe uses the human capital on the campus when the need arises. Her rationale suggests
that finding and using skilled colleagues or resource staff would be a simpler solution

than learning the skills herself.

33

. .. because I am not trained and I realize I’m not trained, I go to the gentle
caring natures of this campus and I pulled up those individuals who are
trained to do that. So I find the resources within knowing that . . . I’ve not
developed that knowledge base enough to be a meaningful teacher. (271)

So the analogy that I’m drawing here is that if we all have those areas of
expertise and we’re all able to find those individuals to supply what we are
deficit in, it seems to me to make very good sense to use those qualities,
those leamings from other individuals in your own class, which is
probably why I have been able to escape understanding the machine for so
long. (279)

Janine admits she does not have to do this if others are available. She does not,
however, create a clear picture of what exactly others do in her classroom though she
does mention getting help to teach students web design. Janine justifies this arrangement

by relating her vision of new teachers working in concert with experienced teachers.

They’re [new teachers] coming armed with a background and
understanding of certain technological uses. (289)

And I’m saying the veteran teachers understanding classroom
management . . . and the system of education. We know that there is a
system in learning and administration and all of that. And the elders in
that community can provide that information to the newcomers. The
newcomers can provide the technology information for the elders. (293)

Janine suggests that some consideration should be given to pairing new teachers, who
bring a level of comfort and knowledge of technology, and veteran teachers, who offer
pedagogical and classroom management experience. This coupling would form a
partnership where each teacher would bring skills for exchange that would be mutually
beneficial.

Janine makes no mention of rectifying the circumstances that leave her unable to
provide technology integration skills and knowledge to her preservice teachers. Her
opportunity to become more comfortable and knowledgeable about technology will come
when her degree program ends. “And my schedule just does not allow me to much more

than I am presently doing. My promise to me is that I’m going to bite the bullet when

34

I’m done and I’m going to take a series of classes (101).” Her solution, nevertheless,
does little for preparing preservice teachers to stand on their own in their future
classrooms.

As we prepare to close our interview our conversation turns to the National
Educational Technology Standards for Students, Teachers, and Administrators (ISTE,
2000). Janine is unaware of NETS and how they can be paired with curriculum standards
and benchmarks for content area. Asked what needs to happen to make her more capable
in her classroom with technology, Janine responds, “I would have to have a lot of
practice. I just need to have some instruction some one-on-one with my binder close
by so I can replicate that time and time again (179).” The unasked question for Janine is
— where does that leave the preservice and inservice teachers who face you in classrooms
devoid of technology rich curriculum experiences? As researchers in teacher education
programs the question becomes - what can be done to assist Janine and others like her in
adding knowledge of technology to their teaching repertoires?

Interpretation of a Portrait

The National Education Technology Plan (NETP) (Patrick, 2004) has identified the
nation’s teachers as lacking in technology related skills that promote and enhance student
learning. The plan, presented to Congress in January of 2005, suggests that students
bring far more sophisticated technology skills to the classroom than the teachers that
teach them. Of particular note is that the data from the National Center for Education
Statistics (N CES) (Smerdon et al., 2000) claims experienced teachers, those with ten or
more years of classroom teaching, are less likely to be skilled in using technology in their

classrooms. Of the over 2,000 schools across the nation, 65% of teachers in the study fit

35

the category of experienced teachers suggesting if new teachers are more likely to be
skilled in using technology in the classroom, then we can estimate that only 35% of the
nation’s teachers are actually able to provide students with technology rich curriculum.
These data imply that many students are left with minimal opportunity to acquire skills
the NETP views as desirable. Despite the premise offered in the NETP, Russell, Bebell,
O’Dwyer, and O’Connor (2003) in their Use, Support and Effect of Instructional
Technology (U SEIT) Study reported new teachers were less likely to use technology for
instructional purposes and more likely to view technology as having a negative impact on
student learning. These conflicting statistics raise questions about how teachers think
about technology and their own relationship to it. J anine’s story may help us to
understand why some new teachers may not be as prepared to incorporate technology in
their practice.

Before exploring Janine’s lack of technology in her instructional practices and course
requirements, a disclaimer may be appropriate. I am not advocating an all encompassing
approach to using technology in classrooms. Technology should be a seamless, fluid part
of instruction and student learning. It is a multifaceted tool that can be selected from an
array of educational resources. There is value in using technology in classrooms for
teachers and students. However, not every aspect of the learning experience requires the
use of technology. In fact, it may be the worst choice for certain learning practices. I do
contend that teachers should be aware of technology alternatives for engaging students
and enhancing learning. Preservice teachers, though perhaps comfortable with a variety
of popular technology innovations, such as cell phones, lntemet research, and social

networking, need models and examples of appropriate instructional technology uses.

36

That few or minimal opportunities are explored limits their scope and diminishes what
they will carry to their future classrooms and students. As educators, we have a
responsibility to prepare youngsters for a highly technical non-industrial society
(Technology Counts, 2005: Hargreaves, 2003; Patrick, 2004) even when we understand
the speed at which technology changes.

I leave my interview with Janine to reflect on the deeper meaning of what she has
shared with me. My concern for the kinds of experiences preservice teachers receive
lingers. What have I learned from Janine’s story? What lessons have been presented on
how teacher educators fit in the goals of the National Education Technology Plan? What
kinds of professional development experienced might be helpful for teachers like Janine?
Student Knowledge of Technology

I encountered Janine several days after our interview as she was meeting with her
students. It was near the end of the semester and they came to her presenting hefty tomes
filled with lesson plans for future students. One student willingly shared her work with
me which consisted of neatly organized crisp new worksheets, many produced
electronically. When the student left, I asked Janine how much of the work referenced
technology use in the classroom. Janine replied, “None.” Technology is not modeled or
expected as part of the student course work. This discrepancy helps to explain the
findings and the data indicating that new teachers are least likely to use or feel prepared
to use technology in their classrooms (Russell et al., 2003; Smerdon et al., 2000). Janine
has implied her preservice teachers possess enough technology fluency to be a resource
for experienced teachers similar to her situation. As she declared in her interview, “They

come in understanding and not being afraid of the machine for instruction (291).” The

37

newcomers can provide the technology information for the elders (293).” The
assumption is problematic that preservice students arrive with technology skills and
experiences related to their content ready to easily integrate technology into the
curriculum.

Carroll and Morrell (2006) studied 49 faculty and 377 students in six small colleges
with similar education programs. Their findings indicated faculty and students were
“poorly versed in everything from graphics calculators to video editing software (p, 9).”
These researchers were most surprised to find that many common technology tools and
resources were unfamiliar to both students and faculty. Their findings conflict with
J anine’s notion of technology smart new teachers blending with technology challenged
experienced teachers. Carroll and Morrell remind us that “if it is important to insure that
students have technology skills related to the disciplines that we teach, then we cannot
assume that the students will come with those skills (p. 9).” And further, “we cannot
assume that our students’ experiences before they enter our classes will have provided
them with the technological expertise required both for teacher education programs and
for a lifetime of teaching (p. 9).” Janine’s students need the opportunities to, at the very
least, learn about technology and its integration into the science curriculum if the goals of
the NETP are to be realized.

A hopeful sign from our discussion about student work was Janine’s
acknowledgement of missing technology pieces and her explanation that she had not seen
the need for their inclusion. Adding technology elements even in small amounts had not
occurred to her. She explained that she does not know enough to ask her students to do

this and vows to be more cognizant in her future classes. Curiously, none of her assumed

38

technology adept students considered technology as a natural addition to their planning of
lessons.
Control versus Technology

If nothing else, we learn that maintaining control of her classroom environment is
paramount (Kennedy, 2005) to Janine. Technology use threatens or interferes with this
control by virtue of its unpredictability. Connecting this device to that device; starting
devices in proper sequence; adjusting this setting; and possessing the right combination
of devices and cables can be daunting indeed. It, meaning technology in general, cannot
be ‘trusted’ according to Janine to do what is needed and expected thereby causing her to
“lose precious minutes” (147) with her students while unraveling technical glitches. This
is just one of the barriers to using technology (Ertmer, 1999) which surfaced when the
computer was the newest innovation in the classroom. Diaz (2001) points out, “Most
faculty members want to learn things they can use, and can use quickly, to address
teaching and learning. They want to become "end users" of technology, not technicians
who must stay abreast. of every new development in hardware, software, and
programming skills.” Janine is quite comfortable with the older technology of an
overhead projector mainly because it connects to nothing that might complicate its use.
Her lack of skills, combined with her fear or anxiety, keep her from trying to change what
works consistently and reliably (Kennedy, 2005; Sikes, 1992).
Making Use of the Unknown

From her story we know that Janine is not totally without technology skills. She has

mastered quite a number of technology innovations, primarily because she often has no

choice. For example, certain documents are expected to be submitted as printed hard

39

copies, creating the subtle sanctions and norms found in the social networks of the work
place (Coleman, 1988), that prompt her to learn the basics for performing work related
tasks. She uses a cell phone, though she readily admits she cannot find the contact list,
and uses her home answering machine like an automated secretary leaving herself
reminders and to-do list items for retrieval later. What is missing is a connection to
classrooms where technology laced activities might enhance student learning. Janine has
no vision of technology tools in science classrooms where students might record data,
design lab experiment instructions, or publish and present findings to their classmates or
to others outside of the classroom (Flick & Bell, 2000; ISTE, 2000). Though her husband
has created, at her request, an Excel application, she has not made the connection with
using this software in a science curriculum. More sophisticated applications such as
video streaming, web based or software simulations, or digital and document cameras are
seemingly out of the question with Janine’s clear understanding of learning goals and
objectives that include technology components.

Readers of Johnson’s (2002) guide for developing instructional technology skills
would recognize Janine as a Level 1 user who lacks knowledge or awareness of various
technology tools or uses. Individuals in this category do not identify innovations as being
associated with technology or have little or no knowledge of an appropriate, viable
technology component. Many in this category do use technology for their personal
productivity, but lack the confidence to use it with their students. Surry and Land (2000)
cite the lack of faculty awareness of technology and use in teaching as problematic for

higher education.

40

As we draw from Janine’s story and try to make sense of her unwillingness to use
technology or include it in her courses, we can see that despite the anxiety she feels
Janine simply lacks the knowledge to use the innovations available to classrooms. This
may be a critical part of the story. One cannot be expected to use or demonstrate the
unknown (Diaz, 2001; Spotts, 1999; Surry & Land, 2000). As an experienced teacher
and teacher educator the question arises — why is Janine lacking in knowledge? Her
choice of priorities may offer an explanation since Janine has made a conscious effort to
move technology fluency down her list of things that matter. She explained her choices
clearly, “If you’ve been a busy person being a mom and a teacher and a wife and
sometimes even being a self, how much more can you put into a day? How much more
learning is there (338)?” When teachers express concerns of not being as skilled at their
students, Janine’s articulation of the issue is very convincing.

How does one find the time to develop the technology fluency that does not impact
the structure of existing teaching practices or infiinge disproportionately on teachers’
personal time? This quandary is reflective of Huberman’s (1993) life cycle of teachers
when female teachers in the Stabilization phase, that period when teachers experience a
sense of balance in school related responsibilities and balance between home and school,
often placed family life above their teaching careers. In addition to sacrifices in time,
teachers are selective about what they chose to learn (Huberman, 1983) and are willing to
make changes that make sense to them (Sikes, 1992). Whiletechnology related
professional development is just as critical for tmiversity faculty as it is for teachers in
K - 12 environments (Diaz, 2001; Spotts, 1999; Surry & Land, 2000), finding the time

for learning is difficult for both groups.

41

In one of our informal chats, Janine explained that she found the data gathering
process or the interview experience to be a form of professional development. It gave her
an unexpected opportunity to talk to a knowledgeable actor (Coleman, 1989) about an
area that was mysterious and perplexing for her. Her explanation of the benefits she
found in having these kinds of discussions indicate teachers and teacher educators need
more of these conversations and opportunities to share and question in non-threatenin g
environments.

Although Janine keeps abreast of science curriculum changes, she makes no mention
of a place for technology in the science curriculum. Her lack of knowledge regarding
available technologies begs the question - where do teachers learn about appropriate
technology tools for use in their classrooms or how beneficial those tools might be for
teachers and students? Flick and Bell (2000), in their work to prepare “Guidelines for
Using Technology in the Preparation of Science Teachers,” remind us that the field of
science is the harbinger of technological innovations. It is the availability of various
technologies that bolster the innovative ideas of others. That a science curriculum should
be devoid of technology experiences presents a certain level of irony. Perhaps, after all,
the real culprit for Janine is the lack of an adequate frame of reference to help her move
herself and the preservice teachers she instructs into the 21 st century classroom
forecasted by the National Education Technology Plan. How to get her and others like
her better situated should be the concern of staff and professional developers and the

teacher preparation institutions.

42

Final Though“

Janine as a technology avoiding educator is puzzling. While she professes to know
little, she has quite a bit of technology under her belt. After examining the transcripts of
our interview I found twenty-three (23) instances where Janine either used or understood
some form of technology, most of it suitable for use in a classroom. Contrast this finding
with twelve (12) instances where she expresses fear or discomfort with “The Machine”
and one could conclude that she is not as bad off as even she might expect. The
disconnect occurs when, though she acknowledges technology is important in the
classroom, she does not require its use by her students. Her students, according to Janine,
are more comfortable with using technology than she or the mentor teachers they will
encounter.

But is it the lack of knowledge about how to integrate the technology in the content
that creates the problem? Thompson and Mishra (2007) celebrate the link to Shulrnan’s
(1987) PCK or pedagogical content knowledge with the acronym, TPACK. Coined to
represent technological and pedagogical content knowledge, TPACK affirms the need to
include technology instruction into pedagogy and into content. Janine, we might surmise,
does not have the knowledge to do this. One might conclude that her lack of technology
know-how interferes with any notions about using technology as a tool for learning.

Even while she acknowledges that students should be using technology, she does not see
herself as the teacher for such a classroom. Janine’s conundrum belies Ertmer’s (2005)
arguments about teacher belief being the solution to technology integration. Janine might
believe in some respects the importance of including technology; she just does not see the

change with her at the helm.

43

Many educators will appreciate J anine’s fear of losing precious minutes should the
technology fail in some way. Recalling the incidence of the missing Desktop link, Janine
is not comfortable relinquishing control to the whims of technology. Whiteboards, paper,
and her own voice continue to support the goals for her content in reliable ways. For her,
the use of technology does not enhance what she needs to do for her students.

This choice seems to create some internal conflict for Janine. While she admits that
technology must be included in the process of education, she does not see herself as being
the one to do that. Not only does she not know enough, she points out the she and others
like her, veteran teachers, can not learn enough quickly enough to meet the need.
Someone else must take up the gauntlet and be the technology using instructor. She
knows intuitively that she needs to change something but feels powerless to do so.

J anine’s circumstances remind us that while veteran teachers and teacher educators
remain outside of the technology loop, the potential exists that their students will also
remain outside. Downloading tunes for iPods, emailing family members, chatting online
with friends, and surfing the lntemet for the latest games are not truly reflective of the
technology structure of the workplace. Assuming that students who are comfortable with
these tasks are also completely technology literate is a fallacy (Plair, 2007). Although it
could be argued that some of these skills are precisely what is used in the workplace,
students should be the knowledge creators (Hargreaves, 2003) preparing their own
podcasts of science results and experimentation. Email correspondences to experts in a
variety of scientific disciplines to complement a unit of study helps students extend their

search for information and knowledge beyond the classroom. Using the lntemet to

retrieve, sift, and assess information in a variety of formats should be part of the learning
experience for students at all levels.

Hargreaves (2003), in his work on teachers and the knowledge society, argues that the
skills needed for the non-industrial workplace require problem solving, creativity, and
innovative thinking. According to Hargreaves, the use of technological irmovations will
drive how workers meet these requirements as knowledge workers of the future. Teacher
educators have a responsibility to prepare preservice teachers for classrooms designed to
develop Hargreaves’ knowledge workers. Meeting this need for technology savvy
teachers and teacher educators requires changes in attitudes and beliefs and a willingness
to accept innovative ideas and tools.

By not including technology in her methods course, Janine misses the opportunity to
prepare her preservice teachers for using technologies to construct, present, and share
knowledge in real life contexts (Vrasidas and Mclssac, 2001). Further, technology has
the potential to be used for active, cooperative, and authentic activities grounded in
constructivism where learners construct their own meaning in concert with their prior
knowledge or experiences. Preservice teachers need to understand which technology
tools allow students and teachers to share meaning and construct knowledge. Maeers,
Brown, and Cooper (2000) offer four reasons for preparing preservice teacher to integrate
technology.

1) The availability and currency of resources means knowing how to access,
evaluate, and select appropriate technology tools for a given content.

2) Employers want technology savvy teachers to effectively use their investment
in digital tools. Preservice teachers need to see faculties of education schools
model effective uses of technology.

3) Accessing standards and benchmarks from online data bases from cash
strapped state departments of education will be required for many new

45

teachers. Preservice teachers should know how to retrieve data related to their
content and have knowledge of other online resources.

4) Educational technology methods included in content courses rather than
isolated computer or technology classes help students learn how to use
technology in pedagogically sound ways.

The tools for teaching with technology are constantly and rapidly changing.
Preservice teachers need to experience a variety of tools appropriate for their content an
develop a sense of efficacy and confidence in using such tools. Hofer and Harris (2009)
are leading a collaborative effort to match curriculum activities with a set of technologies
that best support various types of learning. (See their Activity Types Wiki at
http://activitytypes.wmwil_ds.net.) Preservice teachers should also be guided to explore
an online professional learning network (PLN), such as The English Companion or
National Council for Social Studies, where new resources are often introduced and
experiences shared with other educational professionals. While the learning curve may
appear somewhat complicated, preservice teachers can be encouraged to consider the
personal ways they use technology as potential instructional tools. For example, Liz
Kolb (2008) has become a strong advocate for using cell phones, normally considered
contraband, in the classroom. Since these devices are often owned by students they can
be a cost effective way to use technology and engage students in learning. Using texting
for quizzes or to provide teacher feedback can be one way for teachers to determine the
success of a lesson without the need to correct and return papers losing valuable
instructional knowledge and fostering misconceptions as student retain incorrect
information. While new technology tools appear almost overnight, preservice teachers

should be encouraged to explore these new options while being skilled enough to judge

their usefulness in the classroom.

46

Changing one’s practice does not occur overnight, especially, when a new set of skills
are required to begin the process of change. This becomes challenging for experienced
teachers and teacher educators like Janine. The logical next step may be taking a critical
look at the role of professional development to help teachers like Janine. Should
technology related professional development look like professional development for

other reforms? We would do well to explore the differences.

47

Chapter 3
From Whence Cometh My Help: A Case of Professional Development

In order to prepare today’s students with the challenges of the let century
workplace, the nation’s teachers need to create technology rich learning environments.
Many of these teachers, however, still find ways to include technology foreign,
bewildering, and complicated. This chapter explores how ordinary classroom teachers,
well into their careers, coped with the difficulty of learning to infuse their practice with
new and innovative tools, commonly known as technology. These teachers, all with over
fifteen years of classroom experience, realized they still have many years to work with
today’s digital natives (2004). Their students for the most part were comfortable with
technology. As their teachers, in contrast, they were not. The teachers found much of
this rapidly changing world of innovation mystifying and a bit frightening. This study,
qualitative in nature, uses a narrative format to examine some of the issues and concerns
teachers faced to move their practice into the 21st century for the sake of their students’
achievement.

Beginning the Search for Answers

The purpose of this study is to help teachers, administrators, and policy makers
better understand the relationship between experienced teachers and the professional
development they receive in order to increase the skills needed to create and sustain
technology rich classrooms. This study seeks to answer three questions related to
professional development as a source for teacher learning and changes in practice.

0 What were typical general and technology related professional development
experiences of veteran teachers?

48

o How did experienced teachers use technology in their personal and professional
lives before and after an extend technology related professional development
event?

0 What kinds of support systems were identified by experienced teachers as

necessary for sustainability and enhancement of their technology skills?

This chapter is organized by first providing a look at relevant research literature
followed by background to establish the context in which the cases were established.
Then, the data are interpreted using the format described in Chapter One where theory-
building structure is used on individual cases and continues with a cross case analysis for
drawing conclusions and generalizations. Finally, implications and recommendations are
discussed.

Other Artist’s Perspective

In 1993, Hadley and Sheingold studied teachers skilled in using computers in the
classroom and reported that these skilled teachers took approximately five years to
effectively and flexibly integrate technology. Each teacher in the study was an
experienced user of computers, the technology of the day, yet each introduced and
attempted to integrate technology differently into their practice. Hadley and Sheingold
concluded that a willingness to change and to learn was at the heart of the process

The process for acquiring the necessary technology skills and efficacy is balanced
by many of the persistent barriers that plague classroom teachers. Lack of equipment,
time for learning, time for preparation, and adequate support for increasing and sustaining
skills have long been barriers to fluency (Ertmer, 1999). Getting teachers to understand
what it means to integrate technology with content rather than technology for the sake of

technology has been an ongoing task for educational technology advocates. Removing

the tendency to make teachers technicians who target hardware issues and excel at

49

trouble shooting has led to an evolution focused on helping teachers cepe with
instructional issues (Sandholtz and Reilly, 2004). Today, the need for technological
knowledge is added to Shuhnan’s (1987) tenets of teachers’ need for pedagogical content
knowledge (PCK) creating a new acronym for, technological pedagogical and content
knowledge or TPACK (Koelher and Mishra, 2002, 2009). Understanding that today’s
students can not meet the requirements of the workplace or academia without these skills,
these writers emphasize the need for knowledge of technology to be a part of every
teacher’s repertoire. Multiliteracies and multimodal learning experiences (Anstey and
Bull, 2007) require a new kind of teacher who recognizes when and what technology is
appropriate for enhancing and promoting learning of specific content in order to increase
student achievement.

Various researchers have attempted to define proficient or fluent skill levels
among users of instructional technology. Pierson (2001), for example, categorized
teachers using technology as having either adequate or exemplary technology abilities.
She noted that those with adequate abilities were fairly comfortable with computers but
used them to imitate instructional activities and were beginning to develop strategies for
integration. Teachers with exemplary technology skills used computers professionally
and personally and spent time experimenting with ways to include technology as part of
instruction.

In addition, the International Society for Technology on Education (ISTE; see
iste.org) has been active in establishing national technology standards for students,
teachers, and administrators. Initially those standards for teachers moved consistently

from

50

lack of knowledge or awareness (Level 1);
to skills are for personal use or productivity (Level 2);

to skills transferred to use with students or more advanced techniques
(Level 3);

o to communication and collaboration with colleagues to inform and expand
knowledge for self and for others (Level 4).
A good example of these levels in practical use can be found in Doug Johnson’s (2002)
book, The Indispensable Teacher's Guide to Computer Skills, which is used to support
what Hargreaves (2003) calls ‘directive training,’ or coaching, and professional
development.

In 2004, the National Education Technology Plan, or NETP ( See Patrick, 2004)
identified teachers as being out of synch with the digital natives in their classrooms.
According to preliminary data for the plan, teachers lacked the necessary skills to use
technology in the classroom and the nation’s students spoke out about the need for
teachers who were prepared to add interest and life to their lessons. This survey led to
the NETP’s call for more technology in the schools. MiSsing from the plan was the
charge to school districts to provide professional development that would increase
teachers’ fluency and reduce the knowledge gap between them and their students.

Professional development is standard practice for providing K-12 teachers with
new skills and strategies for teaching. However, though professional development is
supported by the federal government, there is a tendency to “concentrate federal
professional development dollars specifically and exclusively to support teachers' subject
matter knowledge and mastery of subject-based pedagogy’ (Koppich, Toch, and
Podgursky, 2000, p. 265). Koppich, et al. further explained that teachers were expected
to assist students in reaching high standards. This responsibility would require subject

matter knowledge and the pedagogical skills to communicate content effectively to

51

students. Though this commitment by the federal government was noble, researchers
often note that professional development for teachers often proved to be ineffective.
Professional development was often centralized and determined by district staff with little
input from teachers (Little, 1992). As Little observed

Compared to the complexity and immediacy of classroom demands (and

rewards), professional development is often a remarkably low-intensity enterprise.

It occupies little of teachers’ time, squeezed along the margins of teachers’

ordinary work. It requires little of teachers by way of intellectual struggle or

emotional commitment. It takes only the most superficial account of teachers’
histories or present circumstances. Teachers’ motivation to learn is further
dampened and their opportunity to learn further constrained by the present
organization of roles (the separation of teachers from specialists) and by the
organization of time scheduled to align with programmatic exigencies rather than

with the ebb and flow of teachers’ lives in schools. (p. 178)

Research literature is filled with challenges and solutions related to implementing
technology in a teacher’s practice and the curriculum. Barriers to overcome still exist
that include training, support, and time for practice (Ertmer, 1999). Some researchers
linked teachers’ belief in the effectiveness of technology to enhance student learning as
being instrumental in changing their practice to include the use of technology (Ertmer,
2005; Frank, Zhao, and Borman, 2004). Sandholtz and Reilly (2004) suggested designs
for technology related professional development needed to avoid creating technicians and
to develop instead teachers skilled in selecting appropriate technology tools for
instruction. Numerous ideas about how best to provide teachers with the technological
knowledge they need through professional development have also been introduced
(Burns, 2002; Kanaya, Light, and Culp, 2005; See also http://Intelorg/education and
http://eMINTSorg).

More than ten years later the teachers in these cases expressed some of the same

concerns elucidated by Little. Even with the call for teachers to acknowledge and present

52

students with information age skills (Hargreaves, 2003), little had changed in the way
professional development was implemented in their district. The teachers found even
less emphasis on technology related skills in their professional development offerings.

The teachers in the cases that follow have not escaped being affected or
influenced by these challenges and attempts at solutions. Their stories provide insight
into the struggles, some of their own making and some out of their control, which they
faced and continue to face as they prepare to add an elusive and rapidly changing
contrivance known as technology into their practice. Much of what they achieved was
outside of the boundaries of their district. Support from administrators was inconsistent
or non-existent. These teachers made personal, individual decisions to empower
themselves by taking responsibility for their own learning. There is nothing profound
about these teachers. These are ordinary classroom teachers. They are not super award
winning teachers though some are leaders in their district and in their communities in
various capacities. All are dedicated to their students and try to make learning exciting
and motivating while trying to increase student achievement. They want their students to
have a variety of opportunities for learning and view technology as a way to level the
playing field.

Making the Most of Professional Development

Teachers have their own ideas about professional development. Most of them
have an expectation that when an inservice is over, they will return to their classrooms
with new and improved skills and the belief that increased student achievement is sure to

follow. Their expectations are consistent with professional development literature that

53

offers guidelines and recommendations for how effective professional development
should be designed.

For example, active learning that is inquiry based is one element of effective
professional development design. Teachers, like their students, need to be actively
involved in their own learning (Borko, 2004; Garet et al., 2001, Little, 1993). Complaints
of ‘sit and get’ style professional development with ‘experts’ abounds in the literature
(Little, 1993; Hawley & Valli, 1999). Teachers seem to be better learners when
constructivist theories of learning are the foundation of their professional development
experiences. Teachers like students need learning options that allow them to construct
knowledge. This construction of knowledge can be achieved by “solving real problems
through asking and refining questions, designing and conducting investigations,
gathering, analyzing, and interpreting information and data, drawing conclusions, and
reporting findings” (F ishman et al., 2003). Like their students, teachers learn by doing,
especially when learning tasks are technology related. McCrory (2006) suggests that
teacher be given time to ‘play’ or experiment with technology at their own pace in order
to understand what a particular technology can do, how it works, and what benefits it will
bring to their content.

This ‘play’ or practice is a necessary part of professional development and
teachers need frequent opportunities to use new ideas both in and outside of their
classrooms. Little (1993) advocated for opportunities to practice new ideas as a part of
the professional development design. She noted that teachers needed adequate time for
experimenting, consulting, or investigating “embedded in the routine organization of

teachers’ work day and work year (p 133).” We know that classroom instruction is

54

designed to give students numerous chances to practice, review, and reinforces the skills
we teach. Teachers as learners have these same needs especially when the professional
development is technology related. Effective professional development includes
instances where teachers return to classrooms to practice new skills and participate in
some form of continuing inservice that allows them to revisit their experiences in
discussions with colleagues (Davis, 2002; Hawley & Valli, 1999).

This need for continuous practice introduces the issue of time for learning.
Teachers need time to practice both inside and outside the boundaries of formal
professional development activities. Researchers have found the duration of a
professional development event influences the degree to which teachers find professional
development effective and contributes to the potential for changing teacher practice
(Garet et a1, 2001; Desirnone et al., 2002). Brief after school workshops, consultant or
experts for a day, and one shot events often are seen as inadequate for providing the time
required to increase the levels of skill desired by teachers or those who secure
professional development (Davis, 2002, Fishman et al., 2003; King & Newmann, 2000).
Creating change takes time if beliefs and practices are to be altered (Loucks- Horsley et
al., 1999). Hadley and Sheingold (1993) found teachers skilled in the personal use of
technology needed approximately five years to become effective integrators of
technology. Consequently, if we are to believe these researchers, during this five year
period of learning teachers will require time to practice and explore new tools and new
uses for technology within the scope of their content area. Researchers also noted that
professional development which is sustained and intensive is more likely to have a

positive impact than shorter duration professional development events (Garet et al., 2001;

55

Hawley & Valli, 1999). Sustainability could come in the form of learning communities
either face to face or virtual via the lntemet.

The role of collaboration and collegiality has been a constant among researchers
of professional development either during the actual inservice or as an approach for
ongoing support. Collaboration, according to Floden and Bell (2006), “is as important in
professional development as it is in classroom learning. Teachers need to break deeply
engrained habits of isolated work and perceptions of professional development as a
source of tips and resources for individual use (p. 188).” Teachers need the support of
their peers where there is an opportunity to share, and learn from professional discourse
(Davis, 2003; Hawley & Valli, 1999, Hill, 2004; Little, 1993; Loucks- Horsley et al,
1999). Collegial activities should be designed to create a variety of interactions where
teachers convene, for example, with other content teachers or other grade level teachers.
While professional development may be intended for or focused on a specific set of
teachers —- such as math teachers or science teachers — opportunities should exist where
teachers are less isolated and distant from their colleagues despite the physical boundaries
inherent in most school buildings. As reported in Wilson and Beme (1999), CGI
(Cognitive Guided Instruction) researchers “found that every teacher talked of the need.
for community. For some, the communities were within their schools; for others, the
boundaries of communities transcended school walls (p. 183).” King and Newmann
(2000) viewed this idea of communities and collaborative efforts as ways to strengthen
school capacity. In other words, teachers worked together to insure the goals and

objectives of their school were met and advanced collectively rather than by a select few.

56

Content focused professional development is also an important part to the design
of effective professional development. Teachers want to enhance skills that can be used
to transform their students. Even when technology related professional development is
the target, such inservice should be grounded in how technology can be used to support
the learning of a particular content area. “Teacher learning is most likely to occur when
teachers can concentrate on instruction and student outcomes in the specific contexts in
which they teach (King & Newmann, 2000, p. 576).” Garet et a1. (2001) also found that
when a greater focus on content was emphasized, teachers were more likely to
demonstrate enhanced knowledge and skills. Even when the focus of professional
development is technology related, teachers still need to determine how new technologies
best fit their content (Hughes, 2003). Burns (2002) worked with teachers within the
parameters of context and content to increase technological knowledge by combining
technology skills in a classroom environment using authentic projects related to their
content. McCrory (2006) recommended that teachers develop “a portfolio of
technologies that actually work in their unique contexts (p. 157).” The significance of
content knowledge incorporated with other forms of teacher knowledge as described by
Shulman (1987) can be found in the work of Hofer and Harris (2009) and Koehler and
Mishra (2005). Both sets of researchers have begun a collaborative effort to develop
TPACK or Technological Pedagogical And Content Knowledge. This new set of teacher
knowledge pairs technological knowledge with both content and pedagogical knowledge.
Teachers must be able to instruct with technology and use technology within the realms
of their teaching responsibilities such as lesson preparation and data management.

Technology related professional development that focuses on ways in which technology

57

can support student learning in a particular content area is more relevant and meaningful
to teachers.

The last characteristic of effective professional development targets ongoing
support after the initial, formal professional development offering has ended. Continued
support and follow up with commitments for coaching, mentoring, or additional guidance
(Guskey, 1986) are the mark of effective professional development. When technology is
the focus for professional development, success is more likely when social support is
present (Frank etal., 2004; Hughes et al., 2005). Even some form of just-in-time
assistance can be beneficial to teachers when technology related professional
development officially ends (Zhao et al., 2006). Teachers also benefit when colleagues
are able to provide assistance when problems arise (Frank et al., 2004). When Sugar and
Wilson (2005) studied ways to provide alternative technology related professional
development to inservice teachers, they found that 95% of the respondents wished to
have someone in the classroom to help with specific technology needs. According to
McCrory (2006), relying on others to introduce technology resources is “the best way to
make decisions” (p. 157) about new technologies. Teachers need onsite technology
mentors and to be “able to team up with technology experts. . . . [to] see firsthand how
they can use technology in their classrooms and how to negotiate its use with students
(Zhao et al., 2006, p. 173).”

In the case studies that follow veteran teachers share experiences and challenges
associated with becoming more fluent in using instructional technology. After

participating in a technology related professional development event, they express their

58

appreciation for and, occasionally, frustration with some of these characteristics of
effective professional development they encountered.
Background

The precursor for this study was an inservice using the Intel Teach to the Future:
Essential Question course. Intel’s method of teaching technology skills to educators
evolved around the formation of a strong instructional unit plan that was infused with
suitable technology components. A ‘train the trainer’ model was used in the forty hours
of instruction which included collaborative planning, group discussions, and feedback
from practice opportunities. The situative learning (Borko, 2004), where social
engagement is part of the learning environment, format allowed teachers to learn as much
from each other as from the facilitators or workshop leaders.

Teachers came together for a technology learning experience offered by their
district for the first time. Some of them would participate in a subsequent session of Intel
training not because they ‘didn’t get it’ the first time but because the design of the
program was what they needed as a catalyst for changing the way they would teach. This
training provided more than the standard after school two hour ‘sit and get’ workshops
typically offered for software application training which often had limited relevance to
their content area.

The district provided each classroom with at least one desktop computer and
participated in a state wide program to provide a personal piece of technology for each
teacher. The teachers in this study came from two middle schools and both schools had
selected an option to receive a laptop computer for each classroom teacher regardless of

content area or grade level. Support staff such as counselors and media specialists also

59

received equipment. At the time of the classroom and laptop initiatives, few teachers in
the district were computer literate or fluent enough in technology to adequately include
technology in their instruction. Each’middle school also offered students a computer
class with a dedicated computer or technology teacher. This elective course meant
students had an opportunity to learn how to use computers outside of their content areas.
Ironically, most middle school students had more opportunities to become fluent
technology users than did their teachers.

The author served as primary facilitator for this forty hour inservice which was
held after school and on some Saturdays over a period of approximately ten (10) weeks.
While Intel recommends that participants in this program have technology skills beyond
the novice stage, most of the participants came with minimal technology skills. They
agreed to participate because of their limited skills and the insufficient technology related
professional development offered by the district. The goal of the program was to assist
teachers in the integration of technology into their content with the potential to increase
student achievement and not merely to provide disjointed technical skills.

Surprisingly, the participants were seasoned or veteran teachers with at least
fifteen (15) years of classroom experience. While Huberman (1993) might view these
teachers at the disenchantment stage in the teacher life cycle as they moved toward the
end of their careers, their commitment to learning new skills is more reflective of
teachers in the recreation or reform cycle (Huberman, 1993), ready for change and a
sense of adventure. Steffy, Wolfe, Pasch, and Enz (2000) would categorize the teachers

in this group as expert and distinguished teachers within the life cycle of the career

60

teacher. These teachers saw technology as a way to re-create or rejuvenate their careers
while exploring ways to boost student achievement

The purpose of this study was to gain knowledge from veteran teachers about the
significance of professional development; how they used technology before and after the
inservice; and their perceptions on how their efforts needed to be supported for sustaining
what they learned. Gaining an understanding of these three areas would give hope to
other struggling experienced teachers and help administrators and policy makers
understand how better to assist veteran teachers in technology reform efforts.

Selecting the Portraitist’s Tools

This multi-case study is comprised of six mini-inquiries from veteran or
experienced teachers who, after avoiding or evading the use of technology in their
professional and often their personal lives, came to the realization that technology in
education was becoming an important part of student learning and a viable way to
promote or enhance student achievement. The teachers, well into their teacher life cycle
(Huberman, 1993 ), realized they were not keeping abreast of the growing methods for
motivating, exciting, stimulating, and inspiring a new kind of learner. The plethora of
information available on the intemet, the ease of communicating and collaborating with a
distant peer, and the potential to acquire knowledge anywhere at anytime was altering the
way teachers had taught in the past. A new type of classroom was evolving with a new
kind of teacher and the teachers in this study refused to be left behind and out of touch.

Teachers in these cases are representative of a larger group of teachers who had
agreed to participate in Intel’s extensive professional development course for technology

integration in the fall of 2004. The prerequisites for subjects in this study were the

61

participation in this course and the status as an experienced teacher with at least 15 years
in a classroom. Before this study could be initiated, most of the initial participants would
elect to retire. Of the original seventeen (17) only six (6) of those remaining would meet
the research focus of veteran teachers and agree to participate in the study. These
remaining teachers planned to continue teaching for several more years. Their lack of
fluency in technology was no longer acceptable to them as educators and they identified
themselves as inadequately prepared to integrate technology into their classrooms,
curriculums, or their practice. They made the personal and professional decision to
change their existing practice by including some of the tools their students were already
using in their personal lives.

Six of the original seventeen, all middle school teachers, were available for
interviews. Of the six, three were from Yardley Middle School and three were from
Central Middle School. The schools, not the actual names, are located in a middle city
size community of a Midwestern state in what would be defined as an urban district due
to the high numbers of At-Risks students based on free and reduced lunch participation.
Content area specializations included English Language Arts, Social Studies, Special
Education, and elective or non-core subject matter. These research subjects were not
selected randomly but confined to those who met three (3) criteria: 1) they had
participated in the particular forty hour technology related professional development; 2)
they were fifteen year plus veteran teachers; and 3) they consented to being interviewed.

Yardley and Central offered two similar yet different technology environments.
A district mandate provided all classrooms with one PC with lntemet connectivity which

teachers viewed as reserved for daily attendance and quarterly grading. Each classroom

62

had connectivity access for five (5) student stations though no additional student
equipment was provided. Student access was limited and the PC was not viewed as an
integral part of the instructional program. Both schools had a technology or media center
and at least one instructional technology lab where students were scheduled for a course
in applications in technology and keyboarding. Central’s technology center was a high
tech environment while Yardley’s center consisted primarily of computers, printers, and a
scanner. While the instructional lab was not viewed as available to teachers, the
technology or media center at both schools was in great demand, often by the same few
core teachers, primarily for lntemet research. Teachers in this study had varying success
securing the technology or media center for their classes, especially at Central.

Ninety minute semi-structured interviews consisting of nineteen (19) questions
(See Appendix A for interview protocol) with the six remaining middle school teacher
participants were conducted from January of 2005 through late spring of the same year.
Interviews were delayed due to scheduling difficulties of both the teachers and the
researcher. Based on the informants’ response, various probes were used to elicit more
details appropriate to an individual’s skill level and amount of technology used in
classrooms before and after the professional development event.
Exploring the Artist ’3 Palette

The interview protocol focused on three categories or families of study,

0 The subject’s experiences with professional development both technology

related and professional development in general;
0 The subject’s use of technology for professional and personal use both before
and after the inservice;

o The subject’s perceptions about the support systems that were in place and
how these systems might aid in sustaining their technology skills.

63

Interviews were audio recorded and transcribed in detail by the researcher
creating six separate files. From the transcription, efforts were made to match each
subject’s commentary with the three families of study. After several iterative reviews of
the transcripts and the audiotapes, the data were analyzed revealing four areas noteworthy
for inclusion in the study. A coding system was developed based on the following four
major areas of study:

teachers’ use of technology before and after inservice;

causes for reluctance to use technology;

teachers’ view of professional development;

and teachers’ view of support for sustaining technology skills.

Numbers used at the end of transcription quotes indicate a paragraph within the
individual file for the designated teacher. The data was analyzed not so much to identify
patterns and trends but rather in an effort to extract significant perceptions from the
standpoint of the teachers interviewed. The data would be used to narrate the views of a
small but representative group of experienced teachers and their efforts to become fluent
in technology.

The findings section, Thematic Revelations, is constructed using theory building
structures (Yin, 2003) to explore the four area of concentration. The discussion section,
Reflections across Cases, uses cross case analysis (Yin, 2003) to expound upon any
patterns, trends, consistencies or inconsistencies in the data based on the interpretation of
the teachers’ perceptions.

Introducing the Participants

The following demographic information for the six study participants has been

deliberately generalized to provide confidentiality. The names used in the study are

pseudonyms as are the schools as previously noted. All other information is factual but

not specific to individual teachers. The teachers were not asked to share their ages and
those with the most classroom experience are not necessarily the oldest. Conversely, the
least experienced teachers are not the youngest. The group is comprised of six female
teachers. Two are Caucasian and four are African American.

Cathy, Fiona, Zina, Tonya, Norma, and Olivia have been teaching for 31, 16, 24,
31, 28, and 16 years respectively. There were two Social Science teachers, two teachers
who were part of the Special Education department; one elective teacher, and one
Language Arts teacher. While all taught in middle school buildings, one met with
elementary students and none of the group taught seventh grade students. To offer a
perspective on the age of the teachers, I note that only two teachers in the group had
school age children at home.

Each member of the group had varying extracurricular duties or responsibilities
within the district. One acted as a facilitator for many of the district’s scheduled
professional development events. Another sponsored three after school programs for
community service and academically inclined students. One teacher tutored students
after school and there was a department chair in the group. One member of the group
came to the classroom after many years of working in the private sector. Each had varied
interests, teaching styles, and backgrounds.

Thematic Revelations
Initial Teacher Technology Use — Pre Training

Prior to participation in the Intel program, most of the teachers were .not users of

technology either personally or professionally though some had made attempts. Tonya as

an elementary teacher had a computer in her classroom and would arrange for students to

65

have computer time each week to use a reading program. Her move to middle school
could be viewed as a set back since for several years she had no computer in her
classroom. At the time of the interview she had one computer she categorized as ‘the
teacher’s computer.’ It was used primarily for reporting daily attendance and during the
grading cycles throughout the year. She also accessed the district email system to get
communications from the principal.

Surprisingly, Tonya had two desktop PCs and a laptop at home which she readily
admitted to not using. Her home email account may have been suspended since she
stated it had not been used during the past school year. Tonya explained her lack of use
this way:

When my son was younger I used it quite a bit because I would get programs for

him and I would go through the programs with him. And so I did. But my son is

now twenty so since middle school he basically hasn’t needed me. When I

needed to have something done on the computer at home he was there to do it.

(100)

Getting Tonya to recognize or acknowledge any use of technology in her
classroom was difficult. This was not unusual for many of the subjects. Either what they
used had become ‘natural’ in their classroom or they did not think of it as using
technology. The following interview excerpt is an example —

Sandra: Are there some ways that you use technology with your students that are

specifically designed to enhance student learning?

Tonya: No. I don’t think so.

Sandra: Well, then you probably want to include your PowerPoint.

Tonya: Yes, the PowerPoint.

Sandra: So once they do PowerPoint then the technology is nonexistent in your

classroom? I don’ t want to put words m your mouth.

Tonya: I have done some things like on the overhead from things that I’ve

printed out from online. Things like that. For example, I did a newspaper
scavenger hunt. I went online and found several and did one for the kids

because we do do current events once a week. And I wanted to do
something different. So I did go and print one out and make an overhead

66

and we use that. And I have gone and gotten pieces and used it as an
overhead tool to present.

Sandra: It sounds like you use the lntemet to do some research on your own to
find things that you can then take and use with your students. So that is
using the technology?

Tonya: Yes, doing some research. (126 — 131, 134, 135)

Prior to participating in the professional development event, Cathy would
probably have been identified as a non-user of computers. The extent of her personal use
was minimal, but she noted, “Unfortunately every time you go someplace and you have
to do a shower everybody’s got their little stuff online or on the computer. So you have to
have some basic knowledge of it (72).” She had some experience with online shopping
but was apprehensive about providing personal information online. Other than the
required daily attendance and use of an electronic grade book, Cathy did not use
technology for instruction, support of instruction, or student learning.

Norma, on the other hand, made a few attempts to use of the technology available
to her. Students were allowed to use the ‘teacher computer’ to look things up on the
intemet. As a Special Education teacher, she would also use her word processing
software to revise worksheets for her students when she felt the amount of text presented
would overwhelm them. More telling is her hesitancy even after attending several
summer institute workshops involving technology.

There was not a big emphasis during the time that I was taking those workshops

on integrating technology in the classroom. Plus I was not I just didn’t feel

like I have enough technology skills to come in and tell the students we’re going
to do this today. So what I did, I took the workshop, I learned how to operate the
computer to do the basic things that I needed to do, like the attendance, the grades
or this kind of thing. But as far as using it to teach students something or use it to
evaluate them using it, because that’s what the evaluation is for, the PowerPoint.

I would not have used anything like that to work with my students as far as trying
to do anything different. (56)

67

Norma’s insecurity stood in the way of her moving forward. As a Special
Education teacher her concern was also with not wishing to do harm to her students.

And then I looked at the students that I work with. These students have a learning

disability or have some kind of problem. So my thing was this: why would I make

a mistake with them when they already have a problem and I didn’t understand

what I was doing myself. So if I was not comfortable with teaching tools, I did

not use them. It may have some kind of aftereffect with the students, more

negative than positive. (58)

Fiona used technology or her computer primarily for ‘typing.’ As a graduate
student, she also used it to prepare papers for her courses. Occasionally the computer
might be used to prepare a quiz or worksheet for her students.

Two constants appear in conversations with all the teachers. First, the one
computer in the classroom is the sole property of the teacher. These computers were
generally placed close to teachers’ desks to be within easy reach. This location in the
classroom meant less accessibility for students and sent perhaps subtle messages that
students were not free to use the equipment. Teachers lived in constant fear that students
would ‘mess something up’ or ‘students would break something’ leaving them without
the necessary tool for their daily attendance reporting. They did not want to be
inconvenienced by having to wait for planning time or after school to go to the media
centers in order to use a computer. Some felt strongly that if the hourly reporting of
attendance was required, equipment in good working order should be available to them at
all times in their classrooms.

Second, all teachers worked in schools that participated in the state’s laptop
initiative program. This program provided each teacher with a laptop for their use. The

laptops seldom found their way into classrooms and were seldom used either inside or

outside the classroom. One teacher noted, “Matter of fact, the battery went out on my

68

computer and I was talking to someone and they said ‘you can use mine’ and their laptop
had never been taken out the box. So they brought theirs over and we were using theirs
until we got another battery (Tonya, 108).” For these teachers, having the laptops
available did not guarantee that the quantity or the use of technology would increase
inside or outside the classroom. Teachers in this study never mentioned bringing the
laptop to school to provide an additional computer to their classroom although most said
using technology meant they needed more equipment.

Teacher Perspective on Professional Development in General

Teachers were asked to describe their professional development experiences in
order to elicit two kinds of data. One, the question was formulated to retrieve prior
professional development events that had positive or negative outcomes. Second, the
question was designed to extract feedback on the personal effectiveness of the Intel
inservice. A conscious decision was made to create a question that would elicit feedback
indirectly to avoid overt bias since the researcher and the facilitator were one and the
same. Teachers would, hopefully, describe positive outcomes without being asked to
assess the training directly, especially since this was not the primary objective of the
study. ‘

Teachers expressed disappointment with the current methods of providing
professional development much like reported in the literature. Decisions were made at
the district level with little input fiom teachers. In previous years, more days had been
set aside for professional development and an automated menu system was used for
selecting sessions. In retrospect, much of the professional development was viewed as

inadequate and very little technology related professional development was available.

69

Another objective was to compare the current technology related professional
development with previous experiences. An important question was - How did this
experience compare to other similar professional development events?

Despite the privilege of choice, Cathy noted that the latest offerings were not
impressive and limited obliging her to base her decisions on location first and then
content. Since sessions were being housed in her building, Cathy selected something that
would allow her to remain all day at her normal work site to attend, “Creative
Movement.” On PD days teachers, unless mandated to attend specific content
workshops, met for part of the day within their own buildings. She explained her choice
as follows:

So they will give you a list of different classes that they offer and that would

happen to be, number one, it was here in the building and I didn’t have to travel

and secondly, truly, there was nothing else on the screen. You know, they have

math things. You know, they had science things. (26)

As a social science teacher she saw basically nothing related to her content either in her
building or any of the other sites where sessions were held.

Overall, as a veteran teacher with almost thirty years in the classroom, Cathy is
not particularly ‘picky’ about the kinds of professional development exposure she has
encountered.

I feel that anything that I’d take, if it’s not beneficial I can’t use it in my

classroom; you’ve wasted my time; you wasted my day. If there’s something out

there that you wanted me to learn or I wanted to learn that I can bring back in

here, then it’s beneficial. (32)

When she leaves a professional development event, she expects to leave with something

useful and meaningful to use with her students. Creative Movement was not one she

viewed as a meaningful professional development offering.

70

In previous years, Cathy attended technology focused summer institutes but she
did not recall them without some prodding. She found the Intel offering most beneficial
because “The way the last one that I did with the Intel with the different modules, it was
on-going. Somebody would follow-up afterwards, well, how are things going? That
helps (46).” She continued

Having assignments, okay, can you use this in the classroom and you come back,

you share - what did you do? Being able to share things that you’ve done and

being able to hear other students in the classroom tell about their success, but also

being comfortable telling about the failures, too. (48)

Norma’s view of professional development was more student-focused. She
deliberately selected a writing workshop because elementary students would come to her
in the middle school with a certain set of skills and she wanted to expand on those skills.
In order to do this, she would have to understand the pedagogy used to teach this writing
program. Unfortunately the inservice failed to meet her expectations. “But I felt like the
program was not dealt with in depth well enough for me to get to use what I need out of
the program (32).” She continued “Because they said it’s a three day workshop. But you
cannot give me that three day workshop to me in, I believe, two and a half hours (26).”

Norma was the only teacher who identified workshop leadership as the main
reason for attending the Intel program. Social capital influenced her decision according
the following comment about one of the facilitators.

Norma: I always thought that she had a very simple way of teaching us to

understand what the computer is all about and what things you can do with it. So

that’s what influenced me.

Sandra: If she had not been teaching it would you still have taken it?
Norma: Probably not. (42 — 44)

71

The Intel program was successful for Norma because she gained email skills, managed to
learn more about the technology available in her building and began to understand how to
develop plans for how she would use technology with her students.

Fiona’s reasons for initially participating in the Intel program were similar to
Cathy and Norma — location and the workshop leadership.

It was very convenient. It was two doors away from me. The hours were fine,

after school. I didn’t have any activities going on. It met once a week. That was

fine. Some Saturdays. So all of that played into working around the family.

Mainly that. And then, you know, coworkers saying ‘let’s take this. Let’s try it’.

And, of course, the people that were teaching it as well. (64)

Since the Intel program was not a required inservice, teachers could elect to
attend. All, including the facilitators, did so without district supported stipends. The
program required a significant time commitment for both classroom and time for
‘homework.’

One teacher, an experienced sought after facilitator, noted her need to be on stage
often hampered her ability to participate in any technology related professional
development. Zina was very clear on the distinctions between providing professional
development and being on the receiving end.

The thing that I find as a trainer is that when you go to a training, you taste and

when you become a trainer, every time I get ready for a session, I learn more. So

as I present, I am also being professionally developed because I see new, more
things or I practice more in my classroom and then I can bring that to my training
and I see the connections. It isn’t that I am never being professionally developed
but it does limit the boundaries of that professional development and I am not
hearing from people. I’m getting it off the written page and my own experience

and then whatever feedback teachers in the class give me, but I am not. What I

would really like to do is sit at the feet of a master and listen. (40)

And that’s where I am. And what I’m finding with professional development is

they’re all people like me. They have the rudiments of knowledge and they can

offer you on a certain level. But really I am hungry for in depth thinking about our
profession globally, not just a piece of what goes on into being a teacher, but to

72

think about the profession, the craft, the philosophy, the way we impact our
culture. I would really like to have more of that. (42)

Lack of choice was perhaps the biggest complaint. Teachers knew what they
wanted to explore ways to change their existing practice, but the opportunity to make
those choices through their district was not presented. District decisions were limited and
focused on content to support state high stakes testing. The underlying fallacy seemed to
be that technology could not be a part of this process.

Technology Related Professional Development

One goal of this study was to identify where technology fit into the professional
development teachers were receiving or teachers wished to receive. Teachers were asked
to describe some recent professional development events and to note those that were the
most and the least beneficial. What surfaced from their conversations was the lack of
meaningful professional development related to technology and often to their content. In
previous years the district had offered several ‘how to’ technology workshops. Few
could remember the content or the software application used but admitted to attending
various sessions over a period of years. They discussed returning to classrooms without
clear pictures of what to do - the mechanics - or how to fit what they had learned into
their content. In essence, these ‘out of context’ professional development offerings did
little to provide a greater sense of efficacy or increase confidence. Reflectively, they
considered these experiences as ineffective and of little value.

Frustrated by the lack of technology related professional development available
on designated PD days, some of the teachers went outside of the district to acquire the

basics.

73

Fiona: I, you know, as well many others, sat on the fence waiting for this
technology, waiting for this technology to go away and then it did not and so I
thought, well, I needed to do something or I am going to get left out. So I started
off taking classes at [local community college]. Introduction to Computer
Systems. I also took An Introduction to the lntemet. (14)

When the subjects offered so few examples of technology related professional
development in their overall examples of professional development, a probing question
was included to determine if technology was introduced or discussed during content
meetings. One would imagine that the use of technology in science or social studies or
special education would be a topic for discussion when content area teachers gathered to
discuss curriculum issues. Each teacher indicated that technology was not a topic of
discussion during content area meetings on professional development days or formal
gatherings. Here is a portion of one interview to demonstrate as much:

Sandra: When you communicate with other Special Ed people. When you guys

are at meetings or whatnot, do they talk about using technology in your

classrooms? [No.] So there’s no shared information about that. So if it’s being
done you’re not privileged to it for whatever reason because no one thinks that it’s
important?

Norma: I feel like they think now that everybody has a really good understanding

of technology, how to integrate it in the classroom so no one is really saying.

What they are sharing now is best practices. What you can do to enhance student

learning. I think those are the kinds of things that they are sharing here. I don’t

know about any other schools, but here that’s what I hear. (63-64)

Norma’s response reflected a personal sense of how others in her area responded to
technology. It was unclear why she felt this or why best practices did not include some
form of technology.

Another teacher responded this way:

Sandra: So I would ask when the [Program] people get together do they not talk

about how they can use technology or offer suggestions. I would expect—let me
tell you about this new program. Let me tell you about this.

74

Zina: We don’t. Only one of us has a lot of computers accessible to the kids. For
us it’s more [Program] issues not technology issues. [Program] is the selection,
nomination, testing, strategies for teaching. (126 — 127)

Zina seemed to waver a little at the end of her comments as if realizing that
discussing teaching strategies could or should include an element of technology. When
we consider the effectiveness of collaboration on teacher learning (Davis, 2003; F loden
& Bell, 2006, Hawley & Valli, 1999), the missed opportunities these teachers describe
for increasing technological knowledge are unfortunate at best.

One teacher found a way to work on her technology skills while providing a
technology experience for her students. Tonya talked about her ‘in house’ professional
development experience when she took her class to the media center to work with the
media specialist on a PowerPoint project.

Tonya: Basically I took my classes to the media center and she did several things

with my students. We did PowerPoint presentations so she did lessons with them

and we went like for two weeks.

Sandra: So you would take your class to the library and the media specialist

would do the training? Did you sit and work as if you were one of the children?

Tonya: For the first couple of classes I did. Then I wanted to see if I could do it

on my own and then for a couple of classes I would just take the lead and just

holler for her when I got a little stuck. So basically I took over. I just wanted to

see if I could do it. (18 — 20)

The Influence of ‘Fear’ on Learning to be T echnologically Fluent

Fear was a common thread for explaining the avoidance of using technology in
the classroom and often for personal use. Although some of the teachers used the words
fear, scared or afraid, the underlying meaning was not consistent. Regardless of how

they chose to express this feeling, being somehow fiightened or anxious when it came to

using or learning about technology was not an uncommon occurrence.

75

Cathy’s biggest fear was pressing the wrong key or button and losing all her
work. She felt a keen sense of responsibility for the safe keeping of any data in her care.
Early in the interview she recounts, “Because I was just totally terrified to even bother
with the computer. I feel if I touched something it would all disappear and be gone
forever.” (28) Later she explains more about this idea of ‘fear’ when using computers.

Even when I was doing the Grade Quick, I still had to put them on paper because

I had this fear that if something happens to this everything is gone and lost

forever. And nine times out of ten I’m more afraid that it would be my stupidity

and that I would click the wrong thing and poof it’s all gone. (64)

Later after the Intel program, she spoke about a lessening of her fear stating, “Since I now
know how to help to guide them [her students] and some of them are guiding me and
showing me some things on the computer, I’m not afiaid of it the way I used to be.” (62)

Olivia’s fear is tied to her initial state of avoidance when it came to even thinking
about using technology. She explained,

. .. there have been many other things offered that I did not even bother with

because...there was a time, there was a time when I was when I was very

closed minded to technology and felt that I was so far behind that it was going to
be impossible to ever get it, so I was just going to try to leave it alone and hope it

would leave me alone. (48, 50)

Through the Intel program she was able to assuage her concerns because “I found among
other things that there were other staff members who had the same reluctance and the
same fears and that with training that we could be taught (54).” What she wanted to do
was to wait out the interest in technology which, in her mind, was destined to fade away
like educational programs often do. However, her inability to work with her students,
among other things, also prompted her to reconsider her thinking.

Or the first time I was working on a book report with a student and we were in the

library and we were on computers and I couldn’t help the kid and I realized that I
better at least be a step ahead. (60)

76

While Tonya did not articulate the cause of her fear, she did use the word when
explaining why she agreed to participate in the Intel program. The exchange that follows
does not tell much about this ‘fear’ but leaves us to our own interpretation that perhaps
the Intel program was a way to get beyond the ‘fear.’

Sandra: My first question is what motivated you to take part in that Intel Teach to

the Future?

Tonya: Really I’ve always had this kind of fear of computers and I’m notorious

for being able to kind of take things apart but when I go to put them back together

. . . (64 - 65)

Zina’s ‘fear’ is related to the insufficiencies often associated with computers in

the classroom.

. . . when computers were first being brought into our classrooms and they were
real scary to me, I took a training, but I had no computer in my classroom yet and
I had no computer at home. You know, you learn to use some workshop program
and that’s all well and good but two months later when the computer has finally
arrived you don’t remember any of it because you haven’t had a chance to
implement what you’ve learned. (60)

The lack of access followed by an expectation that she would not know what to do at the
appointed time rattled Zina. Her fear manifested itself again when she thought about the
unexpected occurring during class time.
I’m still afraid. I’m afraid I will screw something up really bad. . . . I catch on how
to navigate the program but if something goes wrong it’s what I don’t know that

scares me. I don’t even know how that cotton picking thing works. Excuse me,
but how do those letters go through a little infrared beam and onto the screen and

then print through a printer. I don’t get that. And I don’t like not getting it. So if
I avoid it, I don’t have to confront the fact that I may never understand that part of
it. (66)

Zina wanted to understand the workings of the computer and found comfort in the

knowing of something. The lack of knowledge was the basis of the fear and a reason for

not venturing out to even begin using the technology.

77

Norma never mentioned the words fear, afiaid, or scared in her interview but
made the same point it two different ways. First, she rationalized her inexperience with
PowerPoint by admitting to lack of courage.

Norma: I would see it on my computer but I never would push the button to turn

lSta(irrcllra: You weren’t brave enough?

Norma: No, I wasn’t brave enough. I’m not in an adventurous person. (53 — 54)
Second, she clearly stated her issue evolved around not knowing enough to be effective.

Because I’m quite sure that their other teachers, who are doing an excellent job

with the technology, and their children are benefiting from it. But I felt like I

didn’t know enough and that was my whole thing. Not enough. I didn’t know.

(60)

Perhaps Norma expresses it best. Not knowing what to do or how to do it was
more burdensome than actual fear. Not knowing enough, although no teacher could
articulate what it meant to know enough, provoked this sense of fear. Knowing more
than their students or not knowing all about an application drove many teachers away
from educational technology. Until proficiency was established, they were reluctant to
begin introducing technology at any level into their classrooms. The dichotomy was that
they also did not know how to become proficient. This circuitous state of being resulted
in little or no progress and a sense of - why bother? Until all teachers are given
opportunities to learn about technology and how to incorporate technology choices in
their practice, options for enhancing student learning though the use of educational
technology will remain essentially unfulfilled.

Subsequent Teacher Use of Technology - Post Training

An important question for the study was how teachers’ use of technology changed

after completion of the professional development event. At the time of the interviews,

78

almost eighteen months had passed and teachers had ample time to implement the content
from the forty hours of inservice. During this time teachers could, if they chose to,
continue acquiring skills and increase their comfort level. Some of the fear could
potentially dissipate allowing for more experimentation in the classroom with students.
None of the teachers reported no change or a continued effort to avoid technology either
personally or professional. Some did express difficulty implementing what they learned
but did not indicate a lack of interest or a decision not to continue trying to use some
form of technology.
Olivia saw a marked change in her professional use of the intemet. In the
following statement she seems a little surprise at what she was able to accomplish.
Yeah, one thing I did too was after Intel . . . was I felt more comfortable going to
.. . I spent some time researching for things for a supplement to Anne Frank
material. I got kind of almost sidetracked looking at the Danish resistance during
WWII under NAZI domination and how they helped the Jews and stuff. So I
found a lot of I just the kept going into more web sites and more web sites. It
was the first real exploring I have felt comfortable doing on a topic and I almost
couldn’t stop. (112)
Olivia also felt comfortable enough signing up to use a classroom set of hand held
writers, Alpha Smart units, to use during a unit with her students. Watching her students’
excitement at being able to use the technology and their ease at adjusting to the new tool
convinced her that trying other things might not be as daunting as she had anticipated.
Olivia also began using email more frequently and used Word to join her
colleagues who created “these wonderful handouts that they had generated themselves
and wonderful syllabi and other lovely things (60).” She was also able to locate

supplementary information for a novel she was teaching and used a collection of websites

from the inservice and for “just plain information on where to go for things that I don’t

79

think even my some of my peers knew about or utilized. There’s stuff that 1 still can tap
just by going through my materials (100).”

Zina’s confidence level increased to the point that even shopping for technology
became an event filled with knowledge and certainty. She described her use of
technology after the inservice as “more and varied” (103) and then continued with this
example:

And that’s the other thing Intel did. I own three thumb drives and I bought a hub.

I saw them on sale at Home Depot and I’m thinking, well, I think I need that. It’s

only $10.00. So I bought a hub. It’s not hooked up but I own it. And when I get

to know how to use it, then I’ve got it. The other thing I did was at Home Depot

they had USB cords, three of them for $10.00. I paid 30 bucks for one when I

first got mine. So I bought those. I mean I knew that was a good deal. So I

would not have known that before and I also knew when I looked at it and I saw it

said 2.0 cable. OK, I know that’s what I need. (103)

Cathy explained her change in how technology was used after the inservice in
very simple terms.

I’m using it. Bottom line. I am using it more. I’m using it to do my own records.

I’m using it to do like you even taught me on the Grade Quick and how you go in

and do the little message and stuff. I’m venturing out more and doing a little

more expanding, when it works. (66)

She also explained the changes in how she worked with students using technology.

Just the mere fact that I am using it more and I’m using it with my students and

they’re doing reports on it and I can take them upstairs to the library and [media

center stafl] will help me with my class upstairs. Before I had never taken a class

up there — period. (68)

It was hard to get a sense of how much F iona’s use of computers had changed. The
changes were subtle rather than blaring. Her attitude on student use of her lone computer
was one example. Prior to the Intel inservice, she seldom allowed students to use the

computer without her direct supervision. After the professional development she allowed

students to search for information knowing that “I feel comfortable enough if they get in

80

a bind, if they can’t figure out the information, I can go over and say let me show
you (84).” For some teachers even small changes are important. Fiona was proud of her
conversion to a flash drive in lieu of her old floppy disks. She explained,

. .. because, well, you know, the era of the floppy disk. Once I got on board with

that showing everybody this little key that can store the same amount information

Showing my husband how that’s obsolete. You can’t use that anymore. Oh,

you can’t use that anymore? . .. that’s how you store information now. (108,

110,112)

Later, she stored slides for her classes on the single flash drive where before she has
distributed floppy disks to students.

Fiona found the inservice helpful in her subsequent use of a grade book program
licensed by the school. She saw first hand how by using technology she could change the
presentation of data for communicating with parents. She observed, “it looked so
professional. I can’t believe how we would carry around our grade books and present
this to the public (104).”

A Question of Sustainability

A final question asked what could be done to be more supportive of the efforts
these teachers were making to increase their technology effectiveness. If the ‘sit and get’
workshops were inadequate and the Intel inservice more beneficial, why had so little
change actually taken place? What was it that teachers felt would be the most beneficial
for helping them through the complexities of educational technology integration?

As one might expect, teachers wanted more time to practice what they had learned
during an inservice. This is consistent with most literature about reform focused

. professional development. Using unfamiliar technology tools in the classroom required

preparation, knowledge, and some degree of efficacy before inclusion. Teachers wanted

81

time to practice and experiment in order to feel more confident. While teachers felt the
Intel program included this time as a part of the course organization, more time was also
desired to continue building confidence and efficacy.

Next to the gift of more time, all the teachers in this study wanted a place or a
person to go to where they could get answers and help when they needed it. More than
one teacher expressed the desire to have someone work with them in their classroom with
their students. Cathy, for example, received a data projector for use in her department.
The school’s audio visual specialist visited her room to connect the device and showed
her how to use it. “I’ve had a lesson on it one time and [he] went so fast on it I was like
zip that baby up (136).” This one time event was insufficient leaving her with questions
and doubt. “I guess the mere fact that I’ve had the one lesson and I need more. . . . I need
feedback. I need someone to (140)” Trailing off, Cathy’s gestures indicated a sense
of fi'ustration and powerlessness.

Olivia’s lack of experience allowed her to use her school social network to help
her over the rough spots. “Usually at the level I’m at a peer can tell me more than I
know. And I haven’t yet reached the point where my questions are so great none of my
peers can help me with it (150).” However, she goes on to point out that if she were to
outgrow her peers, “. . . if that were to happen I don’t know what I’d do. I’m not sure
where I would go (150).” At the time of the interview, she was not aware of any
resources that would be able to help her answer the tough questions.

Olivia does not expressly mention her knowledgeable network of peers when
asked what can be done to support her in her efforts. Her peers included a former

technology teacher, a teacher taking educational technology master’s courses, and the AV

82

specialist who was housed in close proximity to her classroom. These colleagues were
supportive but she saw her increased progress as a personal, individual endeavor when
asked the steps she needed to give her students the opportunities she wanted for them.
She could envision achieving her goal by, “Setting the parameters, reserving the
computer lab, and going at it and doing a certain amount of winging it (172).”

Zina was especially concerned about finding a resource to help her increase and
sustain her skills learned in the Intel program. Isolation was a key factor for her since her
program served elementary students but was housed in a secondary building. She did not
feel a connection with the teachers around her who were on a different schedule and
physically distant from her classroom. She missed the availability of other elementary
teachers when “I could holler out the door—and say ‘hey, I’ve got this issue could
somebody come down and show me how to do this?’ And somebody would come down
and show you how to do this (137).” This support from those in close proximity would
be more conducive to promoting change because “it takes a lot of effort for me to go find
someone and schedule it and make the phone call (137).”

Norma was another teacher who longed for a resource that she could count on to
come to her classroom and help her to do things correctly. She relied on the presence to
the workshop facilitator to boost her confidence. “But you have confidence when you’re
with the instructor because you know you have help. But then when you get back in your
classroom that confidence sort of zeros out (134).”

Fiona’s preference was for more Intel training. For her working with her
colleagues was a big plus and getting additional support in the form of manuals and

emails was not what she wanted in the way of continuing support. She also wanted to

83

have a person available “because I do have the book but I like to see people in front of
me (224).” Cathy was perhaps the most adamant about having a support or resource
person available to help her in her classroom. Initially she indicated she could rely on the
media center staff as resources for her questions. “I guess we have resources upstairs that
I can use. . . . because sometimes around here you just have to fly by the seat of your own
pants (112).” But she ended her statement with the opposite conclusion. She did not
seem to feel there actually was a place to go for her questions. She reiterated the desire
for a person to work with her individually during the interview.
. .. it would be nice if I had somebody come in to just spend a few hours to guide
me through this process or procedure. That would be nice. That would be the
kind of inservice that I would like. (114)
I would like to see the person who is available in the district to say, OK, February
19, I’m assigned to come and work with Cathy’s class and this is all we’re going
to do. I’m going to teach each one of her classes and while I’m teaching she is
going to learn from me. I need some role models. (120)
Somebody who’s available for not just me because I’m pretty sure there’s
someone else out there in the district, in the same boat as I am, but to have
someone available to come in. (122)
I would like to have someone like I said in the district who could come out and
spend this the day with Cathy. And this is how you work this. Now let me
unplug it and now you do this. (142)
I would find that beneficial but on the same token the person who’s doing that
should be able to say well, the district has provided me so many days or each
Tuesday and Wednesday so that I can go out into the district. Now I‘ve given you
this information would you like for me to come and show you? Would you like
for me to come and do some follow up with you? Because like you can be in
those workshops and I don’t want everybody to know I know next to nothing. 1
need to be able to feel free to say I don’t know; come and help me. (154)

Cathy was the least knowledgeable in the group and within an environment .of comfort

would share this status with others. For her, one on one instruction with lots of hand

84

holding was what she felt she needed to gain a greater degree of efficacy and even a
modicum of fluency.
Reflections across Cases

One thing became clear after talking to these six teachers. They wanted to
understand how to use technology in their classrooms. They were aware that other
teachers had begun, at the very least, to use some form of technology. How to
accomplish this feat for themselves was the missing part of the puzzle. Each teacher
wanted her students to experience using technology even if a goal of increased student
achievement was not overtly stated. The teachers in this study gave of their own time
outside of contract hours without compensation. They came because we invited them to
participate in a forum where they could work with their peers to explore what to them
was uncharted territory.

Olivia’s excitement came fi'om her students who had no trouble diving right in to
her writing project using portable keyboards despite her reluctance. Very purposeful in
her determination, Zina had made it a personal goal to improve her skills. She stated
rather eloquently,

It’s a goal. That’s my professional development goal for myself is to get better.

I’m teaching advanced and accelerated kids who really know more about

technology than I do and I need to be able pave the way for them to utilize it in

the best way possible. These are our leaders of tomorrow and it would be a

deficit for them to have a teacher who didn’t know how to open some doors.

Tonya and Norma wanted their students to have opportunities to use technology.

Both realized the increasing amount of information available was advantageous for them

as teachers and for expanding the knowledge base of their students. Cathy’s comment

85

about keeping pace with others for social events triggered her personal need to become
more comfortable with technology.

While the ubiquitous state of technology suggests that more emphasis or demand
for improving technology skills might have been appropriate for policy decisions, these
teachers sought to expand their knowledge independently through self motivation and
self determination. All six faced a number of challenges along the path to change.
Technology related professional development through the district was scantily supported.
Though the district approved the training of approximately fifteen Intel Master Teachers,
no consistent support or encouragement from the district followed to expand the Intel
mission of teachers training teachers. Master Teachers returned to their individual
buildings obliged to create their own programs for further Intel training. Support at the
local school level was inconsistent with principals being tolerant rather than encouraging.
The program never became a part of the designated professional development days or
included in menus for session selections.

There is no way to avoid mentioning the lack of adequate equipment in
classrooms particularly in this district. One computer per thirty five students is an
abysmal ratio to expect much to be accomplished by teachers or students. Districts tend
to counteract this data by including computer lab and media center equipment in order to
reduce the student to equipment ratio. During the 2005-06 school year the district added
two new computer labs in the middle schools. Add the new labs to one existing lab and
the media center and the number of pieces of equipment in each school increased by»

approximately 140 computers. This increase in equipment reduces the ratio but not

86

enough to make a difference especially for the classroom teachers who do not have
regular, equal access to it.

Add the time it took to replace equipment and over time the ratio is further
reduced by what is no longer functioning and beyond repair. One could question the
practicality of investing the time to use something that may be, in a short time, out of date
or in poor working condition. While much can be done with one computer in the
classroom, four to five units in the classroom can be effective for changing a teacher’s
practice (Burns, 2002), learning about integrating technology, and for building students
2 1 st century skills.

Tonya’s situation as an elementary teacher with a computer and a program to
support student reading and later as a middle school teacher with no computer for eight
years provides a picture to explain why teachers collectively have not moved forward
with educational technology. The inconsistencies with the availability of equipment
make for inconsistencies in what we can expect from classroom teachers. Personal
productivity or uses outside of the classroom would tend to be a more determining factor
as reported by Schrum (1999) when we look at who has the knowledge about technology
that could be integrated in their content.

Equipment became another challenge for this group of teachers. Far too much of
the technology available to them was outdated or malfunctioning. During the days when
things were fresh and new, they knew little about what to do with the equipment.
Recalling Norma’s explanation, “There was not a big emphasis during the time that I was
taking those workshops on integrating technology in the classroom (56).” By the time

they became more proficient, the equipment was beginning to fade and its usefulness

87

wane. During my interviews with Cathy and Tonya, both were experiencing difficulties
vvith their equipment. Getting access to computer labs or portable equipment was also
daunting. Norma knows this all too well,

I can only go a certain time to use the equipment because there is a group of

everybody who is trying to use the same equipment. you have only a certain

length of time when you go to the computer lab .. .” (68)

The restrictions on when she could take her class and how long they could stay made
using the computer lab more complicated than not using it at all.

The more tech sawy teachers booked equipment time early and more frequently
making access difficult for teachers less certain of how or why to use the technology.
Lack of knowledge meant not understanding why something might be in demand,
therefore, obfuscating last minute or short time frames when requesting access.
Instructional computer labs, most not in use for as least one period each day, were under
utilized. Teachers are reluctant to encroach on another teacher’s instructional space.
There is a sense of possessiveness and the desire not to disturb others working in their
classroom during planning time.

Teachers were also fearful of students using equipment, especially the lone
computer in each room. Despite a directive relegating the lone computer in the
classroom for use by students, teachers were still overly cautious of students using
equipment and teachers continued to restrict access. Zina, unlike most of the other
teachers had an additional computer, yet was not willing to include access for one of
them. She stated, “1 am limited because I have one computer available to them and one
computer in my office which 1 am reluctant to make available to them.” Norma

described her control of access this way —

88

If I have asked you to use the computers, they will come to my desk and get on
the lntemet and research whatever they need. I print it off and they go back to
their desks because I have more students and only have one computer in the
classroom. (98).
Because this was the only computer and daily attendance was required, teachers wanted
to be certain it was in working order at all times. In effect, it became the most under
utilized and most costly equipment in the classroom. Daily attendance consumed
approximately thirty (30) minutes out of the school day. Ironically, since student access
was limited or restricted, students had little opportunity to share their technical skills with
the teacher or with other students to the benefit of all.

When the district technology support staff changed the operating system on
Tonya’s computer, what was working ceased to do so leaving her with no working
equipment for her or her students. Getting new equipment in her building meant signing
up for consideration when a batch of new computers arrived. Norma spoke about getting
added to the list but lamented that teachers had to justify their request. She found this
disconcerting because her lack of knowledge meant she would not know how to apply
and because she had antiquated equipment she could not learn how to do more.

...they said that they were going to be giving out new computers next year.

But what you have to do is write up a plan on how you’re going to use the

technology. And I felt like no give me the computer and then you come in and

have someone to teach us the new programs or how technology can be integrated

into math. How it can be integrated into science. (66)

Fiona’s protective attitude toward the computer changed after her Intel
experience. She relocated the classroom computer and stated,

Before I was . .. I would say we would still look information up on the computer

but I wouldn’t let students go by themselves. I just didn’t trust that. But the way

my computer is set up in my classroom I can see what they’re doing and I feel

comfortable enough if they get in a bind, they can’t figure out the information, I
can go over and say let me show you. I wouldn’t have done that before. (84)

89

Reflections on Professional Development

Professional development either general or technology related was an issue for
these teachers. Collectively they had mixed responses on the quality or content of the
professional development provided by the district. All found the district policies on the
content or topics offered lacking. Norma, for example, wanted to know more about
teaching students to write, however, the writing professional development available
crammed the content into too short a time frame to leave her feeling confident. Teachers
indicated that some technology classes were offered such as GroupWise, an email system
or sessions on the electronic system for recording quarterly grades. What they did not
mention were sessions specifically for instructional technology. Professional
development on how to use technology in the classroom was not reported as an option for
any of the teachers in the study. While the Intel program fit this category, it was not a
program supported or endorsed by the district. In other words, it was never offered as an
option or selection for required professional development days.

We know that professional development to meet the individual needs of teachers
is problematic. Such an inservice commitment is generally cost prohibitive (Koppich,
Toch and Podgursky, 2000). Offering generic topics such as classroom management or
Cathy’s “Creative Movement” allowed the district to reach more teachers with fewer
consultants. Koppich, et al. also noted that federally funded professional development is
typically relegated to core academics “to support teachers' subject matter knowledge and
mastery of subject-based pedagogy (p. 265).” Little is mentioned in their writing about
the role of the federal government in professional development related to technology

except the following statement:

90

 

 

In addition, Eisenhower funds could be used to align states' teacher licensing

requirements with new standards; recruit underrepresented groups, such as

minorities and women, into mathematics and science teaching; and train teachers

in the effective use of educational technology.( p. 274)

The most telling word in the above quote is the word ‘could.’ We could interpret
from this one word that educational technology was not a necessity for teachers or a
requirement. It appears to be an after thought for the distribution of funding, leaving
state education departments with the notion that educational technology is expendable or
unnecessary for the nation’s teachers. Providing professional growth to build human
capital, that is skills that meet the needs of the organization based on specific criteria, is
expensive. Unlike some private sector industries, teachers come prepared to do the work
by virtue of their credentials. Therefore, a conscious effort must be made to create
teachers who in addition to be being strong in their content or subject matter would alSo
be strong in the use of educational technology.
Reflections on Teacher Use

By 2004, technology in education was gaining momentum. However, the six
teachers in these cases, most in Cohen’s (2005) second half of life, had limited
experience using technology either personally or professionally. Generally personal
productivity is the first phase for setting the stage to introduce technology into the
classroom. Discovering the potential of a piece of software or equipment through
personal exploration and use helps to build confidence and skill. The group of six had
few personal experiences. Fiona, Norma, and Olivia used word processing for lesson
preparation but did not necessarily include this function with their students in any 7

capacity. lntemet access was the one common factor for all six. Most used the intemet

for personal retrieval of information which they then used in their classrooms. None had

91

reached a stage where many teachers, albeit mistakenly, view intemet research as
evidence of technology integration. Cathy, prior to the Intel program, had never taken
her class to the media center to do research online. Norma needed the Intel experience to
start her use of PowerPoint. Although MicroSoft Office products were installed on all
district computers, she had never explored the software.

If I hadn’t had the Intel program 1 would not be doing the PowerPoint. That was

one of the things that we did learn in the Intel workshop. Because I wouldn’t

know what to do or how to bring the program up. I would see it on my computer

but I never would push the button to turn it on. (52)

All of the teachers found some way to include technology after their Intel
experience. Olivia, for example, appreciated being able to mimic her peers with their
impressive handouts. She and Zina were more willing to be adventuresome by bringing
portable writers to supplement student work in their content areas. The use of
PowerPoint increased for most of the teachers. The data implies that teachers felt this
technology was easy to use with students and that their students would be willing to use
it.

Tonya’s comfort level with the use of PowerPoint, supported by a resource in her
building, encouraged her to use the product with all of her classes. With Intel behind her
and support in her building, her previous method of initially introducing new learning
strategies to one or two classes allowed her to move forward with all six of classes at the
same time.

Reflections on Sustainability
The effectiveness of any professional development is always a concern for

providers and participants. One 'of the objectives of this study was to identify evidence to

demonstrate the effectiveness of the Intel program. This was not the primary purpose of

92

the study and as facilitator there was a concern that the participants would be tempted to
provide positive feedback to avoid embarrassing their former workshop leader.

Research literature on professional development identifies several characteristics
of effective professional development. Of those not controlled by district and
administration policies, four were represented in the data analyzed for this study.
Teachers in the study made positive references to the following characteristics: duration
of the inservice (Cohen and Hill, 2000), content directed toward student achievement
(Desimone, Porter, et.al., 2002), active learning as participants (Borko, 2004; Hargreaves,
1999; Hawley and Valli, 1999), collaboration and collegiality (Hargreaves, 1999; Sugar
and Wilson, 2005; Zhao and Franks, 2003), and on-going support of their learning
(Hawley and Valli, 1999). Compared to the district sponsored professional development
teachers identify more characteristics of effective professional development when
discussing the Intel program.

Fiona and Cathy spoke of the collaboration and collegiality of the program Which
allowed for the sharing of knowledge between participants. As active learners teachers
gained insight into how their students might react to lessons infused with technology.
Because the program duration was longer than typical after school or half day short term
workshops, teachers felt they had greater opportunity to apply what was learned and
report on their successes and failures at subsequent sessions.

Though the Intel program was designed for a finite conclusion, teachers indicated
the need for on going support. After several weeks of having instructors available, .
teachers wanted a person who would continue to work with them in their classrooms.

Even eighteen months after the initial Intel course, three of the teachers in the study

93

participated in a repeat of the course. The Intel program offered online support but this
group of experienced teachers did not demonstrate a comfort level that would allow them
to use this resource when the face to face contact ended.

A major consideration in selecting experienced teachers for this study was the
opportunity to inquire about what could be done to support them in using technology in
the classroom. If they had neglected or ignored technology and were now prepared to
rethink it as a viable instructional tool, what would they like to have to help them in their
endeavors? None of the teachers in this study indicated in any way that technology in
their classroom would not in some way benefit their students. They realized that most of
their students were already users of some form of technology and extending its use to the
classroom was simply a logical next step. They, the teachers, were the problem. They,
by their own admissions, were not knowledgeable enough to know what to do or how to
do it. If they were willing to learn and if they realized the possibilities after the Intel
program, what more was needed to make them successful, confident, and closer to
fluency?

Teachers in this study also reported that resources for clarity on using technology
in the classroom were scarce. Some initially cited the district support desk as a source for
help apparently unable to distinguish between hardware trouble-shooting and support for
using technology for instructional purposes. Often an additional probing question was
required to separate the notion of malfunctioning equipment from details about the lack
of understanding about how to use technology to enhance or support certain content.

Two things became clear: 1) teachers did not know where to find resources either

within their buildings or outside; and 2) teachers wanted a person available to them to

94

“model” use and support their efforts to try to understand the instructional uses of
technology. Olivia’s conclusion that “winging it” (172) would help her move forward
was most revealing about how teachers saw support for technology. That teachers must
learn instructional technology strategies in isolation means reaching a point of fluency
and competency will take more time and delay meeting their own and their students’ need
for fluency.

Tonya was the only teacher in the study who came close to meeting this need for a
resource person. She used the media center staff to teach her students and initially
became a student herself in order to learn a particular application. By being able to return
to the media center in a timely manner, this resource was available so that Tonya “would
just take the lead and just holler for her when I got a little stuck (20).” Individual
attention was an important factor for Tonya in learning to be more proficient. Her
sessions at the public library met in small classes “so you get lots of hands on and
individual attention (58).” As a result it made her feel “more confident with the
computers (60).”

All of the teachers in this study wanted individualized and personalized
instruction designed to help them obtain specific strategies even if they could not
articulate them. One example was Norma’s fi'ustration with a plan for using technology
in order to acquire new equipment. She wanted the equipment first and then someone to
tell her how it could best be used with her students and her content. Not knowing placed
her at a disadvantage even if intuitively she knew more was possible. Cathy was
persistent in her request for a person to come to her classroom and patiently demonstrate

to her and her students. By observing a knowledgeable person she would then be able to

95

replicate the lesson gaining confidence and skill. She was simply not prepared to go it
alone once the support structure of the Intel program concluded.

Tonya also found two computer teachers in the building to be good resources.
Her experience with her colleagues proved very beneficial. However, her ability to find
supportive peers did not carry over to Norma who worked in the same building. Note the
different perceptions in the following statements:

Tonya: We do have a media person .. . one of our media persons who is very

willing to show you how to do different things on the computer [and] also to

demonstrate for your class. So .. . that’s available. We have two other computer

teachers in the building who are very kind about helping if people need assistance.

(139)

Sandra: Suppose you thought that mail merge would be a good thing to use.

Who would you go to to ask that, to ask for help?

Norma: Right now to be honest, nobody. To me there is no one available.

There’s no one available because I’ve spoken to some of the tech people in the

building and even with PowerPoint they said they didn’t know how. That they

didn’t know a lot about it. (1 ll — 1 12)

Another contradiction can be found when the discussion of new equipment arose.
Tonya felt confident she would receive one of the new computers when they arrived. She
stated, “But we have some new computers in the building and I was told that I was on the
list to get one of the newer ones (149).” When asked why she thought that would be
possible she added, “I guess the gentleman when he came and saw my antique [and] he
felt sorry for me. We need to help you (151).” Norma, however, was told to write up a
plan in order to be considered for new equipment. “But what you have to do is write up a
plan on how you’re going to use the technology (66).”

Olivia at Yardley and Tonya at Central were the fortunate ones since they were

able to use their social networks to solicit assistance. Each had people they felt

comfortable approaching to seek help and who were willing to show them unfamiliar

96

techniques. However, it is interesting to note that the other teachers did not find these
same resources available to them in the same buildings. For example, Zina mentioned
not wanting to impose on other teachers in her building. Norma indicated that no one in
her building could answer her questions about PowerPoint. Implied here is an imbalance
in the interaction among teachers within the same building. How is it, we might ask, that
one teacher is able to get the support she needs, but not another? A consideration for
further study may be how social networks in schools can be used to more effectively
distribute knowledge about the integration of technology.

Understanding the social network of the school (Penuel and Riel, 2007) may
provide a method for determining if and where gate keeping of information about
technology exists. These conflicting views of how knowledge was transferred within the
building implied that information reached some teachers and not others for some
undetermined reasons. We could begin to question the social capital of one teacher over
that of another and how each relationship influences the flow of information for school
reform in general.

Final Thoughts

If we are to view teachers in this study as representative of others in similar stages
of their teacher life cycle, it is clear that changes are necessary in the role of professional
development in increasing fluency in technology. One viable solution may be the
availability of a “knowledge broker” (Oldham and McLean, 1997) who functions as an
intermediary between those with a specific knowledge base and those in need of such
knowledge. Plair (2008) recounted how knowledge brokering can be a way to ‘revamp’

technology related professional development. Five roles were identified for the

97

educational technology knowledge broker: harbinger of information, master of strategies
and techniques, teaching artist, J ohnny-on-the-Spot, and catalyst for change and unity.
These roles allowed the knowledge broker to manipulate technology related knowledge
to best suit the needs of individual teachers, content areas, schools, and possibly districts.
Knowledge brokers would be prepared to create, acquire, assimilate, utilize, and
disseminate knowledge related to educational technology as needed by teachers.

These knowledge brokers are already present in some schools and districts under
such titles as instructional technologist, technology integration specialist, and educational
technology specialist. Their function is very similar to the often federally funded
positions such as reading, math, or writing specialists or coaches. Districts would do well
to include the technology integration specialist or knowledge broker to the ongoing
professional development of its teachers in a transition fiom Shulman’s (1983) PCK or
pedagogical content knowledge to today’s version of TPACK, or technological
pedagogical and content knowledge (Koehler and Mishra, 2005). Just as teachers once
needed to maintain strong competencies in content and pedagogy, knowledge of how to
support these areas with the use of technology is just as significant.

Administrators and policy makers would do well to recognize the influence a
technology rich curriculum can have on student achievement. When a teacher, like
Olivia, reports on her students’ engagement and eagerness to participate in their learning
when using technology, we can, at best, surmise that some learning is occurring and
increased achievement is a likely outcome. Because technology innovations change so
rapidly, research literature on technology and student achievement is sparse. Therefore,

teachers skilled in educational technology strategies should be encouraged to continue

98

integrating technology and document their successes, and failures, through action
research. These smaller studies may help disseminate information more quickly about
the relationship and effectiveness of instructional technology and student achievement.

Over time the number of teachers with minimal proficiency or fluency in
technology will diminish. New teachers, some of them digital natives, will eventually fill
classrooms of aging teachers. We should, however, not assume that new teachers are
automatically able to convert their recreational technology use into effective instructional
technology strategies (Plair, 2007). All teachers need the ongoing benefits associated
with a knowledge broker to keep abreast of changing technology, to discover new
instructional strategies, and to sustain and enhance their existing levels of technology
fluency.

The new TPACK focus will help change attitudes toward the use of various
technologies in the classroom. This ‘movement’ is focusing on the use of technology in
practical and ‘appropriate’ ways in concert with each content area. (See
h_ttp://www.tpack.org/) While supporting efforts to provide students with let century
skills, teachers are encouraged to look for ways technology adds depth and richness to the
content they teach and the pedagogy that defines their practice. But even with the
increasing recognition that technological knowledge is necessary, changes are needed in
how to effectively and efficiently help teachers to make sense of how to use technology
in their content and in their teaching. Expecting them to continue in isolation will not
create a climate of change. Providing extension technology related professional
development, like Intel, and placing a knowledge broker within easy reach may be key to

meeting the needs of even the more reluctant and ‘fearful’ experienced teacher.

99

Chapter 4

A Tale of Three Teachers: “Running as Fast as I Can”

In this chapter we revisit two teachers fiom Chapter Three. Five years have
passed since the initial Intel professional development event. Since that time, two of the
six teachers have completed another iteration of the Intel course and participated in a 20
hour professional development activity that I developed and facilitated to explore how to
teach in an online learning environment. I also requested research approval so that I
might capture the discourse of teachers in the midst of a technology related professional
development and several hours of this inservice were recorded and transcribed. A new
teacher enters the picture in this chapter because she fimctioned initially as a facilitator
for the Intel inservice and then later as a participant in the online learning professional
development activity. She is able to facilitate technology related professional
development because of her technology skills but provides the viewpoint of a participant
because she knew little about how to integrate technology into her classroom until late in
her career. The chapter explores how the teachers have been coping with this notion of
technology fluency and integration in the ensuing years.

These three teachers have been colleagues over the span of my teaching career in
a district previously defined as urban based on the large numbers of At Risk students.
They are teachers I respect for the work they do with children and for the way, over many
years, they have tolerated and indulged me in my personal educational technology .
crusade. Over the years we have shared some of the same students and those students
have shared the technology of the computer room with them, their often baffled content

teachers.

100

Preparing the Canvas

In this chapter, 1 return to portraiture as a way to present the three case studies.
As in the previous chapter, this method allows the researcher and the subject to enter into
a more relaxed relationship (Lawrence-Lightfoot, 1997). Because these women know me
as a colleague and as a facilitator, the case at which we were able to interact allows for a
more open dialogue. Although, it is also important to consider that because of this
relationship, what they tell me may be shaped in ways that are more positive and may be
tainted by an avoidance of any negativity that might ‘harm’ my work.

Each case study was developed in the same manner. An interview protocol was
developed and the semi-structured interview sessions were arranged in such a way to
eliminate any time restrictions. In other words, each interview session ended when time
became a constraint and a subsequent time to continue was arranged. We continued
meeting until all the questions were answered. During the interviews, additional probing
questions were used based on the skill level of each teacher and if the interview took an
‘unexpected’ turn. On occasion, emails were exchanged in order to clarify an answer or
probe for more information.

Data was collected via audio recording and each interview was carefully
transcribed by the researcher for later data analysis. Because this study asks subjects to
recount historical practices and events, the transcripts were coded in an effort to derive
the best accounting of each teacher’s personal experience with technology. Three general
themes were foremost in the analysis to provide a sense of consistency within the
framework of a historical, yet individual perspective. The three themes are:

0 How do teachers reflect and react to the educational technologies encountered
during the course of their teaching careers?

lOl

o How do we describe the attitude of these teachers toward instructional
technology in contrast to the initial interviews from Chapter Three?
0 What can we learn about how teachers cope with the complexities of trying to
include educational technology in their practice?
Background

Over a period of approximately five years I had advocated for various technology
related professional development activities within our district. My personal goal was to
help my colleagues do what I did — teach with technology. While Cuban (2002) chastised
educators for not utilizing expensive computers in the classroom, I, after spending several
years working with technology for a large corporation, could only see a greater need to
prepare students for a workplace filled with computers and more. I also saw technology
as a great tool for learning and as another option for presenting content, testing ideas,
locating information, and collaborating with any number of distant characters related to
education.

My colleagues, however, did not see technology as a tool for teaching or for
learning except for the occasional drill and practice typical of early adaptations of
technology in classrooms. Teachers seemed to take the position “that computer classes
and their applications were not the purview of the content area teacher or classroom.
Word processing and spreadsheet programs were something taught down the hall under
the domain of some other teacher (Plair, 2008, p. 71).” By choosing to focus on these
three Veteran teachers, other teachers, administrators, and policy makers will hear their
stories and understand the difficulties involved in the metamorphosis of becoming more

technologically fluent. Adding technology to your teaching is relatively simple if you

already have a pretty fair idea of how the stuff works. These teachers demonstrate that

102

even with the luxury of prior knowledge making the trek to technology fluency is quite a
challenge.

A T ale of Three Teachers
Meet the Teachers

All the teachers in the cases that follow are experienced or veteran teachers. At
this stage in their teaching careers they are well established; skilled at classroom
management; knowledgeable about their content; and wise in the political climate of their
district. They are often mentors of preservice and new teachers and have extra curricular
duties beyond the school work day. That technology had not found its way into their
classrooms was strange to me and over time I appreciated their patience and support for
me as I tried to provide opportunities for them to change their practice with the infusion
of technology.

Cathy was probably the impetus for beginning this whole project of looking at
experienced teachers and technology. She was the most ‘needy’ when it came to
technology and the most receptive to my attempts to prod her along. She was the clean
slate I thought would become a shining star once she had lots of exposure to educational
technology. As a traditional teacher, Cathy’s classroom was pretty predictable. Projects
and course requirements did not change much from year to year. Hers was usually the
first name on any list when a technology related inservice became available because I
made sure she heard about it first. When you hear her story you may wonder if she
participated to appease me or out of genuine curiosity. There are moments when the

distinction blurs.

103

Peggy is a complete contrast to Cathy when it comes to technology. She has
always been the tech savvy one who loves to have the latest technology gadget for her
personal use. While her comfort with technology creates the difference, she did not
integrate technology into her content area either. Even though her classroom is filled
with gently used and often discarded computers, how her students used technology was
stuck in the early period of drill and practice or reward for good behavior. Her name was
always added to any list of technology related professional development because of her
personal knowledge of technology. It was through these experiences that she began to
understand what it meant to integrate technology.

Zina was selected because of the work she does not only with her students but
with other teachers. Her teaching responsibilities are directed toward a select group of
students that she refers to as ‘our future leaders.’ Her goal to help them meet the
challenges of the 2lst century was and is commendable and 1 have the highest respect for
her as a fellow educator. That her students were not using technology during their time
in school was alarming to both of us. It became her personal goal to change this
circumstance and for my part, I alerted her to any technology related professional
development activity on the horizon. Today she has more computers in her classroom
than most teachers in her building and she purposefirlly seeks out ways to enrich
students’ lessons and her instruction with technology.

It ’s All About Trust

Cathy and I had been colleagues for a number of years. Our classrooms were on

the same corridor and our daily contact consisted of a few moments of conversation en

route to other destinations. Our schedules and our content areas were very different so

104

developing a more in depth personal relationship never occurred. As with other teachers
in this study, we were professional colleagues who respected each other as educators and
women.

As the de facto technology expert in the building, I frequently sought out teachers
who exhibited little or no use of technology in their classrooms and recommended them
for the few technology related professional development programs available in the
district.1 Since Cathy often stopped by my classroom to marvel at the activities of my
students, when I learned of technology inservice opportunities her name was frequently at
the top of the list of potential participants. It was my way of encouraging her to join the
2lst century and offer her students new and different ways of learning.

Cathy and I were also active in a three year professional development program
designed to encourage the teaching of interdisciplinary project based learning. This
contact strengthen our professional knowledge of one another and created a social
network link with the other participants. We often came together to discuss progress and
cross curricular options over this period. Some of the participants in this professional
development would later participate in technology programs either under my direction or
with my encouragement and have been research subjects for other studies during my
doctoral program.

In Chapter Three, Cathy was one of the six teachers interviewed after the initial

Intel program professional development. If we were to assign a phase or level of

 

' On returning from state conference I emailed the superintendent stating my dismay that our district was
not represented by two programs designed to assist teachers with learning technology. Those programs
were the Ameritech Technology Academy Scholars I/ll program and Intel Teach to the Future. Within two
years funds were provided for two sets of ATA scholars (teams from a limited number of schools) and the
training of approximately 15 Intel Teach to the Future Master Teachers. Master Teachers were then left to
own devices to ‘train’ other teachers without funding or support from the district.

105

technology fluency at that time, Cathy would be considered a novice user. Prior to the
Intel program she was essentially a non-user of technology; using it only when there was
no other option. Using technology created fear and anxiety but she had decided to make
an effort to learn more things and allow her students to include technology even if she did
not know how to do things herself. Like many teachers, she felt if she was not the skilled
technology person in her classroom and did not know everything about the software or
technology tool, it could not be used in her classroom. Teachers were the knowledge
brokers (White, 1987) for all things and she was unwilling to admit to her students that
she did not understand the technology or know how to use it. To my chagrin, when we
met again in 2009 for this study about experienced teachers and their travails into the
realm of technology fluency, I found that she had actually ‘regressed’ and essentially
given up any hope of becoming fluent enough in technology beyond some of the required
productivity tools implemented by the district.

Over the years Cathy became an ATA Scholar I (Ameritech Technology
Academy). She spent over 80 hours in two Intel Teach to the Future: Essential Course
offerings and participated in a 20 hour grant funded professional development event to
help teachers understand the new online learning requirements in our state. This later
event also had research approval to record the inservice ‘live.’ Many of these programs
allowed participants to walk away with a variety of “techie toys.” Cathy has received a
web cam, flash drives, a digital camera, digital recorders, a graphics tablet, and various
software applications. As the professional development organizer or facilitator my. goal
was to provide teachers with tools that belonged to them and not their schools or districts.

I reasoned that providing teachers with their own personal technology tools meant they

106

were more likely to experiment with using these tools for either personal or professional
use if they actually owned them. Schools often restricted the distribution of equipment.
Items were often not allowed outside of the building and there was always the issue of
loss or damage to ‘public’ property. My goal was to remove at least this one obstacle and
thereby remove the excuses or another barrier associated with learning to use technology.

At the time data was being gathered in 2006, Cathy had completed one round of
Intel Teach to the Future training and was participating in the second session with
primarily a new set of teachers. Over an 18 month period between the two sessions she
had been exploring the use of technology in her classroom. Her greatest concern at the
time of that study was the lack of a person, a knowledge broker, to help her over the
hurdles. She emphasized repeatedly the need for a person who would dedicate a specific
timefrarne to assist her in her classroom with her students in some area of technology.
This has not happened when we meet again. She has been left to her own devices and
must be her own technology advocate. It doesn’t work.

For example, Cathy still does not have the skills to find things on the lntemet.
Although through various professional development events she has been introduced to
some of them, understanding how to effectively use a search engine just does not seem to
have clicked. It becomes clear in the following dialogue,

Cathy: I would also like to see some sort of 3, doesn’t have to be online, but

somebody just once in a while send you, you know, hey, did you know this is out

there? Or these things are out there and available to you . . . some resources that
will point me in the right direction.

Sandra: There are plenty of resources on line so the question is why don’t you

know about them? .
Cathy: But no, then how do I go about what would I type in? See if I still
don’t have the knowledge (548, 551, 552)

107

When uncertain where to go next, Cathy has the tendency to trail off leaving
unfinished sentences. Her obvious limitations led me to wonder if we are making
assumptions about adult learning and use of the lntemet. None of the professional
development events that I had organized or facilitated had included detailed instruction
on how to navigate the lntemet or effectively use search engines. Aside from not being a
part of the workshop content, there seemed to be an underlying assumption that adults
would make an automatic transition from search skills used in a library to searching for
information on the lntemet. In the case of Cathy, this is probably a faulty assumption.

In fact, I leave the first interview session with Cathy stunned. She was to be my
poster child for the experienced teachers who had found the merits of technology and
been converted to a whole new being at least in her classroom. To my dismay, I find that
she has essentially abandoned all efforts to become the teacher with her technology rich
curriculum and the envy of her colleagues. Though she attends the occasional workshop
that might include technology, she has ceased making any effort to do things or explore
on her own.

I recall leaving the first interview almost weepy. What was to become of my
research? My whole premise that experienced teachers could become great technology
teachers if we only understood the underlying complexity or process for this growth was
shattered. Cathy had lost interest and any further discussion seemed pointless. I wanted
to use her journey fi‘om novice to expert as an example of a change in practice only to
find that in the three years since our last inservice she has receded like a turtle into its

shell.

108

Between interviews I managed to rethink what to make of this alarming turn of
events and realized that Cathy’s story may not be all that unique or unusual. If there were
other teachers who had tried to stoke up some degree of fluency in technology and either
failed or simply gave up, it was important to know why and allow their stories to be
heard. Cathy would serve as the representative for those teachers who would decide that,
‘yes, technology is nice and even important, but I will not be the one using it in my
classroom.’ Cathy was now much like Janine from Chapter Two with the exception that
Cathy had once been open to the initial efforts to change her practice. Now I just needed
to determine what had caused her to give up and retreat.

By the next interview Cathy has softened her position of complete lack of interest.
I worry after replaying the recording whether she has deduced my distress and is
attempting to placate me in some way. It would be very much in her character not to
disappoint me or inadvertently sabotage my work. I hear glirnmers of real interest but
without enough substance to convince me that any changes would occur in her teaching
practice. It is as though my grand experiment has failed. No matter how much
technology I have placed before her, the lack of constant reassurance and ongoing
support proved too detrimental for her continued progress.

With Cathy it is really a matter of trust. Obscured by references to fear she does
not trust herself to know what to do and she doesn’t trust the technology, especially the
computer, to keep the information she needs safe and secure for a later time. She speaks
often about pressing a button only to see all her work vanish or arriving one day to .find
that her classroom computer has malfunctioned holding her information captive. She

admits to using dual recording procedures for her grades. The classic grade book is ever

109

present and, for her, dependable at all times. What she may not realize is that even the
most technology literate users keep backup copies in various forms in the event that the
catastrophic actually occurs. She does not see this duality as normal and prudent but as
conformation that her bad karma with technology requires her to cling to the old, tried
and true way of doing things.

6

Because of her fear or what she calls, ‘bad karma.’ ‘. . . and maybe it’s just my
-bad luck or karma, but usually even when we would have classes with you, if something
could go wrong with the machine, I’m usually the one sitting at it (328),” she is reluctant
to release many of the non-technical methods that foster a sense of security. For firrther
affirmation she relates the one time she was brave enough to shop online and her account
became part of an attempted fraud.

Couldn’t have been three hours later my bank calls and says to me -— I need to

verify something on your card out of something Texas to the tune of two thousand

and some odd dollars. See what bad luck - karma? I told [my husband], this is

what happens to me. (374, 378, 380)

She has not taken advantage of much of the technology introduced and sometimes
actually given to her during previous technology related professional development.
Faced with a new piece of technology she unabashedly admits the likelihood of using it is
not high. “If somebody gave me a piece of technology and something to use even in my
classroom, you know, unless someone showed me how to do it, no, I probably wouldn’t
use it. Not at this point in my life, I really and truly would not. I am going to be honest
with you.” (104) I

Over the three interview sessions, Cathy vacillates between total lack of interest

and casual indications of curiosity. The need to be fluent in technology has become a

narrow focus of being something fim and personal with little connection or concern for

110

finding a place in her teaching practice. Disenchanted, Cathy places some of the blame
on her age and her decision to retire within the next year. “And I’m probably like a lot of
other folks — I hope I retire before they make us do whatever else is coming down the
pike (620).” There is a sense that time has run out for making any significant changes.

We retrace the educational innovations over the span of her career and determine
that her use of various early technologies, such as opaque projectors, was not especially
unusual. She recalls the evolution of copy machines and video formats such as 16
millimeter film and the manual film strip. The inclusion of VCRs and the transition to
the current DVD format did not seem to put her off. “I’ve gone with the flow with
everything and I know how to work those kinds of things (108).” But my initial question
about educational technology has drawn a blank. Cathy’s view of technology is limited
almost exclusively to computers. She tries to sort out her thinking about technology in
the following:

When you consider a tape recorder technology see I’m not, you know, when they

say technology the only thing comes to my mind in that darned computer. And I

don’t know .. . and I don’t know why it pops in there. And that’s the only thing

my vision is seeing. If it means technology it means I need to be doing something

with that computer in my classroom. (108)

now that you mentioned it I’m going to broaden my scope of it. (110)

I mean, it’s all technology but the light bulb didn’t come on until you said so. So

I guess you know there are endless possibilities out there but unless somebody

either turns on the light, opens the window, you don’t know what’s out there.

You’re still at a loss. (542)

When I ask Cathy if she feels her students are getting what they need to learn 2lst
century skills, she indicates that other teachers are doing what she can not do. “But no, I

don’t have that fear for my students because I know they’re getting it somewhere (134).”

She knows other teachers, especially ones not in her age group, include some technology

111

in their teaching although she does not know the extent of this use. Since there is no
forum to share ideas about technology use in the classroom, it is not clear how she came
to this conclusion. Nevertheless, she states with a tinge of regret in her voice, “It can’t be
me because I don’t have the background and the knowledge to take them forward (194).”

Cathy shares that her personal goals for the year are to master some of the
district’s electronic administrative tools. In order to achieve this goal she has been using
her social network to find other teachers who are willing to act as resources and they have
been patient with her lack of finesse with the computer. She provides an example with
the experience she had trying to navigate through an electronic grade book program and
how two teachers patiently helped her get through the process.

But like I say, if it weren’t for people like that and who can kind of laugh with me

and as I would say to them, you all are just going to drag this dinosaur out of her

cave yet before it’s over. (74)

A bit surprised by this comment I turn our discussion to the fact that it has been five years
since the first Intel Teach to the Future inservice. To which Cathy simply replies “I have

less now than I had then (76).” To clarify she continues, “Because I don’t have a class or
someonelike you (78).”

There is an undercurrent of frustration and bitterness toward the district decision
makers related to some of the required technology use. Email had become de rigueur and
Cathy finds it an imposition rather than a move forward. “I have now more of — ‘this is
what you need to do. I’m not sending any more hard copies (78).” Discontented with the

change she notes that “downtown sends everything on email so therefore I’m (referring

to the school administrators) going to email and there are no longer, you know, our little

112

staff updates on hard copy. You have to go online to get it (5 76).” She provides another
example of administrative inconsistency which focused on an online tool.

[Product] seems to be important to them, but where’s the training and that’s been
out in our district for how many years? Okay? So just don’t give me a little dip
here and a dip there and that’s it. You know, it has to be ongoing for me. It has
to be something that I’m going to use and going to do. (546)

Change it seems would be more palatable if she knew that she and her colleagues would
have adequate preparation for implementing the change.

Cathy further rationalizes her lack of interest by contrasting her situation with a
friend in the same age group who received more support during a transition to new
technology. If you ask, Cathy can provide the solution to this conundrum. She needs the
same opportunities for learning about the integration of technology that her fiiend
received.

. .. we do have one middle school in our district where they kind of focus on this

technology, all the kids had, [laptops], and a friend of mine, she’s retired now she

was really dragging her heels gungho, ‘I don’t want to do this here.’ But once
they got her involved in it she loves it. Okay. But you’ve got everything at your
hands. You’ve got everything there that you need. Don’t offer me something or
some sort of new fangled device and only give me bits and pieces of it, okay. Or
either, well, ‘we’re going to order this part of the program but we can’t afford that

part of it.’ And it’s usually the technology part of it that they can’t afford. (132)

1 don’t know what kind of money OMS got when they all went with these laptops

and all this here kind of stuff and [friend] drug her heals from not doing anything

to technology to now these laptops are the best thing since sliced bread. So what
drug her from one point like me to where she is right now and it was the
availability and the fact that they were interested in training [emphasis on

training] them to do this. (546)

Since all schools in the district were not treated equally, all teachers were not treated
equally and for Cathy this inequity makes all the difference between growing in fluency

and becoming stagnate.

113

Bring It On - I ’m Fearless

Peggy is included in this chapter because of her comfort with technology. She
provides a contrast and a middle ground between Zina and Cathy who both started with
limited technology skills. Peggy, though comfortable with technology, did not teach with
technology and recounting her growth and change in this area is worth telling. Her
journey with integrating technology demonstrates how teachers can change their practice
with effective professional development.

As colleagues Peggy and I connected because of our interest in technology. Since
I was active in the district’s technology committee, I often knew of resources which
would be of interest to her. When technology related professional development became
available, I included her name hoping that the content would help her to use the
technology in her classroom more effectively. Later, as Intel Master Teachers we would
share the workshop leadership duties though Peggy initially avoided being on center
stage as a presenter. She chose to be a support person providing individual attention for
the participants who floundered. Today she feels confident that she could do it all and
explains it as follows:

Peggy: having done it a few times is one thing but I’ve presented at some

workshops by myself and I think that in itself just helped me realize how much . ..

I think the more you do stuff like that the easier it gets and because I’ve done that

and things have gone well and I think it’s made me realize, hey, I can do this

stuff.

Sandra: Do you think that it was the difference between dealing with adult

learners rather than the students that you normally deal with that made a

difference for you?

Peggy: Well, definitely, well, your peers, you know, you just think they’re adults

and they probably know as much as I do and are they going to listen to me type of

thing. And then you realize, hey, they really do listen and are grateful and
everything. (429 — 431)

114

Peggy is a techie at heart. Her personal life is filled with the latest technology
gadget and she explains that she eagerly uses all of them. “. .. I like to know the newest
gadget. I like to learn about them (90).” That she did not teach with technology seems a
bit strange initially. Like most things in our lives, someone just needs to show us how
it’s done. Peggy’s revelation about teaching with technology came from her participation
in the Master Teacher training for the Intel Teach to the Future program.

I think I’ve always wanted technology in the classroom but to include it in the

lesson probably started more when I started that Intel class. It made me think of it

in a different way. You know, of it being part of the lesson not just a toy or not
just something separate that’s outside. You know what I’m saying? It’s not just

another thing; it’s part of what you’re doing. (114)

Our backgrounds are very similar in that we both began our trek into technology
by taking programming classes in the early 1980’s. Peggy uses the birth of her first child
as a milestone to mark her beginnings as a ‘techie.’ Her daughter, who was 28 years old
at the time of our interview, has never known a time when there was no computer in her
home. The logical next step for Peggy was to begin her teaching career tracking “down a
computer so I could have one in my classroom (464).”

Like me, Peggy is mostly self taught when it comes to learning how to use many
technologies. Over the years she has attended a variety of introductory workshops and
then used this basic information to work alone at home enhancing her skills for some new
application or gadget.

Peggy perhaps has the clearest understanding of what it means to integrate

technology. This becomes more obvious during our discussion of innovations in .

educational technology. She embraces change easily and is not intimidated by the

115

newness. It is the newness she finds intriguing and the fact that she can approach the
content she teaches in a new way.

But, you know, some of the things get replaced. It isn’t that it was a fad
necessarily but like the overhead projector is now being replaced by the computer
and the presenter. So the VHS tape and the reel film was replaced by DVD, you
know, so something better came along so it’s not that we threw that away
necessarily, although we did, it’s just it’s been upgraded and you keep up with the
times. (204)

I think that I would probably keep the lesson and keep what I’m trying to teach
my students and what I’m using but I upgrade what I do it with. I use the newest
or like I’m not going to say you’ve got to have this film or a film strip, you know,
instead we’ll find something similar on the computer and do it that way. But I
might still have the same lesson but now I’m doing it now with a different piece
of technology. (208)

Despite her affinity to the newest or the latest technology, Peggy also
acknowledges that new is not necessarily better. When discussing the evolution from reel
to reel films to DVD videos, she notes,

I use them [videos] once in a while but never a lot. And I actually found that
when I first started here there were better things or at least I found better things on
the reel fihns because they were bought specifically for the school and when it
came to VHS and DVD we didn’t have the resources any more. And nobody was
buying those things like they were before so it was like I had to go out and buy
my own if I was going to so I pretty much I haven’t used those. (222)

When email as a standard for dissemination of staff information finally arrives, Peggy is
elated; to her this is a signal that her school is finally moving forward.

I’m so excited about this year because this is the first year they started using
email. Really started doing the update on there; using their web pages. And to
me it was like a giant step forward and the fact that the principals are doing that to
me by being role models, by modeling it they are kind of encouraging it. They’re
sort of forcing people - if you want to know what’s going on you better go online
because otherwise you’re not going to know. (351)

116

But she is still fi'ustrated by the snail’s pace of both the school and the district when it
comes to encouraging or perhaps requiring the integration of technology. “And I do like
some of what’s happening in technology but it’s very slow and it gets fi'ustrating (60).”
As with the other teachers we talk about the innovations or technology changes
she has seen in her tenure in the classroom. Her fearlessness is apparent in her response
to a question about anything that she might have avoided over the years.
I can’t think of any of them that I avoided because most of the time I was begging
for this stuff. You have to understand special ed teachers are kind of on the
bottom of the totem pole. We’re right there with elective teachers if you want to
understand, you know. You know everything comes to the core teachers first and
they’ll be given something and then the rest of us are kind of there going, okay, I
want it, I want it, too. You know, let me do this and so I’ve pretty much
embraced . .. I can’t think of anything I’ve said nope, I’m not going to do that or I
don’t want that or whatever. I pretty much. whatever came along, I wanted to use
it or try it or do something with it. (212)
Peggy should be the “knowledge broker” in her building because of her ease with
technology and her experience as an Intel Teach to the Future Master Teacher.
However, she seems to have little opportunity to be heard and often must acquiesce to the
content teachers. As a special education teacher she has fallen victim to the new state
guidelines that limit the dedicated time she has with the students she services. Now her
days are relegated to functioning as a resource teacher within the classroom of a content
teacher. This situation does not allow her to make decisions about how technology might
be used within a given content. On the other hand, she does have an opportunity to see
what other teachers are doing in their classrooms. Her observations are revealing about
other experienced teachers and their use of technology.
I’m mostly team teaching so I don’t have a lot of control of what’s brought in so I
don’t have control of a lot of that stuff. I mean my first hour and even my fifth

hour I’m supposed to be doing this computer program with them all the time so I
don’t have a lot of say and a lot of ability to do as I’d like. (226)

117

Presenters were recently purchased and mounted on the ceilings at Yardley, and Peggy
comments on how this innovation has been received by experienced teachers. Of one
teacher on her team she observed, “. . . and she has a presenter but I have no idea where it
is. She’s never brought it out (128).” She continues by relating a conversation she had
about the cost of mounting projectors, “I wanted to know how much because I believe
that ML and FT both would use theirs [the data projectors] if they were mounted and
they are not using them (146).”

The people who have the presenters mounted in their classrooms are more likely
to use them than the people who have them on a cart. Because they are there all
the time and all you have to do is click something on and if you find something on
the computer and then you can show it to the class. It is so easy. The people who
have them on a cart don’t want to leave them on a cart and so then they’re worried
about it and everything and so therefore they don’t use it.(l22)

She goes on to discuss how another senior teacher has changed how she uses
instructional technology in her classroom.

BK does a Jeopardy game on the computer where the thing appears you know the
answer. That’s pretty cool. She does diagrarnming. She does a lot of different
things on there. (304)

But today she did a Bill Nye video that was on the computer so she could click on
the computer and it went with what we were doing. And that’s what’s so cool.
You get that United Streaming and some of those videos and they go right with
the lesson and you can just click on them so you can see them. And they’re not so
huge they’re going to take up the whole class period but there’s enough that it
teaches them what it is that you’re trying to get across. She used a lot of that.

ML uses things we’re using related to The Cay in there also. You don’t know
what a U Boat is, so okay, we bring up a picture of a U Boat and show them what
it is and everything so they understand what the story’s talking about. And so
she’s been doing a lot with it lately, probably no technology before the last 3
months, no, the last 3 weeks. (312)

118

She is, however, bothered by the lack of communication among her colleagues.
We have been discussing the presence of video disc players in the science classrooms and
how though in use for many years are virtually unknown to other staff members.

And part of it is some of this stuff, nobody knows about it. For some reason

nobody’s told anybody about it. It’s in the building but some people protect their

things so if they have it and they’re using it they don’t share it with anybody else

and let anybody else know about it. (180)

This breakdown in communication about technology issues is similar to Zina and Cathy’s
concerns about where to get information about using technology. There is no forum in
their buildings or in the culture of their buildings that makes it possible to effortlessly
learn of the successes or failures of your colleagues when technology is involved.

A primary concern for Peggy is that her students have a lot of exposure to
technology because “kids really need to make it in this world because technology is the
thing and if you’re not going to pay attention to that and you’re going to stay with old
stuff — you’re going to have a hard time (58).” During the early years of her career her
students’ use of technology was fairly typical following the pattern of most educators.

You know, I have always had technology in my classroom since I started. I just

have more now. I use more. I just never used it for lessons before. When I first

started it was for them to play a game when they were done or things like that.

And of course 1 used it for word processing. But not like I do now. (100)

Today her students “are actually on the computer doing things with it for projects and
stuff. Whatever it is that I ask them to do (100).”

If you visit her classroom today, you will find students using her classroom

computers when they see a need for the completion of an assignment. The technology

has become more fluid and ‘natural’ as a part of the learning process. However, this is a

relatively new phenomenon since despite her nineteen years as a classroom teacher Peggy

119

only began integrating technology within the past six years. Because, she has always had

computers in her classroom since the beginning of her teaching career, the change to

integration seems a long time materializing. She explains, “When I came to Yardleyz I
had to fight to get a computer but I have had one in my classroom every year and I
always wanted to have one. Every year I applied to get a computer and I got as many as I
could get in my classroom for my students to use (94, 96).”

For Peggy, the apprehension at times is connected to how much technology she
uses in her classroom. “Am I just doing it so I can say I’m using computers? Is it
something that really needs to be done on the computer (288)?” But when she explains
how she uses the technology in her classroom one wonders if she is being to critical of
her choices.

And the thing is people get hung up on — okay, I’m making them do a PowerPoint

so therefore I’m using [technology] . .. and PowerPoints are a way of using

technology but there needs to be a reason for them doing that. And if they could
do the same thing by writing it on a piece of paper then I’m not sure that that’s
valid. You know, it’s like it needs to be something like showing them an actual
hurricane happening. I can’t do that without technology. I need to be able go on
line and get it. I can’t make a hurricane in my classroom so they can really see
the force of it where they can see it if I can put it up there for them. You know,
and so I’m not just using technology to use technology, I’m using technology
because it helps my class. It helps to make them understand things. And that’s
what I struggle with sometimes. I mean, I want them to use computers. I want

that, but I always have to ask myself is this really . .. is there a purpose to it? (286)
Her worry is that she is uncertain about “appropriate” uses of the technology that really
create an advantage for learning and not just a fun thing to do. To me, the fact that she

knows to ‘worry’ about her choices confirms her understanding of what it means to

integrate technology.

 

2 Not the real name of the school.

120

Peggy has embraced almost every innovation or form of educational technology
that appeared during her career. She talks about the evolution of something as simple as
how teachers handled the task of reporting attendance.

You know we went from nobody having computers to everybody having

computers to doing our attendance sheet each one individually that we had to send

down every hour and our attendance book. And we had to actually put the
attendance on the report card ourselves and everything to the school doing the
attendance on the computer . . . to now we do attendance on the computer

completely. (1 56)

For Peggy it is very simple,

Whenever they come with something that might change how you can teach and

just change how you look at things I fight for it because I believe that change is

good. You’ve got to keep up with what’s going on. (162)

Nothing has been too complicated for her to at the very least attempt. During our
interview she complains of being stumped by one particular piece of equipment she
would really like to use. She is not intimidated by this equipment just unable to find the
time to troubleshoot what should be a simple connectivity issue. She longs for some time
in her day to prepare for the use of technology. It requires time to learn new programs
and how to use new devices just as time is required for preparing to teach new content.
She would appreciate the gift of time from the district for learning to better use the
technology she has available.

Fear of Failure Resolved

I am not sure how I came to know Zina. I do recall being in a series of workshop
where she served as one of the facilitators. We did not have much contact then so I am
guessing that our first meaningful meeting occurred at the first Intel inservice. As.

educators we know that some students over the years just stand out for us. I think this

was the case for Zina. Her learning style and her need to know the details meant she was

121

never reluctant to ask questions or insist that clarity prevail. When we sent out
notification for the second Intel inservice, she appeared without prior contact and
responded to our surprised greeting that if we were doing another Intel as an alumnus she
certainly knew she was welcome and indeed she was. More importantly, her appearance
meant she truly wanted to learn how to use technology more effectively in her classroom.

With the additional four or five years behind her, Zina’s use of and her attitude
about technology have become more firmly established. For her it drives her teaching
and she is more conscious and deliberate about making technology a part of her teaching
and her students’ learning. She is more comfortable, feels more confident, and has
learned how to cope with the fear she mentioned in the earlier chapter. The most
remarkable thing about this new Zina is her ability to understand her fear and use it to her
advantage.

Zina’s fear now has a name — fear of failure and having others know you have
failed. As the self proclaimed perfectionist, she now understands her need to be known
as the person with all the right answers. “I know that people perceive me to be intelligent
so I can’t let them know that I might not be (262).” There is the constant pressure not to
make mistakes that others will see though she understands that mistakes are always a
possibility. “I can’t be wrong, okay? I can’t make mistakes and I do (260),” she says.
As a perfectionist she is reluctant to explore new things. There needs to be a period of
private circumspection where some degree of understanding and confidence can be
acquired before she is willing to be public with her knowledge. Perfection and the
unpredictability of technology create an untenable mix for most of us and with Zina the

mixture is more disconcerting.

122

I have to chew on things a long time and build up my confidence and know that
when I do it it’s going to come out somewhat the way I want so because of my
fear of making mistakes I postponed using technology. (52)

Zina firrther clarifies how her need for perfection influenced her delay in embracing the
technology she now uses whenever she can include it in her lessons.

I don’t like to make mistakes and fail. And this is so new and so indiscemible. I
don’t know . . . how the hell does that go from one place to another and carry those
images and make those sounds and bring me that information? I don’t have a clue
how that works. But I don’t have clue how the TV works either. But I grew up
with that. This is new. It makes me feel stupid so I don’t like to be afraid, I don’t
like to be anxious, I don’t like to feel stupid. So I think those are that’s the
combination, the trifecta. (212, 214)

For Zina two iterations of the Intel course, a technology related research project,
and an intense course for her master’s program had to be in place before she felt
confident enough to finally say, “I think I can do this (52).”

Isolation has also played a part in her fear as she explains here:

I was reluctant to ask for help fi'om the middle school staff and I always thought if

I was in an elementary building where you stick your head out in the hall and say

— hey, can somebody help me with this? That would have helped propel me past

that fear a little bit more. But I needed the crutch of somebody being nearby who

could extricate me if I got in over my head. (54)

But today, Zina has reached a point where she in confident, though cautious, and more
willing to not only introduce new technology to her class but explore unfamiliar territory.

It’s an evolution that is evident by some of her comments.

So I’m feeling much more confident and the more confidence I have and the more
practice I have with the programs the less fear that I have. (74)

I feel like I am no longer on the outside looking in, but I am not at the head of the
pack. I am trailing along the fiinges running as fast as I can. And maybe I’ve
even moved a little bit to the center of the crowd, but I am not there. And just
when I think I am, the iPhone comes out, you know. My own children know tons
more than I do about how things work. (112)

123

Yes, and another thing that I found that it helps me overcome is I’ll say to the
kids, who knows how to do this? (120)

In order to maintain this image of understanding around her peers, Zina points out how
her personal learning style has been influential in her ability to more forward and gain
confidence.

Zina: So I found for me, and I don’t know if it’s technology that has changed me

but I used to read voraciously. I’d get something [new] and then I’d read about it.

You know, get a television I’d read about it. Now I want to be shown about it.

Sandra: You think that’s a difference in your learning style now?

Zina: I do because the MP3 player, why don’t I sit down and figure it out? I want

somebody to show me. That’s a difference but I can’t explain why. But I realize

that about myself. I think it’s still that fear thing that I’m going to do something

wrong. (188)

But, she goes on to explain, “Technology has complicated our lives. It has
complicated our lives and some times it makes me shaky (226).”

One of the goals for implementing technology in classrooms is to change the way
teachers teach. When the technological knowledge is added to the pedagogical and
content knowledge a new kind of teaching emerges. The technology allows teachers to
teach differently and allows students to learn in different ways. Helping teachers to make
and understand this change in their teaching requires a certain kind of preparation. Zina
found the Intel course format to be instrumental in preparing her to comprehend both the
technology and its integration into her content. She says, “I have to cogitate on things
before I put them into practice (254).” And she continues to explain her need for
additional support. “I didn’t always get things the first time through . .. confidence-wise.

So the best applications that impacted my teaching were the ones that I could gain

confidence, try it out, try it out again and revisit (254).”

124

Perhaps more telling is that Zina, like some of the other experienced teachers,
does not want to learn things in isolation. She needs and wants professional development
activities that push her a bit outside of her comfort zone though the fear still persists.

I need somebody to say you have to do it, you have to get it done so 1 can get past

the fear. The fear sometimes blocks me. I’m not going to understand this. I

don’t know if I heard it right - those kinds of niggling thoughts. (256)

Today there is an air of comfort and confidence about Zina. In the five years since the
initial Intel inservice she has blossomed. Technology has become more natural to her in
the sense that creating lessons that include technology is what she does routinely. She is
constantly looking for ways to use technology in her instruction and as an assessment
product for her students. You can hear a note of excitement in her voice and our
interview is filled with stories of progress and change. Even her colleagues see her in a
new light and her pleasure is evident as she shares the compliment of being called a
‘techie’ after setting up a chat room. A colleague sends her a message that says, “I really
like it since you set that up, you’re so much more techie than I am (70),” and her
confidence moves up another notch.

Zina now sees herself as moderately fluent in technology. She has a better sense
of when to use it within her curriculum and is only hampered by her need to be well
prepared before allowing her students to get involved. “I think I need to know something
so that when things go wrong I can be the guide (346).” While she seeks ways to include
technology she finds that knowing what is available and practical is difficult. Little has
changed since her interview in Chapter Three when it comes to resolving the issue of
being informed about technology. She still pretty much left on her own to locate good

technology practices or learn about new technology tools. This lack of available

125

resources frustrates Zina because of her commitment to her students who often compete
with students from more economically advantaged districts. She eloquently explains how
her students drive her to do more and do it better.

What pushed me into — okay, I have to do this is for me because I asked myself a
question. What is it my kids need to prepare them for the world? Because these
are our district’s best and brightest children and if they had a teacher who was
reluctant to live in the 21 st century then I wasn’t preparing them. Then I wasn’t
preparing them. I wasn’t giving them the skills they needed. When they go to
Young People’s College or Saturday School at [local community college], they
run into the best and brightest fiom other districts and I wanted them to be
equipped. So really that was what finally pushed me into — I’ve got to do this.
I’ve got to find a way to make it work. So I’ve sort of it was asking that
question - what do my kids need that the answer came from — technology. That is
what they need. That’s the piece that was missing. So I could teach them to be
thinkers. I could teach them to read and write, but everybody can. And they were
ill equipped to compete with the kids that they are going to come up against in
college and high school and all of those other places, all of those other venues.

More problematic is that Zina’s social network of resources to sustain and
enhance her knowledge of instructional technology has diminished. Her additional
knowledge comes from asking questions, lots of questions, of others but not in any
formal sort of manner. One colleague assures her that her queries are welcome by being
accessible and offering a smile when she is approached. Zina expresses the inadequacy
of this arrangement when she talks about a project she would like to implement the next
school year.

Next year I want to make a documentary. We’re studying immigration and I want

them to make a documentary. I don’t know how to run a camera. I don’t know

how to make iMovies. I don’t know a lot. So we might be doing a timeline next

year. But I would like to make a documentary. (334)

If she can not find a resource to come in and show her how to do what she needs to know,

Zina is willing to use part of her summer break to take a course. What is risky is finding

a course to meet her needs and her learning style. If she is unsuccessful in both areas, her

126

students will miss an opportunity to learn a number of skills and content in new and
different ways.

Zina does not allow the scarcity of equipment to hamper her efforts to use
technology with her students. Though she feels limited, she has an advantage over most
teachers in the study. She has four computers in her classroom plus a teacher’s station.
She uses a teaming concept to rotate her students when using the technology.

It’s hard for me to use technology in here. I have four computers but I do it

because I want the kids to have it. I spend a lot of time figuring out, okay, if I

could get them here for 20 minutes what could they accomplish, what can I have

the other kids doing while they’re waiting their turn. So really technology has

become the hinge pin for my teaching not just an add-on. (268, 270)

When her projects require more extensive time with the technology, she has coordinated
time with the principal to use the middle school computer labs. She has managed to learn
how to use the school intranet to access files stored while students are in the labs. I find
this revelation amazing since most of the teachers I had worked with over the years had a
great deal of difficulty understanding how to move files across the network. That Zina
now does this with such case and assurance lets me know that she has managed to master
more of the nuances of technology than she realizes.

As with the other teachers, we discussed innovation in educational technology.
For Zina the dazzler is the transition from mimeograph machines and cutting stencils to
the latest copier with color printing and a variety of other bells and whistles. “Copy
machines and copy machines that print in color and collate and staple. Not just copy
machines that you have to put in one and then turn it over . .. that do two sides; that make

books. That does it all. That also keeps track of how many copies you’ve made (144).”

Next in terms of the awe factor would be the ability to play videos impromptu from the

127

lntemet. She appreciates being able to say to her students, “Oh, look, we were just
talking about this yesterday. I found this and I want to show you what a shadoff really
looks like and it’s an irrigation device that the ancient Egyptians used (162).”

I am surprised to learn that Zina found the computer to be a must have tool for the
second graders she taught 13 years ago. She admits that, “I didn’t have a plan for that
computer time (180).” As emblematic of the evolution of technology in the classroom,
students were allowed to defer an assignment for drill and practice activities. As an
educational innovation she embraced the idea of students using computers as a tool for
learning but not as an instructional tool for her own use. She explains her thinking at the
time this way:

They had three choices and that helped the kids. It was leverage for me because

you could lose your computer time. And it was exciting to them to give up one

piece of the day and be able to go to the computer. So I can’t say I didn’t

embrace it but I was fearful of teaching it. (180)

Zina’s viewpoint on instructional technology is both refreshing and promising.
When I query her about how she perceives the role of technology in today’s classroom
her response is straightforward;

I think it should just be part of the fabric of the classroom. I don’t think it should

be something you think of last. I think it should be integrated into everything —

someway or the other. For me it’s easier because I only have two subjects to

integrate. And I don’t mean a lot of times when you integrate - and math is a

good example - because a lot of times science and social studies and language arts

can be meaningfully taught in an integrative unit. But when you .. . it’s like, well,

I’ve got to have some math. So they throw in some math that attaches itself

somehow. I don’t think technology should be like that. I think it should be

infused throughout.
Though it sounds easy enough, Zina is the first to admit,

I try to do what I can. Sometimes I’m still held up by my own worries about it
but I and I don’t think I mean I don’t know programs so don’t think

128

programs . . . I do, even though I say it should be infused, I have to work at
infusing it. (380)

And I don’t think I’ll ever catch up. I’m going to keep running as fast as I can

and it’s way beyond me. I mean every time I get a handle on something, there are

42 other applications that I don’t know about. (3 82)

Making Sense of it All

Without attempting to speak for all experienced teacher or proposing to create any
generalizations about experienced teachers, I believe that while individuals, they are not
unique among experienced teachers. My surnmative conclusion would be that we could
find Cathys and Peggys and Zinas in school districts across the country whenever we
choose to question the degree of technology fluency of the nation’s teachers. Knowing
that they are not alone in their endeavors helps us understand what other teachers face in
order to develop and increase their level of technology fluency and efficacy for the sake
of their students’ learning.

What follows are the points I found most instructive.

When Retirement Looms - The closer to retirement we find experienced teachers;
the less likely they may be to seek out opportunities to increase the use of technology.
Huberman (1933) describes this close proximity to retirement phase for some teachers as
one of disenchantment where senior teachers begin to withdraw and view policy
decisions in less favorable terms. Cathy’s choice to give up further efforts is influenced
by her decision to retire in the near firture. Her reaction to being forced to use email
without formal instruction has created a begrudging acceptance rather than an attitude of
progress. According to Huberman, teachers nearing retirement are often perturbed by
policy decisions that place them outside of their comfort zone. Cathy feels, and perhaps

rightly so, there is little time left for her to reach a level of competency that will benefit

129

her students. Any gains in fluency will come after retirement when the learning will be
on her terms and for her pleasure and benefit. The challenge is to find ways to assist
senior teachers earlier or pair them with teachers known to be comfortable and successful
users of technology thereby providing a balance to make sure students have opportunities
to benefit fiom learning with and through technology.

Believe it or Not - An underlying current in these stories is the need for teachers
to believe that technology is of some benefit for their students. Peggy and Zina use
technology because they believe their students need to know how to use it in order to be
competitive. The world that their students live in will be filled with a variety of
technology and those who are prepared for the information age will be better equipped
for success. These teachers, though working in a lower socioeconomic urban district,
want their students to be in position to compete with students in any economic class.
Finding ways to validate the benefits of technology as a part of the instructional process
may be what some experienced teachers need to encourage them to become more fluent
and better prepared for technology integration.

Learning Styles - Teacher learning style, prior knowledge, and comfort level
influences how the teachers in these cases are able to progress when innovative ideas and
tools are presented. Cathy’s difficulty with technology, aside from issues of trust, may
stem from her need for individualized instruction. At the very least, she needed more
instances of modeling how to use technology in her classroom. She is not secure enough
to introduce new technology tools in her classroom without first seeing it and then
demonstrating her competency to someone with more knowledge and skills. Cathy’s

vision of what can be done with technology was very limiting. She struggles to see the

130

bigger picture before being ever getting to the details of actual integration into her
content and teaching. Technology played a very small part of her daily life complicating
the transition to using it in her classroom.

On the other hand, Zina’s inquisitive nature and her attention to detail
compensated for her limited knowledge about technology. Because she wanted to learn
the details of how things worked, she was able to see the possibilities for use with her
students. With her students’ best interest as a motivator, she was eager to explore ways
that her students would enjoy learning through the use of technology. Despite the
willingness and eagerness to learn more, Zina discovered a change in her personal
learning style that veered away from reading for knowledge to the desire for more direct
or live instruction until she felt confident enough to be left on her own. She attributes
this need to be shown how to do things to her age. Perhaps more research needs to be
conducted about how professional development for second half of life (Cohen, 2005)
teachers should be structured. Are the structures we use to inform newer, younger
teachers as effective for teachers like those in this study? Although Cohen dismisses the
theory that older people have more difficulty learning, it may be that older people need to
be taught in different ways.

For Peggy, altering her practice to adapt technology was relatively easy. Her
prior knowledge and her personal interest in technology allowed her to move forward
once she understood how to blend her content knowledge with her technological
knowledge. She was ready to do more but did not have a sense of how to make the
technology work with her content and her pedagogy. The computers she had in her

classroom already served a valuable purpose for her special education youngsters. They

131

often needed more practice and more repetition to help them sustain knowledge often
illusive because of their inherent learning obstacles. Combining content knowledge and
technological knowledge is not something Peggy thought about to any degree until
introduced to Intel’s Essentials Course as an Intel Master Teacher. Learning how to build
technology infused units was the piece she needed to become a true integrator of
technology. Once the new technological knowledge blended with her content and her
pedagogical knowledge, she was able to present TPACK (Technological Pedagogical
And Content Knowledge) or the ‘Total Package’ described by Mishra and Koehler (2008)
to her students with very little effort.

Extended Duration — I found that if given enough exposure or time to learn about
infusing technology in their content, teachers could begin to change their practice. Intel’s
extensive professional development was beneficial for Peggy not only by introducing her
to integration but also by allowing her to use her existing knowledge to help other
teachers. When we think of the personal grth required when facilitating the learning
of others, Peggy managed to ingest over sixty (60) hours of inservice time. The more she
needed to instruct or assist other teachers in finding their way during an inservice, the
more she reinforced the knowledge she needed for her own pedagogy and content.

Zina managed to invest an abundance of hours over a period of years. With two
sessions of Intel, participation in an online learning workshop, and a master’s level
course, she spent almost eighty (80) hours dedicated to the use of technology in the
classroom. When we consider the number of hours practicing and preparing for working

directly with her students, she could only become more effective and proficient. The

132

question that remains is how can we provide all teachers with the amount of time these
teachers invested to assure greater levels of fluency for more teachers?

Knowledge is Power - What bothers me most about these teachers is their sense of
powerlessness when it comes to knowing how the technology should or could be used in
their content. Zina and Peggy are eager to use technology and though Cathy has given up
trying all three find themselves in same predicament. What is problematic is the lack of
knowledge about what to do with which tools and how anything technology related might
be effective and beneficial. None of the three could see the potential for a variety of
educational technology tools because they did not know what was available. If
something new is available that has the potential to enhance student learning, nothing is
in place for them to learn about these innovations or other more pragmatic applications
and how to include them in their classrooms or their practice. Zina and Peggy were
willing to try things or explore the possibilities but only when they happened to hear
about it from some undefined source.

Teachers will continue to wander through the morass of instructional technology
alone and confused until deliberate concerted efforts by district administrations alter the
situation. Technology can not continue to be an afterthought to be included by a few
teachers who manage to take their personal passion or interest into the classroom. When
we consider how ubiquitous technology is in our day to day lives, it becomes clear that
few professions are untouched by some form of technology. Schools and classrooms
should not be a technology free zone.

T alre me to Your Leader - Each of these teachers has given us a clear message

about helping experienced teachers over the hurdles of technology fluency. When I talk

133

to seasoned teachers the refrain is always the same - we do not understand technology
and need someone to show us what is available and how we can use it in our classrooms.
Without some kind of structured guidance, feedback, and modeling this group of teachers
will continue to struggle in their efforts to become confident, secure, and effective when
using technology in the classroom.

While this study does not include the role of administrators in helping teachers
find their way to technology fluency, I did ask these teachers about the instructional
technology philosophy of their principals. None of them has an unambiguous notion of
the expectations of either principal about the use of technology. At best each teacher
feels she is not prevented from including technology if she decides to use it. Conversely,
none of the teachers feel an expectation fi'om their principal that technology will be
included in their teaching. Other than Yardley’s move to email for distributing
information to the staff, technology is not viewed as a concern or requirement for
teachers or students. The implicit message is that educational technology is not
important. For those prepared to explore, experiment, or venture out on their own, no
one will interfere but also no one encourages or prepares for the possibilities.

In the chapter that follows, I will propose how changes in professional
development, especially when it is related to technology, might assist teachers in

becoming more fluent in technology.

134

Chapter 5

Shifting the Professional Development Paradigm:
Coaches, Cheerleaders, or Both

In the previous chapters we heard from experienced teachers as they related their
journeys toward technology fluency. Their stories ranged from hopelessness to signs of
promise for change to benefit their own professional growth and enhance the learning of
their students. They tell stories of how the use of technology produces fear and distrust.
They offer explanations for decisions to refrain fiom using technology as their careers are
ending. For some, they reveal nuggets of hope and adventure after spending hours in
technology related professional development events. Understanding is their path to
change and many look forward to learning with and from their students in new and
different ways. Most of the teachers attempted to find ways to enhance their own
learning in order to increase student achievement through the use of technology. For
many of these and other teachers, they will continue to face students who are comfortable
with technology and use it regularly outside of the classroom. Something must be done
to facilitate the preparation necessary for attaining and sustaining technology fluency for
the nation’s experienced teachers even though we realize not all teachers will fulfill the
goal.

We must be mindful that some teachers may never embrace this idea of
technology fluency. The goal may be jeopardized by teacher apathy, lack of motivation,
an unwillingness to change, or the complexities of the technology in and of itself; Janine
and Cathy are prime examples. For Janine the timing has never been right for pursuing

enough knowledge to comfortably add technology to her repertoire. Despite several

135

interventions, Cathy has essentially given up because what she believes would make her
successful is not available. While this chapter focuses on issues of policy to provide
guidance for the kinds of professional development programs that can promote changes
to teacher practice, recognizing that even these may not be the solution for everyone is
also important. The challenge becomes how we can effectively move from empirical
examination of people and the problem to issues of policy as possible solutions. I address
this issue of moving from people to policy in the last chapter.

Therefore, this chapter moves out of the realm of empirical research to
considerations for policy decisions necessary to alter the present circumstances. The goal
of this chapter is to examine the conditions under which professional development related
to technology would be most likely to help veteran teachers incorporate technology into
their instructional practices and improve student learning. In particular, I argue that
many veteran teachers are more likely to utilize technology in instruction when they
participate in professional development that is 1) extensive - of longer duration, and
intensive, 2) concentrated and highly focused, 3) structured for active learning, 4)
collaborative and collegial, and 5) prepared to include some form of ongoing support
from a “knowledge broker” such as a technology integration specialist and/or
participation in professional learning communities or networks.

Background

In January of 2005, the Secretary of Education presented the National Education
Technology Plan (N ETP) to the United States Congress. The NETP identified a .
significant gap between students and teachers in K-12 schools in the area of technology.

In particular, the report found that many teachers had substantially less knowledge and

136

skills related to technology than their students and that many teachers were ill-prepared to
include technology into their instructional practices. Responding to requirements in No
Child Left Behind, that all 8th graders become competent in technology, the NETP called
for an increase in teacher training and professional development opportunities to raise the
knowledge and skill levels of the nation’s “technologically challenged” teachers.

In 2000, the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) released results
from a study of 2,000 schools across the nation (Smerdon & Cronen). The study reported
few experienced teachers, though 65% of the total participants, identified themselves as
being skilled in using technology in their classrooms. This left new teachers, the
remaining 35% of the study, to categorize themselves as being well or very well prepared
to use technology. With such a disproportionate number of teachers able to provide
students with technology rich curriculum, many students would be left with little chance
to acquire the technology skills the National Education Technology Plan views as
desirable. These veteran or experienced teachers will, nevertheless, share the
responsibility of developing the technology skills of eighth graders and providing
students of all grade levels with technology rich experiences.

Because data has revealed large numbers of the nation’s classroom teachers are
not prepared to effectively integrate technology, the requirements of No Child Left
Behind (the 2001 federal legislation and the goals of the National Education Technology
Plan are not likely to be met according to the existing timelines. Further, because the
focus and direction of NCLB has been on meeting the need for highly qualified content
teachers, little attention or emphasis has been given to the technology requirements of the

NETP or NCLB. Preparing eighth grade students for technology proficiency is not likely

137

to occur especially in areas where dedicated computer or technology teachers are solely
responsible for providing students with the required skills. K-8 content area teachers,
veteran and new teachers alike, will need to be involved to achieve the technology related
goals of both policies.

The overall focus of NETP is directed, much like No Child Left Behind, toward
ensuring the skills of teachers are adequate to support student learning. NETP referenced
data explaining the growing use of technology by students (NCES, 2003) and highlighted
various programs different states and districts have used to augment instructional
programs by integrating technology. Relying heavily on data from student participation
in Speak Up Day for Students, NETP asserted that “Today’s students are very
technology-savvy and rely upon technology as an essential and preferred component
of every aspect of their lives (p. 9).” Conversely, the data show these students view their
teachers as unprepared suggesting that “. .. teachers should be required to go to a
technology course because our teachers are falling behind the students, as they aren’t
good with computer programs and software (p. 9).” By 2007, student participants in the
Speak Up survey (Project Tomorrow, 2008) continued to identify teachers as an obstacle
for the use of technology in the classroom. Students, especially in grades 6 — 12
mentioned their teachers “since it is the teacher who increasingly is limiting the ‘when
and where’ of using technology at school (Net Day, 2007, p. 7).” NETP identifies the
basic problem not in terms of lack of available funds, but in terms of the nation’s teachers
and their “lack of adequate training and lack of understanding of how computers can be

used to enrich the learning experience (Patrick, 2004, p.10).”

138

NETP recommendations include the updating and expanding of infiastructure
resources, the training of school leaders to understand the role and benefits of technology,
and the reallocating of existing funds to meet the policy recommendations. The
directives for teachers included professional development activities in the area of online
learning, the use of data to provide differentiated instruction, the use of e-learning to
supplement student learning resources, and the use of online resources and content
including digitized textbooks.

One of the important goals of NETP is to increase the human capital of the nation by
supporting young people as they prepare to enter a society and workplace entrenched in
technological innovations. NETP points out the conflict that exists between the role and
use of technology in business and an educational system that has failed to mirror the
world of work. The concern is that teachers are not keeping pace with students who are
exposed to technology at younger and younger ages. Both No Child Left Behind and the
National Education Technology Plan expect teachers to be well-equipped to infuse
technology into their curriculum to enhance student learning.

Because NCLB and the NETP policy recommendations desire high levels of
competency in technology for the nation’s teachers, I argue that teachers need high
quality professional development which extends beyond mini workshops and one—size-
fits all inservice experiences (Borko, 2004; Little, 1993; Cohen & Hill, 2000). To gain
fluency in technology, teachers need to have access to knowledge brokers (Oldham &
McLean, 1997)) and collegial expertise (Zhao & Frank, 2003) with high levels of _
technology skills. In this essay I describe how technology skilled knowledge brokers and

professional learning communities or networks can provide opportunities for teachers to

139

develop and strengthen teaching practices that merge technological, content, and
pedagogical knowledge or TPACK (Koehler & Mishra, 2005) which can lead to
enhanced student learning.

This essay focuses on how effective professional development, knowledge
brokers, and awareness of social networks might address ways to expeditiously prepare
the nation’s experienced teachers to integrate technology into their classrooms and satisfy
the policy demands of No Child Left Behind and the National Education Technology
Plan. In the first section, I review a fiamework of effective professional development
that can support how teachers acquire the technological knowledge to complement their
content and pedagogical knowledge. In the section that follows, I explain how notions of
knowledge brokering and social networks could provide a theoretical base for supporting
the professional development fiamework. In the next section, I elaborate on models that
can be used to promote and sustain changes in teacher practice related to technology
integration.

Framing Technology Related Professional Development

Delivering professional development to meet the requirements of the NETP
should involve more than providing teachers with basic lntemet or computer operation
skills to complement existing curricular resources. These are but foundational aspects for
creating technology rich components that can lead to changes in teacher practice and
enhance student learning. Figure 1 depicts the role that quality professional development

can play in assisting teachers in integrating technology with curriculum and pedagogy.

140

 

(Support lnforrnation Age)

1

Changes in Pedagogy
(Technology Integration)

1

LTeacher Knowledge of Technology

LEnhance Student Learning ]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

/' A
Phase 1 Phase 3
Skill Development Ongoing Support
(“310109) (Reinforcement)
Phase 2
Knowledge Acquisition
(Skill Application)
. Dedicated
Professronal
Learning Reggae:
Community

 

 

 

 

 

 

Professional Development for
Technology Integration

Figure 1 Framework for Professional Development

141

As indicated in the framework diagram, (Figure l) the primary goal of technology
integration is to enhance student learning and build human capital for today’s post-
industrialized society and technology rich workplace (Hargreaves, 2003; Patrick, 2004;
Technology Counts, 2005). Since technology integration refers to the infusion of
technology in the curriculum, content area, or subject matter, teachers will need to
acquire new skills to meet this change in pedagogy and accommodate changes in the
culture of classrooms. Rather than isolated technology related skills such as the creation
of a word processing document or the ability to save and retrieve files, technology
integration utilizes simple to complex technology related skills to support the learning of
subject matter or instructional objectives. Combining lntemet research with desktop
publishing to create a newsletter exhorting the injustice of taxation without representation
is but one example of technology integration. Creating this desktop publishing product
may be one of many technology components melded in a unit of the causes of the
American Revolution. A process for students to collaborate online while preparing such
a newsletter can lead to changes in classroom dynamics and the practice of teachers.
Changes in pedagogy occur when teachers use future workplace “information
age” (Hargreaves, 2003) skills and knowledge to present and explore concepts in a given
curriculum. These changes in pedagogy can only take place when teachers themselves
move from using basic technology skills to expanding and applying those skills to
acquire a deeper understanding of a variety of technologies. Knowledge of digital
cameras, personal data assistants (PDAs), animation software, and computers can be used
to create meaningful additions to existing curriculum. This infusion of technology can

change the way teachers teach and the way students learn.

142

High quality professional development designed to increase teachers’ ability to
effectively integrate technology is crucial for changing the pedagogy of the nation’s
teachers and the success of policies such as NCLB and the NETP. As illustrated in the
fiamework (Figure 1), this professional development occurs in three, often cyclical,
phases -— skill development, knowledge acquisition, and ongoing access to professional
learning communities or networks and a knowledge broker or dedicated resource staff.
Building Individual Skills

Phase 1— Skill development or Training, as depicted on Figure 1, occurs when
professional development activities focus on singular or isolated sets of skills and is more
cognitive and individualized for the learner. It is here that we find examples of the initial
efforts to prepare teachers for using technology in the classroom which have been
traditionally centered on training in the basic operation of equipment and the features of
various software applications (Zhao, Pugh, Sheldon, & Byers, 2002). Inservice activities
focusing on keyboarding, word processing, or spreadsheet features or techniques where
teachers learn basic operational skills are examples of skill development or training.
Inservice activities have often taken the form of after school sessions in how to create
Word documents with centered titles and boldfaced words. Teachers were expected to
take these basic skills back to their classroom and ultimately use them minimally for
increasing their personal productivity. The cycle would typically continue as teachers
returned for the next district offering designed to provide awareness of available
technology rather than build knowledge to support effective integration. Frequently
teachers found this newest exposure to software or hardware either too confusing or

totally irrelevant to instruction and student needs leaving materials and techniques

143

languishing untouched soon to be forgotten (Cuban, 2002; Zhao et al., 2002). Student
activities often did not include this new software because teachers, for example, were
unsure of how to provide access to a single computer for all their students (Ertmer, 1999).
This phase exemplifies the workshop approach to professional development often decried
as being insufficient for sustained learning and change in teacher practice (Guskey, 1986;
Hoban, 2002; Little, 1993). While basic skill workshops can benefit teachers by creating
an awareness of technology, these scattered, after school or one day professional
development offerings are usually not sufficient for assuring technology integration.
These activities offer a basic how-to element without providing the knowledge needed to
apply word processing or presentation skills to classroom activities.

The Skill Development or Training phase does, however, permit individual
learning to occur since teachers often select inservice opportunities to support their
personal deficiencies in specific applications or use of hardware. Unfortunately, teachers
reveal little change in teaching practice with only an annual rate of 1 to 8 hours of
professional development in a specific topic (NCES, 2002). For significant change to
occur teachers need more extensive or longer periods of time dedicated to professional
development (Birrnan, et al., 2002; Garet, et al., 2001) designed specifically to promote
the infusion of technology into their content areas. Fortunately, this first level barrier
(Ertmer, 1999) to technology integration has increasingly been overcome by many of the
nations’ teachers (Smerdon & Cronen, 2000) and is not the focus of the 2004 National

Education Technology Plan, which seeks to move teachers beyond the basics.

144

Knowledge Acquisition and Skill Application

Phase 2 - Knowledge Acquisition and Skill Application, as represented in Figure
1, occurs when professional development activities focus on converting isolated
technology skills into more comprehensive techniques for developing and implementing
student learning activities. The quality of professional development, in general, and its
role in altering teaching practices can not be minimized. Researchers have identified
several characteristics of professional development that are associated with teachers
accepting and implementing changes in instructional practices that lead to improved
student achievement. I, however, will elaborate on only four of these characteristics that
are particularly important in order to expeditiously increase the technological knowledge
of experienced teachers. These characteristics of quality professional development
related to technological knowledge are a) the duration of the activity (Cohen & Hill,
2000; Desirnone et al., 2002; Garet et al., 2001; Hoban, 2002:), b) the inclusion of active
learning (Birman, et al., 2000; Borko, 2004), c) the focus on a specific content or topic
area (Borko, 2004; Cohen & Hill, 2000; Hargreaves, 1999; Hawley & Valli, 1999;
Hoban, 2002), and d) the element of collegiality or collaborative participation (Hawley &
Valli, 1999; Hoban, 2002).

Time for Quality — Building expertise in any endeavor requires time to learn and
practice. Professional development programs need to be of such duration that teachers
have opportunities to learn, explore, and actively participate. The teachers in the
previous chapters are prime example of this characteristic and their ability to increase
their technological knowledge. When Cohen and Hill (2000) studied the effects of reform

based professional development and changes in teacher practices for approximately 1,000

145

grades 2 through 5 teachers fi'om 250 California schools, they found that success in
changing teacher practice occurred when extensive time for content related professional
development activities was provided. According to Cohen and Hill, teachers needed “. ..
opportunity for substantial work, which could not occur in a day or a few hours (p.7).”
These authors reported that increased learning opportunities increased the degree of
changes in teaching practice and decreased the return to old practices. Little (1993) noted
“Effective training has come to be defined largely by its ability to provide adequate
opportunities for practice ” (p. 132). Desirnone, Porter, et al. (2002) include “extended
duration” (p. 82) as a characteristic of “high quality” (p. 82) professional development.
Government reports on the status of education factors (NCES, 2002) and teacher
professional development (N CES, 2001) found teachers themselves indicated more
willingness to alter practices when more than eight hours of inservice was provided in a
specific, focused topic. To acquire the skills needed to effectively integrate technology,
teachers need professional development activities which provide extensive coverage of
skills and topics for the “transformation of ideas” (John-Steiner &Meehan, 2000) and
knowledge. This extensive coverage is time intensive and cannot be successfully
administered in single session workshops or one day inservice activities. The value of
the after school workshop should not be disregarded. Its benefit for skill building (Figure
1 - Phase 1) may be exactly what teachers need for exposure and awareness. If the goal
is to build a technology skill, the one day professional development session, for example,
on navigating spreadsheets may be appropriate and timely. Conversely, mastering
techniques for integrating spreadsheets into science units requires a more extensive

inservice experience. Programs like eMINTS, enhancing Missouri’s Instructional

146

Networked Teaching Strategies, (http://wwwcmintsorg), Intel Teach to the Future
(http://www.intelorg/education), and university based programs such as Michigan State
University’s Educational Technology Certification Program
(http://edutecheducmsuedul) are examples of more extensive professional development
offerings. These programs are designed to help teachers construct units of learning
appropriately infused with technology. They require longer time commitments and direct
teachers to focus more on content concepts while using technology to support curriculum
objectives or goals.

Targeting Content — When Desirnone et al., (2002) studied 207 teachers in 30
schools investigating the effects of professional development on changing teaching
practices, they reported that to increase a specific instructional practice meant that
professional development “must focus squarely on that specific practice (p.91 ).” Their
findings indicated “professional development that focuses on a particular teaching
practice predicts increased teachers’ use of that practice in their classrooms (p. 98).”
Cohen and Hill (2000) also reported that teacher practice is more apt to be affected when
student curriculum is the focus of professional development related to reform policies.
More than one teacher in the previous case studies reported that working to create a unit
of study that included technology helped them to see both the possibilities and the
benefits of technology integration.

Within this phase the professional development is more contextualized as teachers
prepare to merge technology with content or subject matter. Much of the time spent in
professional development will be needed to aid teachers in recognizing the various

technologies available and in understanding which technologies are appropriate to inspire

147

learning (Zhao et al., 2002) in a given content area. This phase also allows for more
situative learning (Borko. 2004) and learning becomes a social activity especially when a
concerted effort is made to target grade levels or specific content areas to create a
connection for learning.

Active Learning - It is important that teachers are provided with active, hands on
experiences that mimic student learning and increase opportunities for learning and
understanding. Effective professional development is organized to assure that teachers
apply what they are learning to student outcomes (Borko, 2004; Cohen & Hill, 2000;
Hargreaves, 1999). Little (1993) describes promising forms of professional development
as those that “engage teachers in the pursuit of genuine questions, problems, . . . in ways
that leave a mark on perspectives, policy, and practice (p.33).” Teachers, after all, as
participants, also become learners (Borko, 2004) using skills presented in professional
development activities in the same ways as their students. Teachers, like any other
learner, need to be engaged in active and inquiry based learning (Desirnone et al., 2002;
Borko, 2004; Hargreaves, 1999).

Collaboration and Collegiality - Teachers in national surveys have identified
professional development opportunities that include collaborating and collegiality as
being beneficial to knowledge acquisition and instrumental in changing their teaching
practice (N CES, 2002). Professional development programs designed to transform
knowledge while actively involving teachers tended to include the same kinds of
collaborative proj ect-based learning elements teachers are expected to use with their
students (Borko, 2004, Cohen & Hill, 2000; Hargreaves, 1999; Koelher & Mishra, 2005;

and Zhao & Frank, 2003). Sugar and Wilson (2005) reported 92% of their respondents

148

preferred inservice technology workshops that included discussing, talking, and
collaborating with other teachers. Desirnone, et a1. (2002) found professional
development to be more effective when teachers from the same school, department, or
grade collectively participated in active learning activities. This desire for collaboration
and sharing with other teachers as a part of the professional development process was a
frequent observation from the teachers in the previous case studies. Learning is situated
and generally occurs in a social environment where learners share and acquire knowledge
from one another. Most of the teachers in the previous cases expressed repeatedly the
desire to confer with peers with some consistency about educational technology matters.
None of the teachers, except perhaps tech savvy Peggy, expressed the desire to learn new
technology related skills in isolation.
Ongoing Support

Phase 3 — Ongoing Support (Figure 1) comprised of two elements, professional
learning communities or networks and the dedicated resource person or knowledge
broker, is likely to occur when teachers have access to one or both of these components.
Ongoing support is often neglected once the initial, formal professional development
activity has been completed. Professional learning communities or networks, located
within the school social structure and those which are formed outside the school
including virtual networks, such as educator led user groups or social networking sites,
can be instrumental in keeping teachers informed of innovations in educational
technology (Holmes, Polhemus, & Jennings, 2005) or other school reform programs
(Hawley & Valli, 1999). Opportunities to share and collaborate across curriculum areas

and grade levels can be both motivating and encouraging (Borko, 2004; Zhao & Frank,

149

2003). Teachers need opportunities to discuss successes and failures in order to perfect
changes in their teaching practices. The increasing use of social networking sites such as
Ning.com and Facebook allow teachers to connect with peers outside of their brick and
mortar communities. The vulnerability that sometimes prevents teachers fi'om revealing
their shortcomings to colleagues across the hall can be avoided by communicating with
strangers who become online ‘friends.’

i The second element of Phase 3 (Figure 1) is the dedicated resource staff person or
knowledge broker. Referred to for our purposes as a technology integration specialist,
this knowledge broker assists teachers in fine tuning skills introduced in the skill building
or knowledge acquisition phases (Figure l) of professional development. This resource
staff or knowledge broker is available to assist teachers in converting professional
development into practice. Regardless of the phase teachers have completed, the
technology integration specialist is an onsite professional development resource.
Assistance, coaching, guidance, and onsite professional development in solid technology
integration practices is the primary function of this knowledge broker. Professional
development literature, however, does not identify a knowledge broker as a function of
quality professional development. In the following section, I discuss three professional
development programs that have promise to be effective, especially for experienced
teachers because of their focus on four of the characteristic mentioned earlier. That is
they are 1) of longer duration, 2) highly focused, 3) based on active learning, and 4)

collaborative and collegial.

150

Programs That Work for Knowledge Acquisition

When Hadley and Sheingold (1993) studied teachers experienced in the use of
technology, they found approximately five years were needed for teachers to become
competent enough to effectively change their teaching practice to include technology. As
we have seen from the teachers in the previous cases, teachers’ lack of knowledge and
discomfort concerning technology remains a barrier for independent exploration (Sugar
& Wilson, 2005; Zhao et al., 2002). The complexities perceived by teachers in using
technology Girtmer, Addison, Lane, Ross, & Woods, 1999) indicated the continuing need
for supportive, collaborative efforts to encourage continued learning. Teachers are often.
unaware of what to study or learn and are fi'ustrated by the peculiarities of technology.
As the learning curve swells the likelihood of continuing to explore the potential of
technology use in the classroom diminishes. Three programs are examples for meeting
the requirements outlined for effective technology related professional development.
Programs such as Intel Teach to the Future, eMIN TS, and university based programs
require more hours of commitment for districts and teachers. These programs are also
framed around a situated learning experience (Borko, 2004), where social activity is a
part of the learning environment, for the participants and can be of benefit for teachers
since expecting them to work at building skills and knowledge in isolation increases the
learning curve.

Intel’s international Teach to the Future program, for example, requires a
minimum of forty hours of class time with a recommended additional twenty hours of
‘homework’ for participants (See http://intelcom/education). This program was used

with the teachers in the previous cases and the author, an Intel Master Teacher, was the

151

coordinator and facilitator for two iterations of the program. The timefrarne for this
extensive inservice can vary from intense five day summer workshops to staggered
scheduling during the school year. Kanaya et a1. (2005) found the compressed schedule,
that is course completion within 44 days, increased the probability of teacher use of
technology rich units developed during the inservice and increased the potential for
changes in teacher practice. The Intel Essentials Course focuses on the redesign of an
existing unit to incorporate a variety of technology components. Grounded in the concept
of an essential question, teachers focus primarily on using their existing pedagogical and
content knowledge to flesh out critical questions designed with higher level thinking
skills to challenge students. Once the content for each unit has been established, teachers
work collaboratively to create technology rich products fiom the perspective of their
students. These finished products can then be used as models to scaffold lessons when
presented to students. Teachers, working together to hone their technology skills, come
to understand the challenges their students face creating similar products and gain an
appreciation for how lab and classroom environments are managed when integrating
technology. The intensity of this program and the high incidence of active learning
facilitates in establishing collegiality and collaboration among participants. Because the
program mimics a teachers’ own classroom content and environment, teachers are more
apt to develop a sense of competency and confidence which promotes sustainable
changes in practice. An additional benefit of this program’s structure was that it allowed
participants to see examples of how to present educational technology to their students.
Because teachers became ‘students’ any problems or surprises that surfaced during

instruction were defused by knowledgeable facilitators. When teachers realized that the

152

classroom environment did not collapse when minor technology glitches occurred, they
felt more reassured that they to could be successful even if the tools were
‘uncooperative.’

The eMINTS program, similar in design to the Intel program, includes over 250
hours of professional development for its first year program and includes some onsite
follow-up resources for its participants. Since its initial implementation, entire schools in
Missouri have invested in the program to meet the needs of their teachers and students.
School leaders report increases in student achievement that they attribute to the eMINTS
program (Bickman, 2005, Patrick, 2004; www.cmints.org). Much like Intel, eMINTS
uses a train-the-trainer model creating multiple levels of expertise within a school and
district. Both of these programs extend the reach of ongoing professional development
by including online professional learning communities to complement opportunities for
teachers to share, communicate, and collaborate in less traditional (i.e., face-to-face)
ways. Despite the extensiveness of these programs, teachers, as confirmed by the case
studies in Chapter Three, returning to their classrooms still need coaching,
encouragement, and support to implement the knowledge they acquire.

The eMINTS program, which demonstrates a strong commitment to technology
related professional development, provides onsite support situating on going professional
development within teachers’ classrooms. On site support staff assists teachers
implementing techniques learned in the initial eMINTS inservice and assists teachers in
expanding beyond the skills of the initial training. With ongoing support come fresh
ideas about new technology and new uses for existing technologies situated in the

teacher’s classroom environment and curriculum.

153

The Educational Technology Certification Program at Michigan State University
is yet another example of technology related professional development where duration,
collaboration, active learning, and content focus strengthen the potential for changing
teacher practice. Structured as a series of three modules, participants meet face to face
and online for over 108 hours of instruction. Teachers work collaboratively in content or
grade level groups to create technology rich content and units of study for their
classrooms. This university led course, open to a wide variety of teachers from various
school districts, does not offer the ongoing collegial support programs of Intel Teach to
the Future and eMINTS. Participants are less likely to have face to face contact once the
course series has been completed, however, with the new direction toward virtual social
networks the EdTech subgroup can now be found on Facebook, Twitter, and
MACULSpace. This series of courses also has the requisite characteristics of effective
professional development and, therefore, promises the success of its participants. As
Kayana and colleagues (2005) found, the intensive and extensive features of this program
promote collegiality and collaboration during the course. Teachers are more likely to use
technology in their classrooms and their practice when they feel more successful as
learners. In Chapter Four, Zina reported on attending one part of this series as being
instrumental in the grth of her technological knowledge. It gave her the confidence
she needed to begin her efforts to include more educational technology with her students.
In the next section, I discuss how social networks and knowledge brokers can work to
alter the existing framework for professional development by complementing programs
like the ones in the previous section. Only in the eMints programs includes these two

important ongoing support mechanisms.

154

Shifting the Professional Development Paradigm for Technology Fluency
The Role of Social Networks in Professional Development

In the midst of finding ways to help experienced teachers overcome the
difficulties of becoming technology fluent is an appreciation for how teachers interact
from day to day. Inherent in the school environment are elements of social capital and
social networks that come into play when we question how teachers transfer knowledge
and information. According to Coleman (1988), social capital stems fi'om the social
relations in an organization which are designed to support the needs and goals of the
collective. Linking this idea of social capital to technology related professional
development means exploring how certain actions by various actors within a social
structure, like a school building, work to distribute or disseminate information and
knowledge. It is the presence of social capital that allows for the sharing of ideas and the
development of norms and sanctions which will benefit the organization in some way. In
the case studies presented the value of most teachers’ social capital was not always
enough to support teachers’ efforts to sustain knowledge about using technology in their
classrooms. Too often the social network of a teacher in the cases presented did not
include competent users of educational technology from which to garner new trends or
strengthen existing knowledge. In fact, we could question the availability of
technological knowledge within a school or the district as a whole. Certainly there
existed some form of knowledge brokers, point in fact; I was at one time one of those
with higher levels of technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge (TPACK) and
frequently used my own social network to share information about technology in-services

and classroom practices.

155

Consider the work done by Penuel and Reil (2007) to analyze the social network
of schools in order to identify how information flows within a school. The results of their
study mirror many of the comments from the teachers in the previous cases. Since a
social network is defined as “a set of people and the relationships among them” (p. 611),
any given school is bound to be comprised of large and small social networks based on
any number of affinities. However, the experienced teachers in the previous chapters
were unable to identify or connect with a network of other teachers, particularly in their
buildings, where technological knowledge could be shared and where, as learners, they
could move beyond their own limitations to grasp concepts by collaborating with more
skillful peers (V ygotsky, 1978).

Penuel and Reil’s findings reflect some of the same issues mentioned or inferred
by the teachers in the cases. For example, the authors noted that who you talked to
carried more weight than the number of people in your social network. Recall Zina’s
revelation that once the media person left her building she was unable to find a
replacement who could provide the same level of knowledge that she needed. Penuel and
Reil identified this as the loss of an ‘expert’ who could pass on teaching practices and
additional knowledge. They also found that often it was necessary to leave the ‘local’
social network in order to seek out answers not available within the local network.
However, the experienced teachers in this study were not familiar with knowledge
brokers outside of their network. They repeatedly complained about not being able to
find a resource to help them with new technologies or with how to use old technologies in
new and different ways. From their study, Penuel and Reil realized that schools needed

to make the experts more visible to other faculty members. As we have seen, knowing

156

who to contact is crucial for supporting growth in technological knowledge and school
reforms in general.

Social networks can easily evolve into a professional learning community (PLC)
where teachers gather to discuss issues of mutual concern. The PLC provides a
continuing forum for learning and implementing new ideas (Bryk & Schneider, 2002).
Borko (2004) describes this networking activity as instrumental in teacher in-service.
According to Borko, teachers identified the building of professional networks as a benefit
from the participation in programs such as the National Writing Project and Developing
Mathematics Ideals. Built into these programs were opportunities to work collaboratively
allowing the “. . .participants to contribute to the solution of convergent problems and
difficulties according to their current abilities (Wells, 2000, p. 56).” The presence of this
collective effort allows the individual to develop with more support than would be
possible if done alone (Wells, 2000). These situated learning opportunities rely on the
social networks within an organization and when applied to the school culture, these
support mechanisms will prove invaluable for disseminating the constantly evolving
information related to technology. Professional learning communities (PLC) built on
relational trust (Bryk & Schnieder, 2002) can help smooth the way for continued growth
and support for technology integration. Support within a PLC bounded in relational trust
diminishes the risk associated with reform or changes concomitant with the integration of
technology.

In conjunction with PLCs, aided by the increasing interest of online social
networking sites, professional learning networks (PLN) are beginning to grow in

popularity. Ning.com hosts a number of content related forums with an international

157'

membership. Teachers are no longer restricted to learning networks constrained by their
geographic location. Online it is possible to share and learn fi'om a seemingly infinite
number of educators around the world. Sites like Ning.com often created to service a
specific content interest also allows for the creation of affinity subgroups. A visit to The
English Companion on Ning will reveal a subgroup of over 900 English teachers
interested in Teaching with Technology. This new kind for social network can be the
solution for teachers in the previous case studies who lamented the lack of resources for
understanding how to effectively use technology in their classrooms. Teachers are
meeting online at a variety of social networking sites including Twitter, F acebook,
Linkedln, and Second Life. Over time these online meeting places may replace the early
teacher oriented web sites, such as those authored by Kathy Shrock or David Warlick’s,
which offered myriad of resources but little or no interaction with anyone other than
perhaps the site’s author. The lntemet and the variety of Web 2.0 features available
make collaboration and communication a mere keystroke away taking the concept of a
social network to a new level. The only thing missing for teachers involved in PLCs or
PLNs is a knowledgeable person in their physical social network to initially guide them
in the direction of a plethora of online resources. The need for a knowledgeable resource
brings us to a closer look at this concept of a knowledge broker or technology integration
specialist.
How Knowledge Brokering Works3

In 1997, the Canadian government and various agencies came together to discuss the

notion of bartering information (Oldham and McLean). The group discussed the

 

3 This section is based on an article originally published in The Clearing House in 2008. The citation for
the text is: Plair, S. K. (2008). Revamping professional development for technology integration and
fluency. The Clearing House, 82(2), 70 - 74. This citation can also be found in the Works Cited section.

158

feasibility of marketing information to other countries, particularly third world countries
where certain kinds of expertise might not be readily available. Simply put, the idea was
to broker knowledge that other countries needed to successfully govern or develop
resources. As members of the initial group, Oldham and McLean listed five dimensions
of knowledge and placed knowledge brokers in various roles to support users of these
knowledge dimensions. The five dimensions included:

Creating knowledge;

Acquiring knowledge;

Assirrrilating knowledge;

Using knowledge and;
Disseminating knowledge.

While the dimensions reflected how knowledge was used by individuals and
institutions, the knowledge brokers were described as either integrators of knowledge or
brokers of knowledge. The integrators interpreted knowledge obtained from others for
use by their communities. Conversely, brokers of knowledge linked or connected
knowledge seekers with knowledge creators. The job of the broker was to function as a
go between for those seeking information and those who could supply knowledge in
various formats.

The thought of knowledge as a commodity to be battered or sold at first glance
seems a bit odd. However, knowledge is shared, exchanged, valued, sought, and
purchased wherever there exists those who need knowledge for a particular reason and
those who possess knowledge. Realistically, having an intermediary to meet ones’
knowledge or information needs seemed to be an effective way to provide or strengthen

skills and knowledge for teachers pursuing fluency in technology.

159

This idea of knowledge brokering is not exactly new to the educational arena. White
(1987) equated teachers to brokers of scholarly knowledge. She considered the teacher as
a pivotal person who mediated between the scholme world and that of a classroom.

These scholarly knowledge brokers came with a list of responsibilities such as “agents for

 

controlled change (p.20),” liaisons between public knowledge and students prior
knowledge, possessors and appliers of knowledge; those who modeled knowledge;
redirectors of knowledge; and integrators of different forms of knowledge.

Later, Wenger (2000) described four different forms of brokering that could be
appropriate for our purposes. He explored the idea of the broker as intermediary assisting
members in one community to gain knowledge from another. Wenger’s knowledge
broker could make connections in the limited area of information access; could help
move knowledge from place to place; could explore uncharted areas and bring new
knowledge back to the community, or could connect key people with knowledge to the
community.

Considering knowledge of educational or instructional technology as the commodity
to be shared, exchanged, valued, sought, and purchased and the concept of a broker or
go-between fits perfectly with what teachers need and want when considering the
integration of technology. Our knowledge broker would be available for meeting a
variety of needs. Awareness, scaffolding of instruction, matching tools to content, and
keeping pace with innovations could more effectively and efficiently be done by a
knowledge broker with a combination of pedagogical, content, and technological

knowledge.

160

Knowledge Broker Roles in Professional Development

Harbinger of Innovation - The ideal knowledge brokers moves beyond the
information available to teachers by attending conferences, participating in collaborative
efforts with other tech savvy teachers, and stays current with the latest literature. They
know where to find the innovations looming on the horizon. This continuous learning
means more awareness for the teachers they support. More opportunities exist to
consider new technology tools for student learning.

Master of Strategies and Techniques - Knowledge brokers have the time to
prepare and fine tune technology related activities. Time is the one commodity in
shortest supply for teachers. It is probably the most significant and most identified
barrier (Ertmer, 1999, 2005) to the integration of technology and technology fluency.
Teachers are unsure what technology to use, how to effectively manage technology
resources, and not eager to invest time in what is essentially unknown. They want
technology rich lessons to run smoothly and need to feel high levels of efficacy before
introducing such lessons to their students. The role of the knowledge broker as a modeler
of TPACK, (Technology, Pedagogy, and Content Knowledge) becomes a critical asset
for teachers.

Teaching Artism - Knowledge brokers represent Friedman’s (2007) “great
explainers” who have time to do what most teachers can not. They have time to learn
about various technologies and how to effectively infuse them into the content. In short,
their ability as teachers to explain is their greatest asset. Marcia Loughry elucidated the
concept for him, “Here is what this is going to do for you, here is how it will tie into your

existing systems (think content), here is how it will benefit you (think and your students),

161

...” (289) It is in this area that knowledge brokers are able to move knowledge from place
to place. This art of teaching and explaining allows for the conversion of what seems to
be bewildering techno babble to terms teachers and students can understand. Knowledge
brokers can help with the assimilation of what may seem foreign into something useable
and manageable in the classroom.

Johnny on the Spot —— Teachers have expressed the need for on the spot
professional development. They want knowledge brokers available when new
technology rich lessons are being introduced to students for the first time. They want to
know that a call for help when the unexpected occurs will be answered in a timely
manner. They want someone available to share their reflections of the merits or foibles
of a technology rich lesson. They do not want to contact distant district support
technicians who are generally skilled in technology but not in pedagogy or content.

Catalyst for Change and Unity - Knowledge brokers make ideal resources for
sharing and dispensing the promises of change. But change includes the need to spread
the word and increase places or classrooms where change can and does occur. Ideally the
knowledge broker will take the lead for coordinating ways teachers can come together
and learn together. As an on site support resource, the knowledge broker will be aware of
which technology resources are used by content or grade level teachers. By matching
teachers within buildings, within districts, with local organizations, or with online social
networking groups, the knowledge brokers can provide valuable opportunities for
teachers to continue learning about technology and increasing their fluency. To further
support change and continued learning, knowledge brokers are in a position to encourage

action research projects which help identify the value of technology rich experiences for

162

students. Rapid changes in technological innovations make it difficult to assess the
worthiness of some technology tools. However, teachers involved in action research
projects can offer much to the literature about what works in classrooms.

Changes in the contour of technology related professional development like most
reforms will not be a simple task. Policy makers and school administrators need to
appreciate the difficulties many veteran teachers experience with integrating technology
into comfortable existing pedagogy. This change can also be a costly endeavor which
creates avoidance rather than acceptance. What is at stake is the opportunity to meet the
needs of students today who must prepare for technology in the workplace and in higher
academia.

Allowing teachers to fumble along grabbing technology experiences haphazardly
is no longer productive or effective. A concerted effort must be made to make TPACK a
reality for veteran teachers lagging behind mired in a digital divide with their
increasingly tech savvy students. These students arrive with a greater level of comfort
with technology but little practical experiences in how technology can support their
learning. Believing that new teachers will enter the system as a solution is risky. Many
of today’s preservice teachers are the product of technologically illiterate teachers (Plair
2007). Brokering knowledge with a different kind of professional development resource
can assure that technology, pedagogy, and content knowledge are intersected and merged
to alter the way teachers teach and students learn. The potential for these knowledge

brokers to support all teachers can only lead to successful learning for all students.

163

Final Thoughts

Effecting change is no easy task. This chapter is not meant to challenge
leadership or firnding considerations but to address a need that exists and offer solutions
were these factors not in contention. Policy decisions originating from any level cannot
create changes in teaching practices by mandate. Teachers need quality professional
development that a) is extensive in duration, b) engages them in active learning; c)
focuses on a specific content area or topic, and (1) features collegiality and collaborative
participation. When considering the No Child Left Behind requirement for technology
proficiency by eighth graders and the goal of the National Education Technology Plan to
reduce the technology knowledge gap between students and teachers, change cannot and
will not occur instantaneously. Experienced teachers are often the least knowledgeable
about technology and must have quality professional development to effectively integrate
technology into their teaching practices. They also need the ongoing support that comes
from participation in professional learning communities or networks and access to
knowledge brokers in the form of technology integration specialists. If the goals of
NCLB and the NETP are to be realized, teachers, school leaders, and policy makers must
all support the kind of quality professional development required in order for teachers to
effectively integrate technology and enhance student learning.

Try as we may, some teachers will still be content to remain among the
‘technologically challenged.’ In the final chapter, I address some of the issues that
interfere with attempts to move from people to policy where technology fluency. for

experienced teachers is the objective.

164

Chapter 6

In Conclusion: Adding a Finishing Touch or Two

In the previous chapters we have heard from higher education, middle school, and
elementary school educators who, after over twenty years of exposure to technology,
have managed to avoid making it part of their personal or professional lives. Meanwhile,
the world they live is permeated with myriad technological innovations. Their reasons
for remaining aloof from educational technology are as distinct as those same eight
different teachers. Why and how they have circumvented the integration of technology
for most of their teaching careers varies from teacher to teacher. On occasion there
seemed to be a consistent thread to explain their choices while, on the other hand, each
expressed personal idiosyncrasies that prevented forging ahead.

When I started this project one of the things I wanted to look at was how other
technologies had influenced a teacher’s practice. Over time, I began to realize that the
introduction of computers, especially in education, presented many unanticipated
questions. Previous innovations had been fairly simple and easily inculcated into
classrooms, primarily as instructional tools. Teachers used overhead projectors with the
odd student or two coming to the transparencies for a mark up or two. Students were not
expected to be the primary users of this instructional tool. Prior to the introduction of
computers the teacher would always be in charge of the learning. Film strips and reel to
reel film projectors were all teacher tools. None of the teachers in this study had any
difficulty finding ways to use these tools in their classrooms. They were fairly simple to

operate and simplistic in their mechanics with few moving or changing parts to be of

165

much concern. The arrival of the computer and the subsequent other technologies filled
with microprocessors changed the dynamics.

The tools were no longer as simple or easy to use. It took more than placing a
clear plastic sheet over a lighted box to add a new dimension to your instruction. Or
fitting a special library book between the jaws of an opaque projector to provide an entire
class a view of what could only be seen by two or three students at a time if used without
this special aid. None of the teachers found any of these early innovations to be of any
special significance when it came to learning how to use them or finding ways to use
them in their classrooms. In fact, once the conversations began, there were relatively few
innovations relegated to classrooms and the educational environment. The computer,
however, meant learning a collection of parts that had to work in concert plus some
nebulous thing called software to make it do what was expected. This was not exactly a
teacher only tool. In fact, several of the teachers in the study who had experience in the
elementary grades used computers to supplement or reinforce concepts using ‘canned’
software packages during earlier periods of their careers. Computers were not as
uncommon as first perceived, just used in a different way. Teachers did not have to know
how things worked, only that things were working as anticipated. This was not your
ordinary teacher tool to be controlled solely by the teacher. This new addition could be
controlled by students in ways that initially teachers selected and later in ways discovered
by students. It meant that teachers did not need to really know much more than how to
turn on all the parts and get things started before turning it over to students wholwere
finished with the day’s assignment or in the case of Zina, students willing to exchange

today’s journal writing for a stint at the computer with Reader Rabbit.

166

How computers were used in the classroom rode on the fiinges of how the
business community used computers. With the arrival of word processing software, there
seemed to be a reason to move beyond drill and practice and include document
preparation or creative writing via this newest innovation. Some teachers began seeing
the potential as a productivity tool and began the more personal use of computers but still
evaded its inclusion into their instruction. In the 1980’s computer courses arose
reminiscent of driver’s training classes. Computers had made their way as a staple of the
business community and students needed to learn about them giving birth to the
Introduction to Computers classes as the newest elective or encore class. The students
were on their way to technology fluency but teachers were left out of the equation as
needing to be knowledgeable about this new technology. So it would be that the
computer classes joined the woodshop, the art room, PE, and the home economics classes
as the encore or elective offerings that would never merge or blend in with the core
academics. If we did not see hammers and screwdrivers from the woodshop in the
English or Science classes, we should not expect to see computers there either. This
situation set the tone for years to come and established a basis for teachers not identified
as the Introduction to Computers instructor. No other teacher saw the need to learn about
what was to create such a tremendous change in all our lives. This unintended decision is
at the heart of why experienced teachers express such frustration and angst over
something today’s students find ordinary.

The teachers in the previous studies have provided some implicit and explicit
reasons why after over twenty (20) years technology use in the classroom is not standard

operating procedure. Some of those reasons include:

167

The prohibitive cost of technology — Since the norm is to issue one textbook for
each student, one would expect that each student also would need one computer or other
technology tool. Burns (2002) found this to be the least beneficial way to integrate
technology especially into classrooms where teachers practiced some degree of
constructivism. Students in computer labs were prone to interact with the computer at the
expense of any attempts at collaborative learning. When teachers had only three or four
computers in their classrooms students quickly learned the importance of working
together.

Because of the larger expenditures needed to provide even four computers to all
classrooms in a district, tax payers, board of education members, and administrators
wanted validation that this large investment would actually show a return on their
investment in the form of increased student achievement The critics and the skeptics
abound today insisting that technology in the classroom is unproductive and a waste of
money and student’s time. Technology leaders know better but find the rapid changes in
technology make empirical research problematic. This validation must come fi'om
teachers who are integrating technology and seeing results in the form of student
behavior, interest, engagement and, above all, achievement.

Lack of direction by leadership — You may recall that the teachers in the
previous cases made little mention of the role of administrators in their decisions to either
avoid technology or actively seek ways to become more fluent in technology. During the
interviews for Chapter Three, teachers were asked about the philosophy of their
principals when it came to technology. None of them were prepared to ‘speak’ for their

principals. For the most part the principals did not get in their way if they chose to use

168

technology. Peggy acknowledged if no costs were involved her principal was generally
agreeable to most suggestions related to innovative methods for engaging students. This
lack of clear leadership when it comes to integrating technology has made it possible for
large numbers of teachers to decide not to use it personally or professionally. There have
been instances where teachers have discussed what they do at home or with their own
children using technology, but show no interest in using it in their classrooms.

I would be remiss in not pointing out that many administrators fall within the
same parameters as my experienced teachers. Many of them are educators who have
been in classrooms for many years before becoming principals. Technology is often just
as foreign and mysterious to them as it is to the experienced teachers they supervise.
Their lack of vision for technology in the classroom means any leadership efforts to help
teachers transition to the integration of technology may be non-existent. You cannot lead
what you do not know.

Adult Learners and Technology - For years innovative uses of technology have
been left for the young to embrace and use willingly. The notion prevailed that learning
something new became more difficult as we aged, therefore, the older generation would
avoid most things related to technology. Although, Janine’s story may lend some
credibility to this notion, a recent study by the Pew Research Center (Jones, 2009)
reported an increase in the use of the intemet by those well over forty. The numbers
showing intemet use by the baby boomers have only recently begun to increase at levels
which indicate age will soon become a non issue when we look at the primary users of
the intemet. Cohen (2005) reminds us that older learners have the advantage of lots of

prior knowledge which makes learning new things different but not impossible.

169

 

 

Gerontologists now understand that learning new things keeps the mind sharp and wards
off deterioration of our mental faculties. No longer can experienced teachers use age as a
reason to avoid learning to use technology.

Mature Learning Styles — The teachers in this study were eager to acknowledge
changes in their personal learning styles as they moved into their second half of life
(Cohen, 2005). These experienced teachers preferred to have someone show them how
technology tools worked or model strategies for instructing using technology. Zina
pointed out that the days of reading cover to cover instruction manuals for new products.
Now her preference is to have features demonstrated and be able to ask questions and be
reassured that she can accurately repeat the process being demonstrated. This difference
in learning styles needs to be acknowledged and accommodated when professional
development is considered.

Part of the interview for teachers in Chapter Four included a question about
personal learning styles. At this stage in their lives the teachers were a bit surprised at
describing themselves as visual learners. In the past, Zina felt comfortable reading
instruction manuals for new purchases. Today, she prefers to have someone show her
how things work. Peggy, who is primarily self taught when it comes to technology,
indicated she is a more visual learner and also wished to be shown what to do and then be
given the opportunity to try to recreate the process. All of the teachers in study were
more comfortable learning in social settings. They wanted to learn in collaboration with
their peers, especially, when relationships of trust had been established. They found
comfort in knowing others struggled to understand the working of educational technology

and that the mutual feelings of insecurity allowed them to commiserate with their peers.

170

If learning styles change over time, more research may be needed to determine how
professional development designs need to change to accommodate teachers in different
age groups or stages of their teaching life cycle.

Teacher autonomy -— When it comes to using technology teachers often are the
final decision makers. Although opting out of following guidelines for preparing
students for high stakes testing would create an uncomfortable environment with
administrators, deciding not to undertake any technology related instructional options
would be pretty much ignored by the same administrator. Teacher autonomy is the
companion of lack of leadership. This ability to determine our own fate can prove
detrimental to students and teachers. For example, in a recent conversation a newly
retired high school math teacher lamented her inability to secure an accounting position
to supplement her retirement because she could not use the spreadsheet program, Excel.
She shared that she had never included technology in her teaching because she did not
have time to learn it. As a result she has contributed to, first, sending off to the work
place students who lack a 2lst century skill to offer employers who need a human
resource capable of using an electronic spreadsheet. Secondly, she is unable to finally
use her accounting degree because she has not updated her skills or prepared herself to
use an important accounting tool that has been in use for many years.

Lack of intuitiveness — In Chapter Four Zina probably explained it best when she
expressed her fi'ustration about not knowing how many of the technologies do what they
do. How is it that I can touch a few keys and eventually produce a paper with all my
ideas clearly laid out before me? While the desire to know the workings of technology

inhibits many users, the same could be said for our relationship with an automobile. It

171

used to be I could look under the hood and have some idea of what the working parts
were and their purpose. Now the microchip is giving the directions in response to my
turning the key in the ignition. I have no idea what is happening under the hood yet I
faithfully back out of the garage each day and make my way to my chosen destination.
Once teachers are able to view technology in the same fashion, its use may become less
intimidating.

Teacher motivation —— Ideally we would like to believe that all teachers are ready
and willing to participate in their own professional growth. However, teachers, unlike
their students, have agency over their learning (Davis & Krajcik, 2005), which may
explain why many have been able to avoid learning how to use technology in their
classrooms. Shulman and Shulman (2004), after many years of working with teachers,
recognized that teachers can be characterized at different stages of readiness for learning.

We can describe teachers who are ready to engage in constructivist (or other

forms of highly engaged) teaching, but lack the will, the knowledge, and the skill

to do so. We worked with teachers who possess the understanding of the
principles, but lack the will to pursue them or the skill to implement them. We
can even imagine teachers who have the requisite skills, but lack an understanding

of their purpose or rationale, are unwilling to apply them, and are uninspired by a

vision of education in which they are central. We can certainly conceive of those

who possess all the individual capacities, but lack membership in the kind of
teacher community that makes possible the transformation of intention into

accomplishment. (p. 260)

If we are to believe the observations of Shulman and Shulman, expecting all
teachers to be eager to learn how to infuse technology into their classrooms and practice
or any other reform is not realistic. This lack of motivation may require more influence
by school leadership if there is a true consensus that a technology rich environment is

favorable and necessary for student achievement. The teachers in Chapter Three had

intrinsic desires to learn about how to use technology with their content. The desire to

172

find ways to help their students provided the motivation to improve their own
professional growth. Reform or changes are generally more likely to succeed when the
learners, like our teachers, become involved on a voluntary basis.

Policy and Professional Development

Administrators and policy makers can reexamine ways to provide teacher with
more and better technology related professional development experiences. The
complexities of technology with its rapid changes and constant evolution can create a
sense of powerlessness. Why go through the motions of learning a set of skills or
techniques only to have something new appear in a few months or years? While this lack
of permanence creates a sense of futility, our relationship with technology outside of the
classroom is just as unpredictable and rapidly changing. That obsolescence may be
looming may not be a valid excuse for completely avoiding technology in the classroom
since our students see change around them when they leave the classroom. Should not
our school be the place to help our youngsters understand these changes and how they
impact their lives? The question becomes how can school leaders and decision makers
help teachers and students prepare for a technologically changing world?

School administrators and decision makers should be partners with teachers in
their quest for understanding how to effectively use educational technology.
Professional development is a costly expenditure for school districts and distributing
training dollars to cover all teachers often means making easy choices like generic, one-
size-fits-all inservice events. Cathy’s experience with Creative Movement is anexample
of finding professional development that crosses a variety of content areas. Obtaining

consultants to train all teachers to, for examples, write across the curriculum is more cost

173

effective than meeting the needs of individual teachers. The goal for these school leaders
is to find some middle ground for providing needed inservice and being cognizant of the
cost involved in providing quality technology related professional development.
Suggestions abound in the literature about ways to achieve this end. Zhao et a1. (2006)
recommend playrooms with technology so that teachers can practice, explore, and
experiment in their work environment with colleagues near by who may offer solutions
and alternatives. Restructuring the school day has also been suggested since teachers
need time to practice doing so during the work day with colleagues and support help
available can be very beneficial.

Decision makers may wish to reconsider the need for computer labs (McCrory,
2006) in secondary schools. If the consensus is that educational technology has a place in
all content areas, having computers readily available in classrooms is worth
consideration. Teachers in the study were often fi'ustrated by the need to reserve
computers in a distant location anticipating when they would need them during the course
of the school year. Burns (2002) recommends four or five computers to a classroom
where students can access them as part of a group project or assignment. While many
districts are exploring 1:1 laptop programs, rethinking computer labs may be more viable
until the costs involved become more manageable. Recognizing, also, that technology
does not equal computers, helping teachers utilize other kinds of technologies may allow
students to continue learning in new and different ways using voice recorders, cameras,
hand held devices, and even cell phones.

School leaders would do well to consider some of the professional development

characteristics that are under the purview of decision makers. Engaging an entire grade

174

level, content area, or school in adding instructional technology to their teaching practice
means teachers will have places to go for affirmation about ideas that are new and
different. Working collectively means teachers will feel less isolated and fearful of being
a lone learner with no form of support. Concepts of school capacity (King & Newmann,
2000) focus on collaborative efforts by staffs engaged in school reform or strategies for
changes in existing practices. Working collectively also means teachers have input into
the kinds of professional development they receive. As professionals they should be
treated as such by including them in the planning and implementation of professional
development (Little, 1993, Hill, 2004).

McCrory (2006) recommended the creation of technology portfolios to support
teachers in their learning to use technology meaningfully. This instrument would provide
a way to focus on technology that could effectively be used in a particular content.
Because of the vast number of options and resources both on and off the lntemet teachers
would do well to develop a way to evaluate those technologies that would be beneficial
within their content area. Teachers, however, will likely need assistance in identifying
strategies for selecting and evaluating potential technologies. For example, Hofer and
Harris (2009) have created taxonomies pairing learning activities with technologies for
use in social studies content. (See http://activitytypes.wmwikis.net for more content
taxonomies). Their goal is to provide teachers with appropriate technologies to use for
particular learning situations recognizing that many novice users of educational
technology struggle to find content specific tools that can enhance learning.

Despite all of our best efforts, some teachers will remain entrenched in their tried

and true ways of teaching. As Janine avowed, if using technology would not enhance her

175

way of teaching and her current methods of instruction were proving to be successful,
then the personal effort and sacrifices to become fluent in technology offered little or no
benefit. Cathy rationalized her decision to discontinue efforts to become technology
fluent and returned to using teaching strategies that had long been a staple in her practice.
Davis (2003) after working with science teachers says it all in her title — “Change is
Hard.” The paradox of remaining in the same space or changing your existing practices
was evident in the teachers she studied. Some were receptive and eager to change or
explore new techniques and methods while others were resistant feeling that to interfere
with the status quo was a waste of time and risky. There is a sense of comfort in doing
things repeatedly with apparently successful outcomes. If students are learning or at least
meeting our requirements, why go through the inconvenience and the insecurity that
comes with becoming proficient in something as unfamiliar as technology?

Wilson and Beme (1999) studied professional development events in order to
determine what exactly teachers learn from such activities. They concluded that it
difficult to pinpoint the ‘what’ in teacher learning. They noted that inservice teachers
have numerous ways to learn about their craft. “Some learning . .. goes on in the
interstices of the workday, in conversations with colleagues, passing glimpses of another
teacher’s classroom on the way to the photocopying machine, tips swapped in the coffee
lounge, not to mention the daily experience of the classroom (p. 174).” Yet in spite of all
of these opportunities researchers are still uncertain “of what exactly it is that teachers
learn and by what mechanisms that learning takes place (p. 174).” This inability to

understand what teachers are learning through traditional professional development

176

 

 

 

 

C011

crez

sug

C111

“'1

pr:

he

complicates efforts to equip all teachers with information age skills. This deficiency
creates an uncertainty that the right program will be available to fit every teacher.
Nevertheless, technology encompasses a plethora of techniques, uses, formats,
and changes that can be intimidating to even the most tech savvy user at times. Perhaps
the direction to take should be to find the consistencies in technology. Burns (2005)
suggests that teachers be trained to use ‘just enough’ of an application to create a
curriculum based project. This technique avoids the tendency to teach all the bells and
whistles when most may not be needed or used. Burns recommends technology related
professional development that focuses on instruction, curriculum, and collaboration
rather than skill building. Somehow we need to find ways to demystify technology and
hope that reluctant teachers will find ways to feel less intimidated and more intrigued by
using technology as an instructional tool. For those teachers determined to remain
unskilled in educational technology, leaving them in their current comfort zone may be
our only choice. Instead, we can focus on teachers ready, willing , and adventurous
enough to take on the challenges of bringing excitement and wonder to student learning

with technology.

177

Appendices

178

 

 

Appendix A - Interview Protocols
“I Have Never Had an Intimate Relationship with a Machine”

1. How long have you been in education?
2. Describe your responsibilities, over the years, as an educator.

3. Professional development is an integral part of changing teacher practice.
Describe two (2) or three (3) professional development experiences you have had
in the last five years.

4. Why do these particular professional development experiences stand out for you?

5. You are an experienced teacher who calls yourself technologically illiterate. Can
you tell me more about why you say this?

6. If you could identify one cause of your lack of technology awareness, what would
it be?

7. What opportunities have you had to become more technologically proficient?

a. What professional development experiences have you had devoted to the
use of technology in the classroom?

b. Have you taken advantage of these opportunities? If not, why not? If so,
explain what you have done.

0. Have any of these experienced changed your teaching practices?

8. Do you use technology for personal use? If so, can you give me some examples
of how you use it?

9. Describe some ways you use technology in your classroom with students.
10. Describe some ways you use technology to support your planning for teaching.

11. Would you explain what you see as the role of technology in today’s classrooms?

179

10.

ll.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

1.7.

From Whence Cometh My Help: A Case of Professional Development

(Interview Protocol)

. Could you tell me about your current responsibilities?

How long you have worked as a teacher and in what areas?

Could you describe for me four (4) or five (5) of the professional development
activities you have experienced within the last 5 years?

Which of these experiences would you describe as most beneficial to you as a
classroom teacher, and why?

Which was least beneficial, and why?

What (other) kinds of technology related professional development experiences
have you had?

a. Was that beneficial? Why or why not?
What motivated you to take part in the Intel Teach to the Future Program?
Do you use technology in your classroom with students?
How have these uses changed since your participation in the Intel program?
Do you use technology outside of the classroom?

How have these uses outside of the classroom changed since your participation in
the Intel program?

Let me make a distinction between your use of technology to support your own
work and your students’ use of technology to support their learning. Are there
ways in which you use technology in your classroom to support your teaching that
are not directly related to student activities?

What are some ways you use technology with your students that are specifically
designed to enhance student learning?

What mechanisms are in place to help you use technology in you classroom?

What resources do you use when you have questions or concerns about the use of
technology?

How easy or hard has it been to implement what you learned in the Intel program?
How familiar are you with the National Educational Technology Standards for

Students? For Teachers?

180

18. How familiar are you with the Michigan Educational Technology Standards?

19. How familiar are you with the technology proficiency and testing requirement for
8th graders in No Child Left Behind policy from the federal government?

181

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

A Tale of Three Teachers: “Running as Fast as I Can ”

(Interview Protocol)

. How long have you been in education?

Describe your responsibilities, over the years, as an educator.

. Professional development is an integral part of changing teacher practice.

Describe two (2) or three (3) professional development experiences you have had
in the last five years.

Why do these particular professional development experiences stand out for you?
Elaborate on any professional development related to technology?

What comes to mind when I use the term - technology fluent?

How does that term apply to you?

How does that term apply to your students?

When did you begin your deliberate efforts to learn more about the use of
technology in the classroom?

Technology usually implies any kind of innovation. Will you describe some of
the technological changes you have witnessed throughout your career as an
educator?

Which of these technological advancements did you willingly embrace? Which
did you avoid? Explain.

If you could identify one cause of your lack of technology awareness up to that
point, what would it be?

Having technology in the classroom is not the same as integrating technology.
What does the term — technology integration - mean to you?

What opportunities have you previously had to become more technologically
proficient?

182

 

15.

16.

I7.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

What professional development experiences devoted to the use of technology in
the classroom were made available to you?

Did you take advantage of these opportunities? If not, why not? If so, explain
what you have done.

Did any of these prior experiences change your teaching practices?

Do you use technology for personal use? If so, can you give me some examples
of how you use it?

Discuss the steps you have taken to more proactively learn to use technology
professionally?

What kinds of resources have you found beneficial in your efforts to become
more fluent in technology?

What are some of the barriers you that find have hampered either the learning of
instructional technology or the use of instructional technology?

Describe some ways you use technology in your classroom with students.

Describe some ways you would like to use technology in your classroom with
students.

Describe some ways you use technology to support your planning for teaching.

Describe some ways you envision using technology to support your planning for
teaching.

How compatible is your content area with the technology tools you understand
how to use?

What additional technology tools might you use in your content area that are not
currently used?

Would you explain what you see as the role of technology in today’s classrooms?

How do you see yourself in relationship to the role of technology you have
described?

183

 

30. How would you describe your principal’s philosophy regarding instructional
technology?

31. What about the other principals that have been in your building. Where would
you say those people were?

32. How does your principal support the use of technology?

33. Who determines what technology is used in classrooms or content areas in your
building or in the district?

34. What role do you play in what technology is available to you or to your students?

184

Appendix B - Methods Section

The purpose of this section is to provide some insight into the data used for this
dissertation especially since the portraiture method, which is more narrative in form, was
used for reporting most of the study results. Although one might argue that the narrative
is the data, readers may wish to know why and how certain interview data were selected
for inclusion in the various ‘portraits’. This section is designed to clarify how data was
collected and analyzed and includes coding decisions and my thinking process for how to
best represent the data collected.

Initially my intent was to relate the stories of teachers, much like life histories
“using the person as a vehicle to understand basic aspects of human behavior or existing
institutions rather than history (Borgan and Biklen, 2003).” The research subjects would
be experienced teachers with more than 15 years in the classroom who were to involved
in learning how to use technology in their teaching. Technology for my purposes meant
anything associated with computers and other digital devices such as graphic calculators,
digital cameras, PDAs, and other micro chip based products. Data would come from
whatever teachers were willing to share with me. Any initial droughts regarding the
structure for the data were not clear. As a researcher, I felt my role would not allow me
to relate or interpret anything not specifically provided by the teachers. Therefore,
anything and everything from the teachers was data which I would then use to construct
meaningfirl narratives.

A Word about Portraiture
Portraiture is a method of inquiry similar to case study, narrative,

phenomenological, and ethnographic techniques. As a research method portraiture

185

underscores the ongoing tension between process (collecting and interpreting data) and
product (the portrait). Lawrence-Lightfoot explains that there are "dual motivations
guiding portraiture: to inform and inspire, to document and transform, to speak to the
head and the heart (p. 243)". The challenge to creating the portraiture narrative requires a
combined "vigilance to empirical description and aesthetic expression" (Lawrence-
Lightfoot & Davis, 1997, p. 12).

Portraiture is comprised of five features: context, voice, relationship, emergent
themes, and aesthetic whole. Lawrence-Lightfoot and Davis explain the purpose of
researchers using this method as follows.

Portraitists seek to record and interpret the perspectives and experiences of the

people they are studying, documenting their voices and their visions - their

authority, knowledge and wisdom. The drawing of the portrait is placed in social
and cultural context and shaped through dialogue between the portraitist and the
subject, each one negotiating the discourse and shaping the evolving image.

(Lawrence-Lightfoot & Davis, 1997, p. xv)

This method seemed appropriate for my purposes in understanding the
predicament experienced teachers faced trying to learn and become knowledgeable about
something that was basically foreign to them. Using this method supported my belief
“that human experience has meaning in a particular social, cultural, and historic context”
(p. 43) and as a research method “it allows the actors to express themselves more fully,
more naturally (p 43).” Since voice is an important facet of this method, my voice as
researcher becomes a part of the portrait. Actually, Lawrence-Lightfoot & Davis (1997)
stress the importance of the portraitist "sketching" herself into the portrait. Davis points
out, "this assertion of researcher perspective invites the reader to join actively in the

journey of discovery of understanding (p. 66).". Ideally, readers would appreciate the

plight of both the teachers as learners, and me, as the facilitator for their learning. There

186

was essentially no way to remove myself completely from the portraits I was painting,
although I made a effort to remain in the background as much as possible.
Data Collection

Because the teachers’ stories were the primary goal, an ethnographic viewpoint
created the context for this dissertation. No classroom observations were made. No
student or teacher artifacts were collected. No survey tools were included. The intent
was to get inside the head’s of the teacher subjects. Self reporting grounded all of the
case studies fully understanding that memories and reflections of past events could be
inaccurate. However, since I was not trying to prove or verify any accounts, what they
told me was what they perceived as a reality at the time of each interview. Therefore, the
narratives I created were interpretations of what teachers were willing to share as their
personal accountings of how technology fit into their roles as teachers.

The first interviews with Janine and the group of six teachers were recorded using
a cassette tape recorder. Eventually, I was able to purchase a high quality voice recorder
and used both to capture each interview. All data, except for that fi'om the interview with
Janine, was converted to a digital format and became individual files on my desktop
computer. The interview with Janine was transcribed directly from the tape. All other
data was transcribed from the digital files into Word files using an audio editor, Audacity,
which is used to create podcasts for adding audio to web based content. Digital files had
to be converted from Windows Media Player (WMP) format to MP3 format so that
Audacity could read the files. I located a free file format converter to accommodate file
requirements Audacity. Using this tool allowed for more playback options since I often

listened to tapes in my car on an MP3 player.

187

By using the Audacity editing features I could mark sections of the recording,
easily identify a position within a recording, and slow the speed of the replay making the
process of transcribing easier. Audacity features also allowed for an automatic repeat of
a passage when the quality of an exchange made portions of the interview difficult to
understand.

I should note that as a novice researcher I missed more than one opportunity to
probe for more information since I felt obligated to adhere to the interview protocol
rather than use it as intended — to give some structure to the interview. I was unprepared
in those early interviews to allow for digressions when teachers alluded to something
slightly off topic. All interviews were conducted in teachers’ classrooms for two reasons.
First, I was able to photograph the layout of a classroom and identify the location of the
classroom computer. These photographs, however, were not included as a part of the
case studies. Second, I wanted to accommodate their schedules and not impose on their
non-contract time any more than necessary. Most of the intefviews were conducted at the
end of the school day so teachers could head for home rather than another destination to
meet with me.

Interview Protocols and Coding

The interview protocols (see Appendix A) were used to begin selecting codes
which were somewhat a priori in nature. Though no specific codes were identified before
interviews were initiated, the protocols established a foundation for determining the
language to use for coding. For example, each interview began with a question about the
teacher’s background. This basic code - background — would provide a picture of

experience, grade level, and teaching assignments. Generally, by the time I began the

188

process of analyzing data, I was very familiar with the content. The codes that emerged
beyond those driven by the protocols represented the data I felt would create the most
meaningful account of a teacher’s experiences. The codes, were perhaps, more intuitive
based upon what I ‘heard’ from the data.

The codes for Chapters Two and Three are fairly uniform. Only one subject is
used in the first chapter so the data and the codes are relatively small and simple (See
Table 1). In the third chapter, the codes are uniform across all six teachers (See Table 2).
With Chapter Four the data and the codes are nearly as different as the teachers (See
Table 3). For example, Cathy and Zina spoke a great deal about fear while Peggy, who
has long been a user of technology, never made any reference to fear. Even the narrative
was more difficult to create since there is such a difference in how these teachers came to
use technology and in the attitudes they developed toward becoming more fluent in
technology. Emergent codes came from these differences and the interview protocol was
used again to establish a base for interpreting their stories. The emergent codes are not
differentiated from the a priori codes because I did not distinguish when a category was
added beyond the initial a priori codes. Too much time has passed to recall when
something was added and I can only assume that code categories at the end of any list
were probably added at some later time.

Working with the Data

An important question to answer was the kinds of professional development
experiences the teachers had experienced. However, Janine spent far more time at the
delivery end of professional development making such a question for her almost

pointless. The interview, while covering questions I felt important to ask, was very short

189

and therefore provided a relatively small amount of data (See Table 1). This situation
meant I had to rethink the direction to take for using the data and developed a set of
themes to use for structuring the narrative. See Table 1 for the themes and codes used for
Janine’s story. Once the themes were established I returned to the transcripts to find
support for each thematic category.

The interviews for Chapters Three and Four were different in both quantity and
length. To organize the data I created a chart for each transcript. The chart served dual
purposes: a) as a way to locate specific content and b) as a ‘view’ of the data in a form
resembling a bar or column graph. The a priori codes were entered as column headings
before returning to the transcripts for supporting evidence. These a priori codes were
extracted from the interview protocols or from points that stood out while reviewing the
audio recordings. Emergent or inductive codes were added to the chart when something
a teacher said was judged as needing further attention or when I realized some word or
phrase had occurred in another interview and might have some significance for the entire
group.

Under each code I noted the paragraph number of a particular phenomenon from
the hard copy created in Word. Occasionally short annotations were included. When the
charting of references was completed, the bar or column graph would become more
apparent. Codes with numerous references meant teachers had much to say about a
particular code. For example, the column for the code ‘fear’ was generally a long one
suggesting the presence of a story to be told about the role of a teacher’s fear related to

the use of technology in the classroom.

190

 

 

“I Have Never Had an Intimate Relationship with a Machine”

Part One — Research Questions

How does one teacher describe her relationship with instructional
technology?

What aspects of her background add to or detract from her proficient
integration of technology?

What role might professional development play in supporting someone
like her in the area of technology integration?

Part Two - Analytical Themes

1.
2.
3.

4.

The subject’s knowledge of technology in general;

The subject’s use of technology both for personal and professional use;
The subject’s involvement in professional development activities in
general;

The subject’s teaching experiences and practices including but not
limited to any related to technology.

Part Three - Analysis Codes

Code Description

Background Teaching experience, grade level,

Professional development Kinds of PD, general and technology related

Technology use Personal and professional uses of
technology

Technology use with How technology is used with students/as

students teacher

Fear Repeated phrase by interviewee

Issues of control Repeated phrase by interviewee

Barriers What prevented use, access, or knowledge

Issues of support Who helps if problems occur?

Must Use Certain phrase or comment I want to be sure
to use.

 

Table 1 - Chapter 2 Research Questions, Themes, and Codes

191

 

 

 

From Whence Cometh My Help: A Case of Professional Development

Part One - Research Questions

0 What were typical general and technology related professional
development experiences of veteran teachers?

0 How did experienced teachers use technology in their personal and
professional lives before and after an extend technology related
professional development event?

0 What kinds of support systems were identified by experienced teachers
as necessary for sustainability and enhancement of their technology
skills?

Part Two — Analytical Themes

1. The subject’s experiences with professional development both
technology related and professional development in general;

2. The subject’s use of technology for professional and personal use both
before and after the inservice;

3. The subject’s perceptions about the support systems that were in place
and how these systems might aid in sustaining their technology skills.

Part Three — Analysis Codes

Codes Description

Background Teacher experience, grade level

Professional Development Opportunities for PD — general and technology

Personal Use What technology is for personal use?

Students and Technology Technology used with or by students in
classroom

Integration of Technology Deliberate integration of technology

Teacher Knowledge How do teachers know about technology

Efficacy/Confidence Any mention of confidence or lack of
confidence

Barriers What prevents the use of technology anywhere

Reference to Knowledge Any mention of someone who helps with

Broker technology

Change in Practice Instances of change due to technology

Support Issues Any mention of assistance or lack of
assistance

Gate keeping Who gets in the way or controls use of
technology

Must Use Phrase or comment I want to be sure to use.

 

Table 2 - Chapter 3 Research Questions, Themes, and Codes

192

 

 

 

A Tale of Three Teachers: “Running as Fast as I Can”

Part One - Research Questions and Themes

0 How do teachers reflect and react to the educational technologies encountered
during the course of their teaching careers?

- How do we describe the attitude of these teachers toward instructional
technology in contrast to the initial interviews from Chapter Three?

0 What can we learn about how teachers cope with the complexities of trying to
include educational technology in their practice?

Part Two — Analysis Codes

Codes
Background
Professional Development
Attitude toward technology
Integration
Fear
Innovation
Technology Use
Fluency
Change in Practice
Knowledge Broker
Issues of support
Lack of interest
View of students
No help
Administrator Views

Descriptions
Teacher experience, grade level
Opportunities for PD — general and technology
Beliefs, effectiveness, desire to use
Examples of technology integration
Repeated phrase
Technological changes in educational tools
Personal or professional use of technology
Descriptions of fluency in technology
Instances of change in teaching with technology
Who provides assistance or knowledge
Examples of how problems are solved
Unique to Cathy -— comments indicating no interest
Role of students in decisions to use technology
Repeated phrase
References to principal’s philosophy about
technology

 

Table 3 - Chapter 4 Research Questions, Themes, and Codes

Short bars or columns were either ignored or examined to expose phenomena that

might be missing in the data. For example, gate keeping, though an emergent code, had

fewer references than anticipated when the code was initially added to the chart.

However, while some teachers mentioned examples of gate keeping the total number of

direct references overall was very small. This led me to question whether teachers

193

 

realized when instances of gate keeping blocked their efforts to use technology. These
incidents of omission, like emergent codes, led me back into the data from other
interviews to determine if there were references I had overlooked or ignored as not being
meaningful in a particular iteration of the data.

To develop the themes I used the columns with the largest number of references
to the interview data and then outlined the general concept of each theme that I thought
could be used to create a plausible narrative. I used this thematic approach as a way to
develop or organize the subheadings for the various chapters. See Tables 1 — 3 for the
themes constructed for Chapters 2 — 4. Throughout the writing of the narrative, I tried to
be true to the voices of the teachers. At times this was difficult because we were all
employed by the same district. I made every effort to use only the information I obtained
from the teachers through the interviews. This was challenging in some instances
because I knew things that went beyond the surface of the interview and that were issues
teachers did not want to be associated with in providing certain information. I tried to be

ethical and honor their wishes to be evasive or vague about certain topics.

194

Works Cited

195

Works Cited

, Technology counts 2005. (2005). Education Week.
, What is the eMINTS National Center. www.cmints.org, eMIN TS Center.

Anstey, M., & Bull, G. (2006). Teaching and learning multiliteracies: Changing times,
changing literacies. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Becker, H. S. (1999). lntemet use by teachers: Conditions of professional use and
teacher—directed student use. Retrieved April 15, 2003, from
http://www.crito.uci.edu/TLC/findings/Internet-Use/startpage.htm

. (2000). Findings from the Teaching, Learning, and Computing survey: Is
Larry Cuban right? Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8(51), 1-36.

 

Bickman, A. (2005). Analysis of 2004 MAP results for eMINTS Students (Evaluation
Team Policy Brief): eMINTS: http://www.emints.org/evaluation/reports/.

Birrnan, B., Desirnone, L. M., Porter, A., & Garet, M. S. (2000). Designing professional
development that works. Educational Leadership, 57(8), 28-33.

Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2003). Qualitative research for education: An
introduction to theories and methods (hardback ed.). Boston: Pearson Education
Group, Inc.

Borko, H. (2004). Profession development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain.
Educational Researcher, 33(8), 3-15.

Bryk, A. S. and. Schneider, 3., (2002). Trust in schools: A care resource for
improvement. New York, Russel Sage Foundation.

Burns, M. (2002). From compliance to commitment: Technology as a catalyst for
communities of learning. Phi Delta Kappan, 84(4), 295-302.

(2005). Just us it: Rethinking technology training for K—12 teachers. Retrieved
October 11, 2009, from http://www.techlearning.com/article/4330

Carroll, J. B., & Morrell, P. D. (2006). A comparison of teacher education faculty and
preservice teacher technology competence. Journal of Computing in Teacher
Education, 23(1), 5 - 10.

Cohen, D., & Hill, H. C. (2000). Instructional policy and classroom performance: The
mathematics reform in California. Teachers College Record, 102(2), 294-343.

196

Cohen, G. D. (2005). The mature mind: The positive power of the aging brain. New
York: Basic Books.

Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal
of Sociology, 94(Supplement S95-SIZO), 95 - 120.

Cuban, L. (2002). Oversold & Underused: Computers in the Classroom (paperback ed.).
Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Davis, E. A., & Krajcik, J. S. (2005). Designing educative curriculum materials to
promote teacher learning. Educational Researcher, 34(3), 3 -14.

Davis, K. S. (2002). "Change is hard": What science teachers are telling us about reform
and teacher learning of innovative practices. Science Education, 87(Part 1), 3 - 30.

Desirnone, L. M., Porter, A., Garet, M. 8., Yoon, K. S., & Birman, B. (2002). Effects of
professional development on teachers' instruction: Results from a three-year
longitudinal study. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(2), 81-112.

Diaz, D. P. (2001). Faculty and staff development taking technology to the classroom:
pedagogy-based training for educators, from Retrieved from the World Wide Web
on 11/15/2006 http://ts.mivu.org/default.asp?show=article&id=1034

Davis, K. S. (2002). "Change is hard": What science teachers are telling us about reform
and teacher learning of innovative practices. Science Education, 87(Part 1), 3 - 30.

Elizabeth A, D., & Krajcik, J. S. (2005). Designing educative curriculum material to
promote teacher learning. Educational Researcher, 3 4(3), 3 14.

Ertmer, P. A. (1999). Addressing first- and second-order barriers to change: Strategies for
technology integration. Educational Technology Research and Development,
47(No. 4), 47-61.

. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final fi'ontier in our quest for
technology integration? Educational Technology Research and Development,
53(4), 25 - 39.

 

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, 32(1), 54-72.

Fishman, B. J ., Marx, R. W., Best, 8., & Tal, R T. (2003). Linking teacher and student
learning to improve professional development in systemic reform. Teaching and
Teacher Education, I 9, 643 — 658.

197

Flick, L., & Bell, R. (2000). Preparing tomorrow’s science teachers to use technology:
Guidelines for Science educators. Contemporary Issues in Technology and
Teacher Education, [(10), 39—60.

F olden, R E., & Bell, J. (2006). Professional development for meaningfirl learning using
technology. In E. Ashburn & R. E. Floden (Eds), Meaningfitl learning using
technology: What educators need to know and do (pp. 180 - 192). Columbia:
Teachers College Press.

Frank, K. A., Zhao, Y., & Borman, K. (2004). Social capital and the diffusion of
innovations within organizations: The case of computer technology in schools.
Sociology of Education, 77(April), 148-171.

Friedman, T. L. (2007). The world is flat: A brief history of the twenty-first century (First
Picador Edition august 2007 Release 3.0 ed.). New York: Picador.

Garet, M. 8., Porter, A. C., Desirnone, L. M., Birman, B. F., & Yoon, K. S. (2001). What
makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of

teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 915-945.

Guskey, T. R. (1986). Staff development and the process of teacher change. Educational
Researcher, 15(5), 5-12.

Hadley, M., & Sheingold, K. (1993). Commonalities and distinctive patterns in teachers'
integration of computers. American Journal of Education, 101 (May), 261-314.

Hargreaves, A. (2003). Teaching in the knowledge society: Education in the age of
insecurity (paperback ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.

Harris, J ., & Hofer, M. (2009). Grounded tech integration. Learning and Leading with
Technology, 3 7(2), 22 -25.

Hawkes, M., Halverson, P., & Bockmueller, B. (2002). Technology facilitation in the
rural school: An analysis of options. Journal of Research in Rural Education,
17(3), 162-170.

Hawley, W. D., & Valli, L. (1999). The essentials of effective professional development:
A new consensus. In L. Darling-Hammond & G. Sykes (Eds), Teaching as the
Learning Profession: Handbook of Policy and Practice (hardback ed., pp. 127-
150). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Hoban, G. F. (2002). Teacher learning for educational change: A system thinking
approach. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Hobe, H. (2010). Instructional technology coaching in a 1:] learning environment. ISTE
SIG1:1 Newsletter. Retrieved 2/26/2010, from

198

httpzflwww.iste.org/Content/NavtgationMenu/Membership/SIGs/SIGiNewsletter/
Archives/2010/Februarv/InstructionaltTechnology Coaching in a 1.htm or
http://tiny.cc/b8k9y

Hofer, M., & Harris, J. (2009). Tech integration in social studies. Learning and Leading
with Technology, 37(2), 26 - 28.

Holmes, A., Polhemus, L., & Jennings, S. (2005). Catie: A blended approach to situated

professional development. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 32(4),
381 -394.

Huberman, M. (1983). Recipes for busy kitchens: A situational analysis of routine

knowledge use in schools. Knowledge: Creation, Diflusion, Utilization, 4(4), 478-
510.

Huberman, M. (1993). The lives of teachers (J. Neufeld, Trans). New York: Teachers
College Press.

Hughes, J. E. (2003). Toward a model of teachers' technology-learning. Action in
Teacher Education, 24(4), 10-17.

Hughes, J. E., Kerr, S. P., & Ooms, A. (2005). Content-focused technology inquiry
groups: Cases of teacher learning and technology integration. Journal of
Educational Computing Research, 32(4), 367-379.

ISTE. (2000). National education technology standards for students: Connecting
curriculum and technology. Eugene, Ore: International Society for Technology in
Education.

Johnson, D. (2002). The indispensable teacher 's guide to computer skills (paperback ed.).
Worthington: Linworth Publishing, Inc.

John-Steiner, V. P. and Meehan, T. M., (2000). Creativity and collaboration in
knowledge construction. Vygotskian perspectives on literacy research. C. Lee and
P. Smagorinsky. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press: 31 - 50.

Jones, 8., & Fox, S. (2009). Generations on line in 2009: Pew Research Center lntemet
and America Life Project. Retrieved from the World Wide Web December 18,
2009.

Kanaya, T., Light, D., & Culp, K. M. (2005). Factor influencing outcomes from a
technology-focused professional development program. Journal of Research on

Technology in Education, 3 7(3 ), 313-329.

Kennedy, M. (2005). Inside teaching: How classroom life undermines reform.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

199

King, M. B., & Newmann, F. M. (2000). Will teacher learning advance school goals? Phi
Delta Kappan, 81(8), 576 - 580.

Koehler, M. J. and Mishra, P., (2005). Teachers learning technology by design. Journal
of Computing in Teacher Education 21(N umber 3): 94-102.

Koehler, M. J ., & Mishra, P. (2005). What happens when teachers design educational

technology?: The development of technological pedagogical content knowledge.
Journal of Educational Computing Research, 32(2), 131 - 152.

Kolb, L. (2008). Toys to tools: Connecting student cell phones to education. Washington,
D. C.: International Society for Technology in Education.

Koppich, J. E., Toch, T., & Podgursky, M. (2000). The federal role in teacher
professional development. Brookings Papers on Education Policy, 3, 265-305.

Lawrence-Lighfoot, S. (2005). Reflections on portraiture: A dialogue between art and
science. Qualitative Inquiry, 11(1), 3 - 15.

Lawrence-Lighfoot, S., & Hoffman Davis, J. (1997). The art and science of portraiture.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Little, J. W. (1993). Teacher's professional development in a climate of educational
reform. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 15(2): 129-151.

Loucks-Horsley, S., Love, N., Stiles, K. E., Mundry, S., & Hewson, P. W. (2003).
Designing professional development for teachers of science and mathematics.
Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press.

Maddux, C. D., & Johnson, D. L. (2005). Information technology, Type II classroom
integrating, and the limited infrastructure in schools. Computers in the Schools,
22(3/4), 1-5.

Maeers, M., Browne, N., & Cooper, E. (2000). Pedagogically appropriate integration of
information technology in an elementary preservice teacher education program.
Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 8(3), 219 - 229.

Marcovitz, D. M. (2000). The roles of computer coordinators and teacher education in
schools. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education 8(3): 259-73.

McCrory, R. S. (2006). Technology and Teaching: A new kind of knowledge. In E.
Ashburn & R. E. Floden (Eds), Meaningfitl learning using technology: What
educators need to know and do (pp. 141 - 260). Columbia: Teachers College
Press.

200

Mishra, P, & Koelher, M. (Producer). (2008). [Video Podcast]. Thinking creatively,
teachers as designers of technology, pedagogy & content (T PA CK). Retrieved
from Thinking Creatively, Teachers as Designers of Technology, Pedagogy &
Content (TPACK)

Oldham, G., & McLean, R. (1997, May. 1997). Approaches to knowledge-brokering.
Paper presented at the International Institute for Sustainable Development.
Retrieved from the World Wide Web April 10, 2006
http://www.iisd.org/pdf/2001/neMorks_@ow@gejrokefing.pdf

Parsad, B., Lewis, L., & Farris, E. (2001). Teacher preparation and professional
development: 2000 (No. NCES 2001-088). Washington, D. C.: National Center
for Education Statistics.

Patrick, S. D. (2004). National Education Technology Plan 2004. Washington, DC.

Penuel, W. R., & Reil, M. (2007). The new science of networks and the challenge of
school change. Phi Delta Kappan, 88(8), 611 - 615.

Pierson, M. (2001). Technology integration practice as a function of pedagogical
expertise. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 33(4), 413-430.

Plair, S. K. (2007). What does the research really say?: Preparing preservice teachers for
technology integration. MACUL Journal, 28(1), 16 - l8.

. (2008). Revamping professional development for technology integration and
fluency. The Clearing House, 82(2), 70 - 74.

Postman, N. (1993). Technoploy: The surrender of culture of technology. New York:
Vintage Books.

Proj ect_Tomorrow. (2008). let century students deserve a 21 st century education:
Project Tomorrow. Retrieved from the World Wide Web on 5/13/09

http://www.tomorrow.org/

Putnam, R. T., & Borko, H. (2000). What do new views of knowledge and thinking have
to say about research on teacher learning? Educational Researcher, 29(1), 4-15.

Resnick, M., Rusk, N., & Cooke, S. (1998). The computer clubhouse: Technological
fluency in the inner city. In D. Schon, B. Sanyal & W. Mitchell (Eds), High
Technology and Low-Income. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of Innovations (4th ed.). New York: Free Press.

201

Russell, M., Bebell, D., O'Dwyer, L., & O'Connor, K. (2003). Examining teacher
technology use: Implications for preservice and inservice teacher preparation.
Journal of Teacher Education, 54(4), 297-310.

Sandholtz, J. H. (2004). Teachers, Not Technicians: Rethinking Technical Expectations
for Teachers. Teachers College Record, 106(3), 487-512.

Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard
Educational Review, 57(No. 1), 1-22.

Shulman, L. S., & Shulman, J. H. (2004). How and what teachers learn: A shifting
perspective. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 36(2), 257 - 271 .

Sikes, P. J. (1992). Imposed change and the experienced teacher. In Teacher development
and educational change (pp. 170-193). London: The Falmer Press.

 

Smerdon, B., Cronen, S., Lanahan, L., Iannotti, N., Angeles, J ., & Greene, B. (2000).
Teachers' tools for the let century: A report of teachers' use of technology
(Statistical Analysis Report No. NCES 2000-102). Washington, D. C.: U. S.
Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.

Spotts, TH. (1999). Discriminating factors in faculty use of instructional technology in
higher education. Educational Technology & Society, 2(4), Retrieved from the
World Wide Web November 8, 2006.

Stake, R. (2005). Qualitative case studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds), The
Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research (3rd ed., pp. 443 - 466). Thousand Oaks:

Sage.

Steffy, B. E., Wolfe, M. P., Pasch, S. H., & Enz, B. J. (2000). Life cycle of the career
teacher. Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press.

Sugar, W. (2005). Instructional Technologist as a Coach: Impact of a Situated
Professional Development Program on Teachers' Technology Use. Journal of
Technology and Teacher Education, 13(4), 547-571.

Sugar, W., & Wilson, K. (2005). Seeking alternatives to inservice technology workshops
from teachers' perspectives. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 21(4),
91-98.

Surry, D. W., & Land, S. M. (2000). Strategies for motivating higher education faculty to
use technology. Innovations in Education and Training International, 37(2), 145

- 153. Retrieved from the World Wide Web November 15, 2006.

Thompson, A. D., & Mishra, P. (2007). Breaking News: TCPK becomes TPACK.
Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 24(2), 38, 64.

202

Trotter, A. (2005). Federal role seen shifting. Technology Counts Electronic Transfer:
Moving Technology Dollars in New Directions, 24(35), 26-28,32.

U S Department of Education. (2002). The condition of education 2002 (No. NCES
2002-025). Washington, D. C.: US. Government Printing Office: National Center
for Education Statistics.

U. S. Department of Education. (2002). Indicator 33: Participation in professional
development. The condition of education 2002. Washington, D.C.: US.
Government Printing Office, National Center for Education Statistics: 93, 68-70,
188-190.

U. S. Department of Education. (2003). Digest of education statistics 2002. Washington,
DC, National Center for Education Statistics: 485-499.

Vrasidas, C., & Mclsaac, M. S. (2001). Integrating technology in teaching and teacher
education: Implications for policy and curriculum reform. Education Media
International, 38(2), 127 - 132.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological
processes. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

Wells, G. (2000). Dialogic inquiry in education: Building on the legacy of Vygotsky.
V ygotskian perspectives on literacy research. C. Lee and P. Samgorinsky.
Cambridge, Cambridge University Press: 51 - 85.

Wenger, E. (2000). Communities of practice and social learning systems. Organization,
7(2), 225 - 246.

White, J. J. (1987). The teacher as broker of scholarly knowledge. Journal of Teacher
Education, 38(19), 19 - 24.

Wilson, S. M., & Beme, J. (1999). Teacher learning and the acquistion of professional
knowledge: An examination of research on contemporary professional
development. Review of Research in Education, 24, 173-209.

Windschitl, M. and Sahl, K. (2002). Tracing teachers' use of technology in a laptop
computer school: The interplay of teacher beliefs, social dynamics, and
institutional culture. American Educational Research Journal, 39(1), 165 - 205.

Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed). Thousand Oaks:
Sage.

Zhao, Y., Pugh, K., Sheldon, S., & Byers, J. L. (2002). Conditions for classroom
technology innovations. Teachers College Record, 104(3), 482-515.

203

Zhao, Y., & Franks, K. A. (2003). Factor affecting technology uses in schools: An
ecological perspective. American Educational Research Journal, 40(4), 807-840.

Zhao, Y., Frank, K. A., & Ellefson, N. C. (2006). Fostering meaningful teaching and
learning with technology: Characteristics of effective professional development.
In E. Ashburn & R. E. Floden (Eds), Meaningful learning using technology:
What educators need to know and do (pp. 161 - 179). Columbia: Teachers
College Press.

204

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

lflllll Ill

3063 8107

3 1293