 

 

 

 

 

 

 

nﬂﬁuuﬁ
6..
a". r
in»
:2. . i...
4zts. V 3.:

”w... ..

.‘Jiwﬂuuw . ..
ﬂit: h l... s .
awn; amﬁuwﬁ.

v ‘

:31 ‘6 .
1.1.5.11 )

 

r

,1:

:. . . a, g? ,3 ﬁééa 7 ,Eﬁaﬁa M, ..

I... 2.x. . ‘ , ‘ , . LL 4% 3.... V ..!.!..._ . ‘

 

'1 'ﬂbt'xib

,. LIBRARY
2 00; Michigan State
University

This is to certify that the
dissertation entitled

CO-EVOLUTION: THE DYNAMICS OF TECHNOLOGY USES
IN SCHOOLS

presented by

JING LEI

has been accepted towards fulﬁllment
of the requirements for the

PhD. degree in Learning, Techno—logy & Culture

 

 

 

(Major Professor’s Signature

06 [08 12005

Date

MSU is an Afﬁnnative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

 

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

Dmr WE

9111‘

DATE DUE

‘1

 

59 1'7.

CUL

I

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2/05 c:/cﬁcroatoom.m.15

 

CO-EVOLUTION: THE DYNAMICS OF TECHNOLOGY USES

IN SCHOOLS

By

JING LEI

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
In partial fulﬁllment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Counseling, Educational Psychology and Special Education

2005

ABSTRACT

CO-EVOLUTION: THE DYNAMICS OF TECHNOLOGY USES IN
SCHOOLS
By
JING LEI

From an ecological perspective, this study investigates the dynamic process of
technology use in schools. Participants were 133 students and 20 teachers in a middle
school which launched a laptop project in 2003-2004 academic year. Data were collected
through three approaches: pretest-posttest surveys, classroom observations and
interviews.

Results suggest that technology use evolves. It is a complex ongoing process
inﬂuenced by continuous interactions between technology uses, the users, and the
environment. Seven different evolution paths of technology uses were identiﬁed, and the
conditions and factors inﬂuencing the changes of technology uses and their relationships
were illustrated through quantitative data analysis results and speciﬁc case studies.

A ﬁnal model was developed to illustrate the overall picture of technology use in
schools. It revealed that the interactions and mutual inﬂuences between technology use,
the users and the environment are not simple and linear, but are built upon circular
causality and reﬂexivity. Technology adoption is a cycle of changes, co-adaptation, and
co-evolution. Analyses on the quality and quantity of technology use suggested that

different technology uses have different impacts on student outcomes. Therefore, the

quality of technology use is a critical issue. “How much” matters when “how” is
identiﬁed.

Results ﬁom this study shed light on the dynamic nature and process of
technology use in schools and conditions for effective technology uses; they thus have
both theoretical and practical implications in that not only is a research gap in technology
integration in schools partially ﬁlled, but teachers and students can also discover from
these results ways to use technologies meaningfully in teaching and learning. Speciﬁc
implications for policy making, technology integration in schools, professional

development and future research are suggested.

Cepyright by
JING LEl

2005

DEDICATION

To my parents, LEI DE-WANG (EE E) and WU ZU-FENG (£iﬁﬂ)—your

unconditional love and support gives me strength to stride in life!

To my husband, QlU WANG (EEO—for loving, supporting and believing in me and my

dreams!

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

My graduate studies at Michigan State University have been a growing-up
experience in many ways, and through it all I was very fortunate to meet some incredible
people who have made this journey fruitful, enjoyable and unforgettable.

I am deeply indebted to my academic adviser and mentor, Dr. Yong Zhao, who
has served as a great role model and continuously provided me with enormous support
and great inspiration throughout my doctoral study. He led me into the ﬁeld of
educational technology, opened my eyes to the wonders of this ﬁeld, and provided
extremely rich resources, opportunities, and learning experiences to facilitate my
academic growth from many aspects. Through working closely with me on this
dissertation study from the very beginning when the opportunity to conduct this research
was ﬁrst introduced, to the completion of this manuscript, he guided me through the
labyrinth of the dissertation process and kept me focused on the big picture when I was
lost in minutiae. His incredible creativity, integrity, and passion for educational research
have both greatly inspired and sustained my academic pursuits. I am very fortunate to
have him as my advisor and eternally grateful for his guidance, support, and inﬂuence on
me.

I would like to thank Dr. William Schmidt for his invaluable help and crucial
guidance with the data analyses and results interpretation. When I ﬁrst talked with Dr.
Schmidt, I thought I was almost ﬁnished with this study, but he convinced me that there
was much more to explore in my data. Through many discussions, he helped me set
advanced data analysis strategies, directed me through the complicated data analysis

process, and raised this study to a whole new level. Productive and pleasant, working

vi

with him was an exceptionally enlightening experience from which I have not only found
new meanings in this speciﬁc study but also gained immense understanding of the
aspects of scientiﬁc research in general.

I am very grateful to Dr. David Wong for his constant encouragement and interest
in my work. Dr. Wong was one of the few professors I met in my very ﬁrst week at MSU
nearly ﬁve years ago, and he has been very supportive and helpful ever since, from
speciﬁc course work, to the ﬁrst academic study I attempted myself, to, ﬁnally, the work
on my dissertation. From the many discussions about various topics and problems, Dr.
Wong has provided me with critical advice and insights, especially at times when I was
confused and not sure about my work. I owe him a humble “thank you”.

I would also like to thank Dr. Richard Prawat for being very supportive through
my graduate studies. I am very appreciative of the wonderful experience working with
him and all the help and support he has provided me in these years. I especially want to
thank him for serving on my dissertation committee and providing critical suggestions for
improving my work. His insightful comments and constructive advice contributed much
to this dissertation.

I am very grateful to Mr. Edward Bernetich—a passionate educator and an
inspiring leader—and his staff. Without their full support, ﬁnishing this study would have
been impossible. I would also like to acknowledge those who completed the surveys for
this project and especially those who generously devoted their time to be interviewed.

I must acknowledge a critically important person who has played multiple roles in
my life and graduate studies, Blaine Morrow. I can never thank him enough for the

immense help and support he has provided me in many aspects of my life, academic and

vii

nonacademic. Here I want to speciﬁcally thank him and his wife Linda for always
believing in and caring about me. Furthermore, I am very grateful to the whole Morrow
family, who embraced me wholeheartedly from the very ﬁrst day I arrived in the United
States, and provided me with enormous love and support.

I also want to thank my terriﬁc friends who have touched my life one way or
another. My deepest appreciation goes to Xi Chen, for all the joyful moments we had and
all the precious life wisdom she taught me. My years at MSU would have been very
different without her care and support. I greatly thank Dr. Shane Cavanaugh, for so
unselﬁshly devoting her time to help me in my academic growth. I am very appreciative
to Dave Dai, Lisa Payne, and Lisa Roy for providing various resources and helping me
solve all kinds of problems. I thank my once roommates and forever friends, Yue Yin,
and Baorong Guo, for always being there for me, sharing my laughter and tears. I thank
my LTC ﬁ'iends, Ruhui, Chun, Bo, Wei, Derek, Yi, Jamie, and others for being my ﬁrst
audience for this study, providing critical comments, and giving me moral support along
the way.

It gives me great comfort to thank my family members in China, who are my
greatest source of love, wisdom, courage and strength. Finally, no words can fully
express my thankfulness to my husband, Qiu Wang. I am a very lucky woman to have

your love and support to pursue my dreams.

viii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................... xi
LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................. xiii
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................... 1
CHAPTER 2 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ................................................. 5
Main Concepts of ecology .................................................................. 6
The Mechanism of Ecosystem ............................................................. 6
The Application of Ecological Theories in Education .................................. 8
CHAPTER 3 ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK .................................................. 15
Factors Related to the Invading Species ................................................. 15
Factors Related to the Ecosystem Environment ....................................... 20
Factors Related to the Key-Stone Species .............................................. 27
Outcomes .................................................................................... 35
Categorizing Technology Uses ........................................................... 39
CHAPTER 4 METHODOLOGY .................................................................. 41
Participants ................................................................................... 41
Instruments and Data Collection .......................................................... 41
Data Analysis ................................................................................ 44
CHAPTER 5 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS ................................................. 49

5.1 The Big Picture: Co-Evolution—The Dynamics Of Technology Use in

Schools ....................................................................................... 49

ix

5.2 How Different Technology Uses Have Changed Over Time — The Evolution

of Technology Uses ........................................................................ 70
5.3 Conditions for the Evolution of Technology Uses ................................. 74
5.4 How Technology Uses Evolve: Cases .............................................. 90
5.5 Discussion ............................................................................... 96
CHAPTER 6 IMPLICATIONS ...................................................................... 98
Implications for Policy Making .......................................................... 98
Implications for Technology Integration in Schools ................................. 101
Implications for Professional Development ........................................... 104
Suggestions for Future Research ........................................................ 104
CHAPTER 7 CONCLUSIONS ................................................................... 106
APPENDICES ...................................................................................... 108
REFERENCES ...................................................................................... 115

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Variables Investigated In This Study ................................................... 38
Table 2: Categories of Technology Uses ......................................................... 40
Table 3: Reliability Check for Research Designed Scales ..................................... 46
Table 4: Relationship between the Organism and the Environment at Time 1 ............. 51
Table 5: Changes in the Environment ............................................................ 53

Table 6: What Affects Teacher Perceived Technology Support at the End of School

Year .................................................................................................... 56
Table 7: What Affects Teachers’ Perception of Time Constraint As A Barrier. . . . . . .58
Table 8: Environment and Teacher Variables Affect Teacher Tech Use .................... 58
Table 9: Factors Inﬂuencing Pedagogy ........................................................... 63

Table 10: The Impact Of Pedagogy On Student Overall Technology Use. . . . . . . ..63
Table 11: Factors Inﬂuencing Student Technology Uses 65
Table 12: Impact Of Student Technology Uses On Student Outcomes ....................... 67
Table 13: Evolution Paths And Technology Uses For Each Path ............................. 71

Table 14: Cost-Beneﬁt Analysis of Three Invading Species ................................... 88
Table 15: Types Of Technology Use ............................................................. 110
Table 16: Factors Inﬂuencing General Technology Use ..................................... 111

Table 17: Factors Inﬂuencing Subject-Speciﬁc Technology Use .......................... 111

Table 18: Factors Inﬂuencing Social-Communication Technology Use ................... 111
Table 19: Factors Inﬂuencing Construction Technology Use ............................... 112
Table 20: Factors Inﬂuencing Entertainment/Exploration Technology Use .............. 112

xi

Table 21: Factors Inﬂuencing Student GPA At The End Of The School Year ........... 113
Table 22: Factors Inﬂuencing Student Technology Ability at the End of the School

Year .................................................................................................. 113
Table 23: Factors Inﬂuencing Student Learning Habits At the End of the School

Year .................................................................................................. 113

Table 24: The Impact of Technology Uses on Student Developmental Outcomes........114

xii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure l: The Evolution of Technology Use in the School Ecosystem ...................... 14
Figure 2: Co-evolution: The Dynamics of Technology Uses in Schools .................... 50
Figure 3: Factors and Interactions Inﬂuencing Technology Use .............................. 75
Figure 4: What Inﬂuences Technology Use Evolution ..................................................... 9O

xiii

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Information technology is developing rapidly and deeply inﬂuencing every aspect
of our daily lives. In recognizing information technology’s limitless potential, combined
with an enduring faith in the power of education in making a better society and solving
individual and social problems (e. g. Berliner & Biddle, 1995; Tyack & Cuban, 1997;
Cuban, 2001), streams of money have been poured into schools in the last two decades to
provide technology infrastructure, software and staff training for technology use. Many
educational policies and government documents have been publicized and implemented
in order to ensure that schools reap the proﬁts provided by information technology.
However, despite great enthusiasm from educators, policy makers, parents and the public
- along with easily accessible technology training and support and greatly improved
technology access - technology innovations remain unused or underused in schools
(Cuban, 2001; Zhao,2003).

The slow adoption of technology in schools has been a serious concern of
educators and researchers (Berliner & Biddle, 1995; Tyack & Cuban, 1997; Cuban, 2001;
Zhao, Pugh, Sheldon, & Byers, 2002; etc.). Great efforts have been made to investigate
how technologies are used in schools (Collis, Knezek, Lai, Miyashita, Pelgrum, Plomp, &
Sakamoto, 1996; Ager, 1998 ), why technologies are not used in schools (Cuban, 2001;
Schoﬁeld, 1995), what conditions inﬂuence teachers’ technology use (Zhao, eta], 2002;
Zhao & Frank, 2003; Becker, Ravitz, & Wong, 1999; Harris & Grangenett, 1999; Honey

& Moeller, 1990), how technology innovations are integrated or rejected (Bruce, 1993;

Cuban, 1986; Tan, Lei, Shi, & Zhao, 2003; etc. ), how technology innovations transform
and are transformed by existing practices (Bruce, Peyton, & Batson, 1993; Schoﬁeld, &
Davidson, 2001) , and what teachers need to know in order to use educational technology
(Margerum-Leys, & Marx, 2003; Zhao, 2003; Urban-Lurain, 2003) However, given the
complicated nature of school systems and technology innovations, the process of
technology integration remains elusive to educators and researchers. Although research
has identiﬁed a long list of factors that could affect technology integration in schools,
these factors “are often examined in isolation of each other or the system in which they
interact” (Zhao & Frank, 2003). Technology is often treated as an independent artifact or
a distinct event. This limitation “makes it difﬁcult to see how changes to a social system
occur through other than simple, one-directional causation. This impedes both the
development of successful innovations and the understanding of social change” (Bruce,
1993)

It is important, therefore, to gain an understanding of how technologies are used
in schools, why some technology uses are popular while some others are not.
Discernment of how different technology uses emerge, interact with the system, and
develop - and what conditions inﬂuence this process - is crucial in helping teachers and
students not only use technologies, but also use them in meaningful ways for teaching
and learning.

From an ecological perspective, this study views technology use as an ongoing
process in which different technology uses are introduced into school systems, interact
with social contextual factors and thus are either adopted, reinvented, or rejected. Users

will be studied change agents that have the potential to interpret technologies and re-

invent them to ﬁt their goals and practices within the affordances and constraints of the
social context. Speciﬁcally, based on data collected from a laptop project in a middle
school, this study asks the following research questions:

1. How do technology uses in schools change overtime?

2. What factors inﬂuence the development and popularity of technology uses?

3. How do technology uses affect, and how are they affected by, schools?

Deﬁning “Technology Use”

This study focuses on diverse technology uses rather than speciﬁc technologies.
“Technology use” is the application of a technology function in solving practical
problems (Zhao, 2003). It is different from speciﬁc technologies in a few ways: First, a
technology is an artifact, a product, and a tool. It has the capacity to solve certain
problems, but this capacity is not realized unless it is connected with speciﬁc problems,
while technology use is the process of connecting this capacity with a practical problem.
For example, the Microsoft Word program has the capacity of composing, but this is
realized only when users use it to write a paper under certain contexts to solve their
problems or achieve certain goals is it a technology use.

Second, technology is situated in isolated and independent artifacts, while
technology use is situated in context and connected with users. “The same technology has
different meanings in different settings” (Bruce, 1993). It can be used differently, by
different people and in different contexts to solve different problems or to achieve
different goals (Zhao, 2003). For instance, the Internet has the capacity of supporting

communication, and e-mail, online chatting, video/audio conferencing, and discussion

board message-posting: all are different applications of a single function and thus are
different uses of Internet.

Third, technology is a ﬁnal product in a static stage, while technology use is in
constant change. Users may re-invent a technology to solve their current problem or to ﬁt
it to the context, and the change in the technology use may in turn lead to further changes
in the users and/or the context. Change begets change. The interconnection and mutual
inﬂuence between technology use and its context could arouse cascades of changes, and
consequently often result in “moving it far beyond what was originally envisioned”
(Peyton & Bruce, 1993).

Fourth, technology has one single form. When it is used differently by different
people and in different contexts to solve different problems or to achieve different goals,
the original technology takes on multiple forms (Peyton & Bruce, 1993). Hence, a single
technology develops into multiple technology uses.

In summary, technology use is technology-in-context. Examining technologies
from this perspective allows for examination of the speciﬁc contextual factors that affect

technology use and, potentially, insight into the holistic process of technology use.

CHAPTER 2

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

As a saying goes, “The forest is more than a collection of trees.” To understand
and properly manage a forest we must not only know about trees, but we must also study
the forest as a whole (Odum, 1975, p.5). To better understand what conditions inﬂuence
technology use in schools and how technology use affects schools, we must investigate
potential conditions and interactions within a framework.

Researchers have argued for the ecological perspective as one useful approach to
holistically capture the dynamic nature of technology use in school settings (Zhao &
Frank, 2003; Nardi & O’Day, 1999; Bruce & Hogan, 1998; etc.). For example, Zhao and
Frank (2003) argue that a school and its classroom can be viewed as an ecosystem within
which the characteristics and roles of different species continuously affect one another
and constantly change their relationships with one another. Bruce and Hogan (1998) also
argue for an ecological perspective in examining technologies because most technologies
become so enmeshed in daily experiences that they “disappear”, so only an ecological
perspective can give us a basis for understanding the interpenetration among technologies,
human beings, and the context within which they interact.

The concepts and mechanisms of an “ecology” are well-articulated by Odum
(1975, 1997). The term “ecology” means the study of the earth’s “households” including
the plants, animals, microorganisms, and people that live together as interdependent

components, or “the totality or pattern of relations between organisms and environment”

(Odum, 1975, p.3-4).

Main Concepts of Ecology

A fundamental concept in ecology that enables the holistic study of both parts and
wholes is hierarchy, a way to arrange things into graded compartments. Ecosystem is the
lowest level in the ecological hierarchy that has all the necessary components for
functionality and survival over the long term (Zhao & Frank, 2003). Ecosystems contain
both abiotic and biotic components. The abiotic part of an ecosystem refers to its
inorganic characteristics, while the biotic component of an ecosystem is composed of
populations of organisms or species. A species must have a habitat - the place where an
organism lives - and a niche - the role of the organism or species in the ecosystem. The
biotic component of a functional ecosystem has many species, each playing a unique role
and occupying a unique habitat. The most important species in an ecosystem is called

keystone species, which exert some controlling inﬂuence over the system (Odum, 1997).

The Mechanism of Ecosystems

An ecosystem is not a stagnant system. On the contrary, it is a dynamic system in
constant change, and its changes are systemic. The species interact with each other,
coevolve, and maintain the equilibrium of the system.
Coevolution

Another important characteristic of an ecosystem is that different parts coevolve,
changing together according to the relationships in the system: “coevolution involves
reciprocal natural selection between two or more groups of organisms with close
ecological relationships but without exchange of genetic information between the

groups.” (Odum, 1997, p.241). In a social ecology ﬁlled with people who learn, adapt

and create - even when tools remain ﬁxed for a time - the craﬁ of using tools with
expertise and creativity continues to evolve, and the social and technical aspects co-
evolve (Nardi & O’Day, 1999, p. 53).

Co-evolution occurs through interactions between organisms, species, and the
environment. There are three main types of interactions in an ecosystem: “. . .either one
individual with another of the same species, or with those of distinct species, or with the
physical conditions of life” (Darwin, 1956, p.20). Within species, interactions are likely
to be inﬂuenced by population density - population size in relation to a unit of space.
Some species’ population growth is inversely density-dependent and they tend to level
off in density before saturation. Competition can happen within species or between
species when two organisms/species strive for something that is not in adequate supply
for both of them. The competition results in two general phenomena in an ecosystem:
ﬁrst, closely related organisms often do not co-habit the same place, or if they do, they
occupy a different niche; and second, where a large number of related species is present
in a region, the niche of each is often narrower than when only a few species are present
(Odum, 1975, p.134).

Interactions can be either negative or positive in terms of their effect. Negative
interactions are those by which both parties are hampered in some manner, known as
mutual inhibitions. Positive interactions can happen in three forms: commensalisms - one
species beneﬁts and the other is not affected to any measurable degree; protocooperation
- both species beneﬁt each other, but are not essential to each other for survival, and
mutualism - the association is necessary for the survival of both species (Odum, 1975,

p.141)

Equilibrium

An ecosystem has the homeostatic mechanisms that maintain internal equilibrium
through interactions and co-evolution. When a new species is introduced into an
ecosystem, it interacts with one or more existing species and the environment. For
instance, the new species may compete with existing species for resources to deveIOp.
Thus the equilibrium is broken, and the homeostatic mechanisms will work to re-achieve
equilibrium. Species work in a complementary manner in an ecosystem. For example,
when one species slows down, another may speed up in a compensating manner to
maintain the equilibrium (Odum, 197 5, p.7). In this sense, a new species is an invading
species when it is introduced into an ecosystem. Similarly, technology uses introduced to
schools are a kind of “invading species.” Whether they can be successfully adopted and
become permanently established depends on the nature of the invading species and its

compatibility with the teaching environment (Zhao et.al. In press).

The Application of Ecological Theories in Education

Ecological theories have been employed by many researchers in social science to
study phenomena involving human beings. For example, Bronfenbrenner (1979)
describes social environments as multileveled and characterized by micro- and macro-
social “nested structures, each inside the next, like a set of Russian dolls.” (p.3) and he
points out that the microsystems were often the contexts of paramount importance.
Rodkin and Hodges (2003) investigate how bullies and victims ﬁt into their peer ecology
and deﬁne peer ecology as “that part of children’s microsystem that involves children

interacting with, inﬂuencing, and socializing one another” (p.385).

The ecology conceptual framework has also been borrowed by researchers in the
ﬁeld of education. For instance, Keiny (2002) argues for “ecological thinking” as a new
approach for studying educational changes. She points out that the two traditionally
dominant models for studying educational changes - “top-down” and “bottom-up”
models - are based on linear drinking, which implies cause and effect, while an ecological
vision of educational changes is built upon circular causality, reﬂexivity, and interactions.
A school system can be viewed as consisting of subsystems, such as teachers, students,
and researchers. These components are connected with and inﬂuence each other, and
education is an “organic” system that promotes growth and development.

From an ecological perspective, Zhao and Frank (2003) investigate relationships
among the factors that have already been veriﬁed as related to school technology uses. In
order to construct a unifying ecological framework that is useful for analysis of
technology uses, they establish four metaphorical equivalents between technology uses in
schools and ecological issues: a) classrooms - the habitat - as ecosystems; b) computer
uses - niche - as living species; c) teachers as members of a keystone species; and (1)
external educational innovations as invasions of exotic species. Their ﬁndings suggest
that the ecological perspective can be a powerful analytical framework for understanding
technology uses in schools.

This study will examine technology uses from an ecological perspective. As Zhao
and Frank maintain, a school system can be viewed as an example of an ecosystem. First,
it is a combination of diverse parts and various relationships. It consists of abiotic
components such as school buildings and classroom equipment, and biotic components

such as students, teachers, administrative staff, technology staff, a school board, etc.

These species are closely connected to each other and the relationships are very complex.
Second, a school system has many different resources and materials and allows for
individual species’ proclivities and interests. Third, the social and technical aspects of
the school system interact with each other, inﬂuence each other’s development as new
ideas, tools, and activities arise and thus co-evolve. Fourth, technology use can be viewed
as a species because, like any other species, it has a niche - the role it plays in a school
ecosystem: to help learning and teaching. It needs resources to grow - money,
technology support, training, etc. It interacts with other species - it inﬂuences how
teachers teach and how students learn, and also impacts school social relationships. It
evolves - through interactions with other species and the environment. It evolves from
initial use to realized use. Fifth, an ecosystem is marked by the presence of the key-stone
species whose presence is crucial to the survival of the ecology itself (N ardi & O’Day,
1999). In the school ecology, the key-stone species are technology users - teachers and
students, the most important and essential components of a school system. Without
teachers and students, a school ecosystem no longer exists. Furthermore, teachers and
students determine (although they may not be able to decide) what the school ecosystem
is for and how it should work. In the process of using technology in teaching and learning,
teachers and students determine whether, what, and how technologies are used and thus
play a crucial role in technology integration.

In the school ecosystem, after a technology innovation is introduced into the
system, different users apply it idiosyncratically to solve different problems; this can
result in different technology uses. Speciﬁcally, in this study, teachers and students use

laptops in a variety of situations. For example, teachers use the laptops to prepare lesson

10

plans, to deliver curriculum content, to communicate with colleagues, parents and
students, and students use the laptops to do homework, to take notes, to play computer
games, and so on. Therefore, with the introduction of laptops, a variety of technology
uses are derived and introduced into the school system.

As mentioned previously, there are existing species in the school ecosystem, such
as existing technology uses, teaching and learning practices, teachers, students,
administrative staff, etc, and the abiotic components such as the classroom equipment and
various technological resources. This ecosystem is in a dynamic equilibrium. When a
new technology use is introduced into the system, it usually affects both informal and
formal activities (Nardi & O’Day, 1999, p.17), and it may also affect the social
relationships of existing species. The original equilibrium is very likely to be broken, and
this invading species interacts with existing species in the host environment. It is
hypothesized that the dynamic nature of technology use resembles that of an ecosystem.
For example, within-species competition can occur when two or more technology
innovations are present. Each of them competes for resources, support, students’ time and
energy, etc. When enough technology innovations are present - when population density
is high - it can be very difﬁcult to introduce new technologies because population growth
will be inhibited. When there are many technology innovations, each of them might play
a less important role than when there are only a few, or a few of them play important
roles while others are not used very often. Negative interactions could happen when two
technology innovations compete for resources, or technology innovations and other
learning activities compete for resources; and positive interactions could happen in

situations such as those in which the knowledge of one technology use facilitates the use

11

of the other. Species can also co-evolve in this system. For instance, students might
change their learning practice because of new technologies, and their learning practice
might also inﬂuence how they use technology. Thus both their technology use and
learning practice evolve together.

The invading species may also be reinvented to ﬁt other species’ needs in the
process of its adoption and implementation. Rogers points out that re-invention is often
beneﬁcial to the innovator because the ﬂexibility in the process of adopting an innovation
may reduce mistakes and encourage customization of the innovation to ﬁt it more
appropriately to local situations or changing conditions, and that alter re-invention, a
technology use may be more appropriate in matching an innovators’ preexisting problems
and more responsive to new problems that arise during the innovation-decision process
(1995, p.177). This statement is supported by a national survey of innovation in public
schools, from which Berman and Pauley (1975) found that when an educational
innovation was re-invented by a school, its adoption was more likely to be continued and
less likely to be discontinued.

Therefore, interactions can have three consequences: ﬁrst, the new technology use
ﬁts in the ecosystem well and is adopted; second, the new technology use is reinvented to
ﬁt the local environment; and third, the new technology use cannot ﬁt in the local
environment and/or cannot be reinvented and thus is rejected. A new dynamic
equilibrium will be achieved. The reinvented and adopted technology uses will co-evolve
with existing species and be integrated into this ecosystem until the new dynamic

equilibrium is broken by other new invading species and these existing species are

12

changed or replaced by other technology uses. Figure 1 illustrates the process of how a
technology use develops in a school ecosystem.

Technology use in an ecosystem is a process of negotiation among the species.
These species have different goals, which make them react to the same technology in
different ways; but they also have shared goals and shared approaches, which make them
work together and co-evolve. During the process of conﬂicts and cooperation, a
technology use can be accepted and become popular, or accepted marginally, or rejected.
Based on literature review of related research studies, the following section discusses

factors that may inﬂuence this process of negotiation in an ecosystem.

l3

 

 

 

coca—com ocaoabmatﬁ

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5:5:
Beach—t.
mom: hoop.
“MW“ 8585 22E {.mﬁmm
559885 m ~83
3803‘ cages—z
mom: .508 ﬂows—GRTGU dock.
no>_>.5m mum:
vow—52:3— Ai :08 302 n otﬂea> < ~83
@300 Hov— m... .VEV «Lb :—
came—0:53.
Euumkmaoo gag—Om
cot—30:5
.58 5522

 

 

Evemhmoom Begum of. 5 83 303533. CD cows—3m 2:. L oSmE

l4

CHAPTER 3
ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK

--Factors Inﬂuencing the Dynamics of Technology Uses in Schools

To identify the factors inﬂuencing how different technology uses emerge and
evolve in the school system, a detailed analytical framework was developed through
literature review. In a study investigating conditions for teacher technology use, Zhao
et al. (2002) categorize the conditions inﬂuencing teacher technology use into three
domains: the innovator, the innovation, and the context, a useful classiﬁcation. This
study will follow this categorization, but rename the categories as the key-stone
species (the users), the invading species (technology uses), and the ecosystem
environment (the context), in order to analyze factors inﬂuencing technology uses in

schools.

Factors Related to the Invading Species

The characteristics of the invading species play a vital role in its survival in
the hosting environment. Technology uses in this study are the invading species to an
ecosystem. Technologies differ greatly in many ways, such as the problems they can
solve, the resources they need, and the complexity of skills needed, etc. Based on
literature review, this study will focus on the following aspects of a technology (use):
the niche, compatibility, complexity, relative advantage, and innovation-decision
making.
The niche

In natural environments, species differ in their niches. Some species are more

ﬂexible and function differently in different habitats, and some are less ﬂexible in the

15

roles they play. Species also vary greatly in the breadth of their niches and hence can
be categorized as specialists and generalists (Odum, 1975, p.). Odum (1975) points
out that specialists are often more efficient in the use of their resources and therefore
often become very successful when their resources are ample. However, while
specialists are more vulnerable to changes, generalists allow more chance for
variation since their niches are broader and thus have increased probability of being
adopted: “the more diversiﬁed the descendants become, the better can they seize on
places in the polity of nature, and so increase in numbers. . . .The more diversiﬁed the
descendants become, the more places they will be enabled to occupy” (Darwin, 1965,
p.34).

Just as species in natural ecosystems vary greatly in the rigidity and breadth of
niches, technologies vary both in their rigidity and breadth of uses. The broader the
niche, the more ﬂexible a technology use is, and vice versa. Some technologies can be
used in different environments and for different purposes, such as Microsoft Word.
Some are more ﬁxed, such as e-mail software. There are both advantages to and
limitations of speciﬁc and generic technologies. A speciﬁc technology could be easily
adopted in that the speciﬁcity helps users make the connection betweenthe tool and
the problem, but may also be easily rejected if the niche is occupied by other
technologies. On the other hand, a more generic technology may not be very explicit
in making a speciﬁc connection with a problem, but it allows for more creativity
(Zhao, 2003a), therefore it leaves more room for variation which increases the
possibility of reinvention and adoption.

Compatibility
A speciﬁc technology use must be compatible with the whole ecology, both

from a technical dimension and from an ideology/epistemology dimension.

16

Speciﬁcally, the compatibility of a technology use includes the following aspects:
First, the compatibility with existing school culture. Some technologies may be
incompatible with school policy or people’s (particularly adults’) beliefs. If one type
of technology use is inconsistent with the school district policy, it’s is very likely to
be banned. For example, chatting online is prohibited in some schools because
parents and teachers are afraid of the risk of communicating with strangers for
students. Playing computer games is another example that conﬂicts with the school
district policy in some schools. Second, the compatibility with existing practice.
Compatibility with existing practice includes how technology applications ﬁt into
ongoing classroom practice and the already established curriculum. Researchers have
pointed out that there is a mutual inﬂuence between technologies and the existing
practice in the context. On the one hand, technologies are usually used to facilitate
existing practice instead of fundamentally change it (Schoﬁeld, 1995, p.104). On the
other hand, “The already functioning social system and traditional practice which the
technology is placed shape the ways the technology is understood and used” (Bruce,
1993). Miller and Olson (1994) argue that teachers’ practice and experience inﬂuence
how teachers use technology and how they incorporate new tools and new symbols
into their teaching culture. Therefore, the more compatible a technology use is with
existing practice, the more likely it will survive. Third, the compatibility with
available technological support. If a technology use requires technology resources
and human technological support beyond the control of the innovators, it is less likely
to succeed.
Complexity

Complexity is “the degree to which an innovation is perceived as relatively

difﬁcult to understand and use” (Rogers, 1995. p.242). Meaningful technology use

17

should be not only intellectually challenging but also apprehensible. If the technology
innovation is too complex, users are less likely to use it. In the early days of
microcomputers, the command line interface was difﬁcult to comprehend, making it
necessary to attain a certain mastery simply to use its functions. So these machines
were, by and large, only accessible to experts and “hackers.” The popularity of
personal computers since the 1980s can largely be attributed to the development of
user-friendly GUIs (Graphical User Interfaces), which lowered the complexity of the
machines and thus made them more accessible and understandable for the general
public. In a school ecosystem, the complexity of technology use should be compatible
with teachers’ and students’ technology skill levels. Research suggests that the
perceived complexity of a technology innovation is negatively related to its use. For
example, in a study investigating what technology innovations were selected and what
were discarded in a technology-rich environment for middle school students, Tan et al.
(2003) ﬁnd that technology innovations that are recreational and require less complex
skills are more likely to be initiated and/or selected by students, and are more likely to
be used more frequently. Technology uses that are compatible with users’ current
technology proﬁciency level and share some similarities with users’ current
technology uses are viewed as less complex and also easier for users to make
connections between the technology and their problems or needs.
Relative advantage

Relative advantage is the degree to which an innovation is perceived as being
better than the idea or practice it supersedes (Rogers, 1995. p.212). Relative
advantage can consist of economic beneﬁts, social prestige, social acceptance, or
other beneﬁts. Sometimes the early adoption of a technology innovation confers

social prestige, but later with the spread of that technology innovation, its adoption

18

becomes a necessity (Pleto, & Muller-Wille, 1972). The relative advantage of
adopting a technology innovation is equivalent to the relative disadvantage of not
adopting it. The quick spread of cellular phones in China in recent years was to a
great extent pushed by the pursuit of social prestige and not wanting to be “left
behind”. The motivation of some school districts to install computers and Internet
access may be attributable to a desire to build a good school image and have a good
reputation because technology use has symbolic meanings. In addition, innovations
are more likely to be adopted when the expense of adopting new methods and tools is
justiﬁed by the major improvements they bring about.
Innovation decision-making

How technology innovations are introduced into the school system may also
have an impact on their success or failure. Rogers (1995, p.372) identiﬁes three types
of innovation-decisions: 1. Optional innovation-decisions. The decisions to adopt or
reject are made by individuals and are independent of decisions made by other people.
2. Collective innovation—decisions, in which the choice to adopt or reject an
innovation are made by a consensus among members of a system. 3. Authority
irmovation-decisions, choices to adopt or reject an innovation made by a few
individuals in a system who possess power, status, or technical expertise. Different
decision-making approaches have different effects on whether and how the
technology innovation is adopted. Tan et a1. (2003) ﬁnd that activities initiated by
students - the key-stone species in that ecosystem - are more likely to be adopted.
However, in the school ecology, usually it is the technology experts, board members,
or principals who decide to choose speciﬁc technologies, while the key-stone species
- the teachers and students - seldom have a say in the decision making processes. For

example, when trying to examine who was pressing for increased computer education

19

in the 1980s, Besser (1993) found that the key forces advocating computer education
were corporate managers, higher education leaders, social/technology community
members, military personnel, the federal government and media: teachers were not
among these forces. As Cuban (1986) points out: “The technology and its initial
applications to the classrooms were conceived, planned, and adopted by
nonteachers. . .. School boards and superintendents initiated efforts for using the new
technology; only later were teachers involved in discussions of how to install it into

the classroom” (p.36).

Factors Related to Ecosystem Environment

The hosting environment is the context in which the innovation is introduced
and interacts with existing species. Research indicates that the context not only
inﬂuences how technologies are used, but also has a strong mediating effect on the
success (or failure) of technological innovations (Schoﬁeld, 1995; Zhao, et al., 2002).
Speciﬁcally, the human infrastructure and the technological infrastructure of a school
ecosystem are crucial to the success or failure of a technology use.

Technological infrastructure

Technology infrastructure includes quantity (availability) and quality of
hardware such as computers and Internet access, availability of software, and the ease
of accessibility to both hardware and software.

Hardware-quantity of access. A basic condition for student technology use is
access, which includes technology access in school and at home. When computers are
viewed as expensive machines that should only be accessed by experts, there can’t be
much student use. For example, based on the International Association for the

Evaluation of Educational Achievement Computers in Education Project (IEA

20

CompEd), Pelgrum and Plomp (1996) found that before 1992, there was little
integration of computer use in the curriculum of schools. Computers were mainly
used for computer education courses, typing classes, or similar technical (“drill and
kill”) activities. Although there was somewhat more integration of computers into the
curriculum in 1992, overall, the use of computers in existing school subjects remained
limited. In the past 15 years, great efforts have been made to equip schools with
information technologies. As a result, the overall student-computer ratio in K-12
schools has dropped from about 168.0 to 6.0; i.e., there are now 6 students for every
computer (Anderson & Ronnkvist, 1999). More access to computers provides the
possibility for more computer use.

Technology access also includes access outside of school. Pelgrum and Plomp
(1996) found that students learned much about computers outside the school. Home
technology use can also facilitate teachers and students’ technology uses in school.

Easy availability. However, Zhao et al. (2002) point out that access is
different from easy access. Only when teachers and students have easy access to
computers, can they use technologies easily and meaningfully. Teachers are more
likely to use technologies when these technologies are available to them, available in
their classrooms as opposed to computer labs, and available in greater numbers.
Additionally, teachers who had more computers available in the classroom were
generally more likely to report assigning students to use various technologies to
conduct various tasks (U .S. Department of Education, 2000; Becker, 2000; Becker,
2001). Becker’s (2000) results show a strong relationship between how frequently
technologies are used during class time and whether there is a substantial number of
computers available in the classroom. However, according to one survey conducted

by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), although 84%t of public

21

school teachers had computers available in their classrooms, only 48 percent of the
teachers surveyed reported having more than one computer in their classrooms (US.
Department of Education, 2000). Becker (1999) also points out that although public
school Internet access increased from 35% in 1994 to 90% in 1998, only 39% of 4th-
12th grade teachers had some kind of Internet access in their classrooms (Becker,
1999), and one-half of all school computers remained in rooms that are separate from
where regular classroom instruction occurs (Becker, 1998). The separation of
computers from classrooms makes it difﬁcult for teachers to seamlessly integrate
technology use into teaching activities.

Quality of available hardware. Quality of available technologies may be
another factor inﬂuencing school technology use. Anderson and Ronnkvist (1999)
point out that although the presence of computers and the Internet has grown sharply
in recent years, much of the technology equipment currently in schools and
classrooms is from an earlier generation of technology - computers with less
processing power, less storage capability, and limited capacity for being linked
together electronically. Using contemporary standards for home and ofﬁce computers,
over half of the computers are out of date. And in elementary schools almost two-
thirds are of limited capacity (Anderson & Ronnkvist, 1999). About one-half of the
computers available in schools lack a modern operating system and are not able to run
multimedia applications efﬁciently (Anderson & Ronnkvist, 1999; Becker, 1998).
Furthermore, as current technology continues to advance at a tremendous rate, it is
increasingly difficult for schools to “catch up with the moving train” (Becker, 1998).
Therefore, the quality of available technology infrastructure inﬂuences not only how

much technologies are used in schools but also how they are used.

22

Software. Good instructional software/courseware can reﬂect research on how
students learn, align with national, state, or district educational standards, and be
integrated into the teaching and learning activities of the classroom. This can, in turn,
help teachers make the connection between technologies and their teaching content.
However, The California Instructional Technology Clearinghouse has rated only 6 to
8 percent of evaluated courseware as "exemplary," and from 33 to 47 percent as
"desirable." Less than half of the courseware submitted to the Clearinghouse had
sufﬁcient quality to merit review (Coley, Cradler & Engel, 1997). Without good
software, it may be difﬁcult for teachers to see how technologies can help them teach
and help students learn.

Human infrastructure

Human infrastructure is “the organizational arrangement to support technology
integration in the classroom” (Zhao et a1, 2002). It includes technical support staff,
administrative staff, and institutionalized policies and procedures related to
technology issues. Human infrastructure is the social support users can get from the
school system to make as much use of available technologies as possible. As
aforementioned, sufﬁcient access to technology infrastructure does not naturally mean
sufficient technology use. Burbules and Callister (2000) point out that access issues
not only include who can afford a computer or who can get an online connection, but
also who can use the Internet and who can operate the software. Users who cannot
participate effectively across the full range of opportunities and resources the
information technologies provide cannot be said to have “access” (p.19). To help
teachers and students fully take advantage of available technologies, a supportive
human infrastructure is crucial. Iansiti (1998) argues that applying the right resources,

tools, and problem-solving approaches through the organizational process provides

23

enormous leverage for technology integration. Speciﬁcally, this study focuses on the
following aspects of human infrastructure: availability of technical support, support
from administrative staff, opportunities for professional development, promotion of
technology use in school policy, and development/technology training opportunities.

Technical support. “Technology is great - when it works”. Technologies can
solve problems, but they themselves become problems when they don’t work.
Teachers and students will inevitably encounter technical problems in their
technology uses. They are not likely to use technologies in classrooms if it is hard to
get technical help or it takes a long time to solve the problems. Therefore, providing
sufﬁcient and timely technical support is very important to teacher and student
technology use. For example, a full-time technology coordinator may assist teachers
with using computer software and hardware or adapting their teaching practice to
include technology use. Conversely, lacking timely and sufﬁcient technical support
can be a serious barrier to school technology uses.

Administrative support. School technology use also needs administrative
support, including strong principal leadership and supportive policy related to
technology use. Principal leadership has been identiﬁed as one of the most important
factors affecting the effective use of technology in classrooms; supportive principals
can not only model technology use but also highlight teachers’ effort to improve
teaching and learning through technology use (Byrom, 1998). Energetic and
committed school leaders can transform the entire school ecosystem into a
technology-use-ﬁiendly environment in which teachers and students feel encouraged
to use technologies. In addition, supportive policy is also important in that it ensures

an institutional plan in which a philosophy is established, roles are clariﬁed, and an

24

infrastructure is formed to accommodate the efforts of any individual who wants to
use technology.

Technology training opportunity. The fact that teachers do not always have
opportunities to learn about and practice instructional reforms has been identiﬁed as
one important factor that contributes to the success or failure of instructional reforms
(U .S. Department of Education, 2000). Research also shows that helping teachers
learn how to integrate technology into the cuniculum is a critical factor for the
successful implementation of technology applications in schools (Coley et al., 1997),
because “When teachers are not trained to use new technology, computers end up
being just souped-up typewriters” (Cuban, 2001). In the NCES survey, teachers who
reported spending more time in professional development activities (9 hours or more)
were generally more likely than teachers who spent fewer than 9 hours in such
activities to report feeling “well” or “very well” prepared to use computers and the
Internet for instruction. However, in 1999, only one-third of teachers reported feeling
“very well” or “well” prepared to use computers and the Internet for instruction (U .S.
Department of Education, 2000). Clearly, it is important to provide technology
training opportunities to teachers, either as a part of pre-service teacher education, or
as professional development for in-service teachers.

Similarly, technology training is needed to help improve student technology
use. Students can improve their technology proﬁciency through both formal
information technology education in school and informal technology education
programs such as computer Clubhouses. Studies indicate that technology-rich after-
school programs are effective in improving participants’ technology knowledge and
skills, especially on advanced technologies (e. g., Zhao, Tan, Lei, Shi, & Martineau,

2003).

25

Having time to explore. Research has shown that lack of release time for
teachers to learn, practice, or plan ways to use computers or the Internet is one barrier
for teacher technology use (U .S. Department of Education, 2000; Zhao, Frank, &
Ellefson In press ). A supportive context should provide teachers and students time to
explore and get acquainted with technology. Experimenting with technologies can
help teachers and students in many ways. Papert (1992) suggests that any kind of
“playing with problems” will enhance the abilities that lie behind their solution
because spending relaxed time with a problem leads to getting to know it, and through
this, to improving one’s ability to deal with similar problems (p.87). Zhao, Tan and
Mishra (2000) state “Children, through active use of technology to solve problems,
are in a sense practicing and learning the new literacy brought upon them by new
technologies. Their mucking around with new technologies is actually a way to
participate in the future.” Burbules and Callister (2000) also point out that just
“messing aroun ” is an indispensable approach for users at all levels of sophistication,
because in doing so, they not only have a chance to work their way out of the problem,
but also an opportunity to discover new capabilities of the system they are using.
Zhao and Frank (2003) ﬁnd that teaChers reported more computer usage when they
had explored new technologies on their own, and thus they suggest schools make the
effort to build in “play” time for teachers during the school day, and professional
development sessions to build in free time for teachers to explore technologies on
their own.

Having ﬁeedom of technology use. Research indicates that providing users,
especially students, with the freedom to learn with and about information technologies
is critical. Generally, in classrooms students don’t have the freedom to choose what,

where, when, and how they can work on computers. Teachers often see the computers

26

as a tool to help them teach or manage the classroom, but feel uneasy about what
students might do with the computers, so students have limited options with new
technologies (Bruce, 2000). Zhao et a1. (2000) argue that if the students are given the
freedom to explore technologies by themselves, they will make creative and
productive use of technologies to solve their own problems and work on practical
projects. Computers in classrooms can help students learn more and better not only on
academic subjects but also on technology knowledge and skills if they are a
“children’s machine” instead of a “teacher’s machine.” Hence, freedom to learn with
and about technology can be an important factor in school technology use, especially

student technology use.

Factors Related to the Key-Stone Species

Key-stone species in this study include both teachers and students. Most
studies examining characteristics in school technology integration focus on teachers
because teachers have been viewed as the key factor in technology uses in classrooms
in that they decide whether, what and how technologies are used in classrooms(Cuban,
1986, Conway & Zhao, 2003, etc.). Therefore, this section will discuss factors that
can be applied to both teachers and students ﬁrst, and then will consider some factors
that are unique to teachers.

SES:

The users’ socioeconomic status inﬂuences how they use technology in
different ways, directly or indirectly. For example, research shows that among those
with technology available in their schools, teachers in low minority and low poverty
schools were generally more likely than teachers in high minority and high poverty

schools to use computers or the Internet for a wide range of activities (U .S.

27

Department of Education, 2000). One explanation for this may be that new
technology innovations are usually expensive and only people who can afford them
can adopt them and use them (Pelto & Muller-Wille, 1972), so people with higher
SES generally have more and better access to technology and thus may have more
technology experience and higher technology proﬁciency.
Gkndbr

Gender may also play a role in what and how technologies are used. For
example, Coley, et a]. (1997) found that females were more likely than males to have
word processing experience, while males were more likely than females to have
coursework or experience in computer literacy and computer programming, and more
likely to use computers to solve math and natural science problems.
Gkade

Research results indicate that grade level inﬂuences both teacher technology
use and student technology use. The survey conducted by the National Center for
Education Statistics (NCES) reported that while elementary teachers are more likely
to use computers or the Internet to communicate with parents, secondary teachers are
more likely to use computers or the Internet for administrative record keeping, and
teachers of fourth-graders were more likely than teachers of eighth-grade students to
report that their students used computers to read stories and practice spelling,
punctuation, and grammar (U .S. Department of Education, 2000). Another study
reports that the percentage of students’ technology use for school work almost daily
increases as the grade level progresses from 4th grade, 8th grade and 12th grade (Coley,

et al., 1997).

28

Technology proﬁciency

Since it is up to the users to make the connection between a technology
function and the problems they face, technology proﬁciency is of crucial importance
in how technology is used. Zhao (2003a) deﬁnes three levels of technology
proﬁciency: mechanic, meaningful and generative, and points out that at different
technology proﬁciency levels, users utilize technologies differently according to their
different understanding of technologies. Studies show that many teachers don’t use
the available technologies because they don’t have the corresponding skills and
knowledge to use these technologies, and some teachers readapt the technology
according to their own technology skill level and their goals. The NCES survey also
ﬁnds that for many instructional activities, teachers who reported feeling better
prepared to use technology were generally more likely to use it than teachers who
indicated that they felt unprepared (U .S. Department of Education, 2000). Further,
teachers’ technology proﬁciency not only inﬂuences how and what technologies they
themselves use, but also directly affects how their students use technologies. For
example, Becker (2000, 2001) ﬁnds that teachers with more computer knowledge are
more likely to have their students use more constructive software such as database
and multimedia authoring software, than teachers who are less technology-
knowledgeable, and the latter have their students use more skill-practice software.

The importance of technology proﬁciency of teachers and students has been
broadly recognized, and in the past few years, technology proﬁciency standards for
students and teachers have been publicized across the country. For example, The
American Association of School Librarians and Association for Educational
Cormnunications Technology (1998) published The Nine Information Literacy

Standards for Student Learning, which divided these nine information literacy

29

standards into three categories: Information Literacy, Independent Learning, and
Social Responsibility. In 2000, the International Society for Technology in Education
(ISTE) developed the National Educational Technology Standards for Students and a
National Educational Technology Standards for Teachers. In 1998, nine states had
technology standards for teachers and another four were in the process of developing
technology standards for teachers (Zhao, et. al., 2003). Based on the most inﬂuential
ISTE technology standards, technology proﬁciency evaluation scales were developed
in this study to evaluate the technology proﬁciency of teachers and students
respectively.
Social awareness

People who adopt technology innovations are typically faced with a
challenging task of resolving conﬂicts between the constraints of old practices and the
imperatives of the new technology (Bruce, 1993). Solving these conﬂicts is generally
beyond any individual’s immediate control. The innovators who have a higher/better
social awareness know where, from whom, and when to get help, and thus have a
better chance to use technology innovations more frequently and more successfully.
Social network

People’s social network plays a vital role in their technology uses because, as
social beings, they are easily inﬂuenced by other people such as supervisors, peers or
parents. If the innovator is highly interconnected through interpersonal networks in a
social system, he/she is more likely to be exposed to technology innovations, mass
media communication channels and interpersonal communication channels, and is
more likely to be inﬂuenced by innovative people (Rogers, 1995, p.273-274). Social
networks can also provide both technical support and psychological pressure for

teacher technology use (Zhao, Frank, & Ellefson, In press). Peer inﬂuence is an

30

important factor in most people’s lives, especially students at the middle school level.
They value peers’ opinions highly and are heavily inﬂuenced by them. If the
innovator’s peers use technology frequently and/or proﬁciently, he/she is also likely

to use technologies frequently and proﬁciently, and vice versa. Furthermore, from the
social—cultural perspective, cognitive development results from a dialectical process in
which a student learns through problem-solving experiences shared with someone else,
usually a parent or teacher but sometimes a sibling or peer (OPA). A positive peer
environment also helps people explore and accept new ideas and learn new
technologies.

Teachers and students also inﬂuence each other’s technology use. Teachers’
technology use not only creates classroom environments that are inclusive and
engaging so that the opportunities afforded by technology are used wisely and
creatively, but also provides a social supporting environment where students feel
encouraged to use technology. Students’ technology use can also inﬂuence teachers in
some ways. On the one hand, technology proﬁcient students can help teachers use
technologies in the classroom, which provides teachers with technological support
and human support, and at the same time helps to create an encouraging environment
for technology use for everyone in the class. On the other hand, students’ technology
use also makes teachers feel the urgency to catch up in their own technology uses to
keep their sense of competency and classroom authority (Schoﬁeld, 1995).

Teacher beliefs about technology

Teachers’ beliefs affect whether, and to what extent they use technologies.
Studies show that teachers are viewed as important agents of change in the reform
effort currently underway in education and thus are expected to play a key role in

changing schools and classrooms. Paradoxically, however, teachers are also viewed as

31

major obstacles to change because of the conﬂict between the reform and their
existing beliefs (Prawat, 1992). Regarding technological reforms, research has shown
that most teachers hold an incrementalist viewpoint on technology uses, which holds
that the goal of technology use is not to fundamentally change education practices but
to help teachers and students do what they are currently doing more efﬁciently and
effectively (Schoﬁeld, 1995, p. 104). Russell, Bebell, O’Dwyer, and O’Connor (2003)
suggest that teacher beliefs about the importance of technology for teaching are
crucial in their decisions to adopt and frequently use technology in classrooms, and
it’s also an important predictor for teacher-directed student use.

In addition, Zhao et. a1. (2002) ﬁnd that if technologies are viewed as the
means to an end rather than an end in itself, successful technology use in classrooms
is more likely to happen. When the value of technology is limited to peripheral
ﬁrnctions, the likelihood of successful technology use is greatly reduced.
Pedagogical beliefs (teacher)

Teachers’ beliefs and understanding of what good teaching is and what the
nature of learning is play an important role in classroom technology use. Becker
(2001) differentiates two teaching philosophies: traditional transmission instruction,
which believes that students learn facts, concepts and understandings by absorbing the
content delivered by teachers or from texts and that skills are mastered through
practices; and constructivist-compatible instruction, which believes that understanding
arises only through prolonged engagement of the learner in relating new ideas and
explanations to the leamer’s own prior beliefs. His study ﬁnds that teachers with the
most constructivist teaching philosophies are stronger users of computers and they
also encourage their students to use computers in their work more. Furthermore,

constructivist teachers are also reported to have a greater variety of computer use. The

32

Ofﬁce of Technology Assessment of the US Congress also reports that some teachers
use technology in a traditional teacher-centered model of teaching, while other
teachers use technology to support different, more student-centered approaches to
instruction. The latter kinds of teachers are among the most enthusiastic technology
users, since technology is particularly helpful in supporting this kind of teaching. (U .S.
Congress, Ofﬁce of Technology Assessment, 1995, pp. 1-2). Conversely, teachers
who believe in a more traditional transmission-oriented approach will ﬁnd most
technology innovations incompatible with their pedagogical goals and will therefore
use a more limited range of technologies (Becker, 2000).

Teaching experience (teacher)

Research has shown that teachers with varying years of teaching experience
differ with respect to how and to what extent they use technologies. Generally
speaking, teachers with the fewest years of teaching experience were more likely than
teachers with the most years of teaching experience to use technologies (U .S.
Department of Education, 2000; Russell, et. al., 2003). If we assume that teachers
with the fewest years of teaching experience are younger teachers, then this
phenomenon may be due to the fact that new teachers have grown up in a technology-
rich environment. As they enter the teaching profession, their comfort and skill with
technology lead to increased use of computers for instruction. The length of teaching
experience also inﬂuences how technologies are used. Russell et. a1. (2003) ﬁnd that
teachers with less than 5 years of teaching experience use technologies signiﬁcantly
more for instruction preparation than teachers with 15 or more years’ teaching
experience, but require students to use technology during class time signiﬁcantly less

than more senior teachers.

33

Teacher perception (teacher)

Zhao and Cziko (2001) argue that teachers must be viewed as goal-oriented,
purposeful organisms in order to understand why technologies are or are not used.
Teachers have a hierarchy of goals. They use lower-level goals to attain higher-level
goals, and the importance of any decision is determined by its capacity to contribute
to the achievement of higher-level goals. Therefore, teachers’ decisions related to
whether, what, and how technologies are used are made based on their perceptions of
technology in relation to their hierarchy of goals. Cuban (1986) also argues that
teachers’ holistic perspective of what is important to students is one of the major
resistances to converting classrooms into technical enterprises: “To question
computer use in schools is to ask what schools are for, why teachers teach certain
content, how they should teach, and how children learn” (Cuban, 1986, p.98).
Teachers are not motivated to tackle the challenges of technology uses unless they see
how these technology uses will help improve teaching and learning (US Department
of Education, Ofﬁce of Educational Research and Improvement, 1993). Furthermore,
teachers’ perceptions of barriers to technology use also inﬂuence how and to what
extent they use technology. For example, teachers who perceived the lack of
computers and time for students to use computers as great barriers were less likely
than those who did not perceive these conditions as barriers to assign students to use
computers or the Internet for some instructional activities (U .S. Department of
Education, 2000). Therefore, as predicted by Cuban (1986, p.99) almost 20 years ago,
new technologies will be tailored to ﬁt the teacher’s perspectives.

Subject taught (teacher)
Research has found that technology use in different classrooms varies. Becker

(2000) ﬁnds that students in computer classes and business classes use technologies

34

most often, while social studies, math, and ﬁne arts classrooms have the least student
technology use. Zhao and Frank (2003) ﬁnd that teachers of English are especially
likely to use computers and that these teachers view computers as a natural tool for
student writing activities. Another study reports an interaction between subject area
and technology ability in both teachers’ and students’ technology use (Becker, 2001),
and Becker suggests that the difference has much to do with the objectives of teachers

in different subject areas and of students with different ability levels.

Outcomes

This study will examine both the quantity and the quality of technology uses
with a major focus on the quality. The quantity of technology uses includes the
frequency of a speciﬁc technology use and the amount of time spent on it. The
quality of technology use will focus on four aspects/results of technology use: 1)
academic achievement evaluated by GPA; 2) technology proﬁciency; 3) Learning
Habits; and 4) developmental outcomes such as self-esteem, Life skills and attitude
toward school.
Student GPA

One of the fundamental goals of integrating technology in schools is to
improve student academic achievement. Therefore, the impact of technology use in
student academic performance is one major criterion for the quality of technology use.
In this study, student academic achievement is evaluated through GPA.
Improved technology proﬁciency

Meaningful technology use can help improve users’ technology proﬁciency. In
the ﬁrst place, meaningful technology use can help students develop a deep

understanding of information technology. As Piaget points out, "To know an object is

35

to act on it. To know is to modify, to transform the object, and to understand the
process of this transformation, and as a consequence to understand the way the object
is constructed” (Piaget, 1964). Dewey claims that the importance of an idea is to be
located in its consequences when they are put to real-world use (1963). Resnick (1987)
also suggests that mental activities make sense in terms of their results in speciﬁc
circumstances. Thus, only through actually using technology can students really
understand technology’s concepts and functions, because “understanding is developed
through continued, situated use” (Brown, et al., 1989). Furthermore, meaningful
technology use can also help students understand its context, or the world in which
technology is used. “Learning and thinking are always situated in a cultural setting
and always dependent upon the utilization of cultural resources.” (Brunet, 1996, p.4).
In the process of using information technology, students can not only understand the
nature of information technology, but also can connect information technology with
the context in which technology can be used to solve problems. Thus, in this study,
changes in participants’ pretest and post-test technology proﬁciency will be examined
as one aspect of the quality of their technology uses.
Learning Habits

Learning habits, or studying habits, are “a set of behaviors related to how
students organize their time and space to promote systematic study behavior”
(Christensen, Issacs, & Isaacs, 1991). Researchers have studied the importance of
learning habits in teaching and learning and how technology can play a role in
enhancing student learning habits (Leanmson, 1999). For example, Butler and Cartier
(2004) argue that to be successful in an academic arena, students must adopt a
working habit that can help them carefully interpret the requirements of learning tasks.

Bennett and Diener’s study (1997) suggests that properly used, technology can help

36

students enhance their learning habits. Therefore, student learning habits is included
as one aspect of student outcomes in this study.
Developmental outcomes

Middle school time is a very important period of development, and academic
achievement is only a part of that growth. Technology can provide a variety of
experiences for children and youth and may provide them with the opportunity for
self-exploration. Researchers have explored the role of technology activities in
helpingstudents’ developmental aspects such as attitude toward schooling, self-
esteem, and life skills (Zhao, et. a1, 2003).

Based on above criteria, this study evaluates the quality of technology uses by
their impact on student GPA, technology proﬁciency, learning habits, and
developmental outcomes.

Table 1 lists variables investigated in this study. It is important to note that
some of the factors may relate to each other. The potential correlation between

factors will be considered both in data analysis and result interpretation.

37

Table 1: Variables Investigated In This Study

 

Variables

Data source/Scale

 

Ecosystem

Technological infrastructure
1. quantity of access

2. quality of access

3. Easy availability

4. software

Survey
Likert-scale 1-7

 

Human infrastructure

1. Technical support

2. Administrative support

3. Technology training

4. Having time to explore

5. Having freedom of technology
use

Survey

 

Key-stone species

SES

Gender

Grade

Tech. proﬁciency
Social awareness
Social network
Teacher beliefs: technology,
pedagogy

Teaching experience
Teacher perception
Subject taught

Survey

 

The invading species

Niche

Survey

 

Compatibility-- compatibility with
existing school culture

Survey

 

Compatibility-- Compatibility
with existing practice

Survey

 

Compatibility-- Compatibility
with available technological
support

Survey

 

Complexity

Survey

 

Relative advantage

Survey

 

Innovation Decision-making

Survey

 

Outcomes

 

Quantity

Frequency
Time spent on computers

Survey

 

Survey

 

 

Quality

 

GPA

Technology proﬁciency
Learning Habits
Developmental Outcomes

Survey

 

Survey

 

 

 

 

38

 

Categorizing T echnologv Uses

As discussed earlier in this paper, a technology innovation may be adopted
and reinvented by different users as species interact and negotiate, and, thus, may
take an inexhaustible number of forms which represent realized technology uses. To
make the data collecting and analyzing more manageable, technology uses in this
study are categorized into groups for teachers and students (Table 2).

Student technology uses are categorized based on Bruce and Levin’s (1997)
four categories of media: technology use for inquiry, technology use for
communication, technology use for construction, and technology use for experience.
For example, the same technology, the Internet, can be used in different ways when
solving different problems or serving different goals, and the different uses can be put
into different categories: using the Internet to search for information is technology use
for inquiry, to chat with others is technology use for communication, to build a
website about oneself or the school is technology use for construction, and to surf

online for ﬁrn or to explore is technology use for experience.

Teacher technology uses are classiﬁed based on teacher technology use
categories developed by Russell and colleagues (2003). Based on survey data
collected from 2,894 teachers in 22 school districts, they deﬁned six speciﬁc
categories of teacher technology use: to deliver instruction, to prepare for instruction,
to accommodate instruction, to communicate with others in and out of the school, to
direct students to use technology, and to manage classroom such as recording grades.
For instance, using PowerPoint to present teaching content is technology use to
deliver instruction; using the Internet to search for information needed for a lesson is

technology use to prepare for instruction; sending an e-mail to students’ parents is

39

technology use to communicate with others, and using Excel to record student grades

is technology use to manage classrooms.

Table 2: Categories of Technology Uses

 

Key-stone species

Technology use

examples

 

 

 

 

 

for inquiry Internet + research
for communication Internet + chatting

Students
for construction Internet + web authoring
for expression Internet + surﬁng online
to prepare for instruction Using Internet search for

information needed for the class

to deliver instruction Using online learning programs
to accommodate Using Internet for incidental
instruction learning

Teachers to communicate with E-mail students, post assignments

others

online, etc

 

to direct students to use

technology

Guide students to use Internet such

as Webquest

 

 

to manage classroom

 

Using online class management

system

 

40

CHAPTER 4

METHODOLOGY

This chapter explains the participants, instruments, data collection and data

analysis for this research.

Participants

Participants of this study were students and teachers in a middle school in the
United States of America. The school is located in a middle- and upper-class
neighborhood with about 1% of students receiving free or reduced-cost lunch. The
student enrollment was 237, and the teacher-student ratio was 9.1 (2003-2004 school
year). The school has extremely rich technology resources: Every classroom is
equipped with a computer projector, overhead projector, TV, and VCR, and the whole
building has wireless Internet access. In October 2003, the school launched a laptop

project which provided a laptop computer for every teacher and student.

Instruments and Data Collection
Data were collected over one academic year through three approaches: surveys,

interviews, and classroom observations.

Surveys

Surveys were administered to both students and teachers. Both surveys

included pretest surveys and posttest surveys. Pretest surveys were administered at the

41

beginning of the academic year before the laptops were distributed, and posttest
surveys were administered at the end of the academic year.

Student survey.

Student pretest surveys included the following sections: 1) Demographic
information, such as SES, grade, and gender. 2) Investigation of current technology
use, such as how much time do you spend on working on computers very day, what
do you use computers for, whom do you turn to when your computer doesn’t work,
etc. Questions in this section were all multiple-choice questions. 3) Investigation of
the key-stone species variables such as their attitudes and beliefs toward technology,
perception of technology use, attitude toward schooling, self-esteem, behavior, social
network, social awareness, etc. Questions in this section were Likert scale questions
using a scale of 1-5. 4) Evaluation on current information technology proﬁciency.
Based on existing literature, especially current student technology standards, one
technology proﬁciency scale was developed to evaluate students’ information
technology proﬁciency. Participants were provided with a series of technology
situations, and then asked to solve a practical problem by working on a multiple
choice question in each situation. 5) Questions related to the context, such as “I have
easy access to technology resources such as software”, “I can easily get help when my
computer doesn’t work”, “I have opportunities to learn about technology”, etc.
Questions in this section used Likert scale with a scale of 1-5.

Student posttest surveys included all the sections 1-5 in the pretest survey, and
had one more set of questions on variables related to actual technology uses. Based on
data collected from interviews and classroom observations, possible technology uses
were listed and participants were asked to rate each technology use along a few

characteristics such as compatibility, complexity and relative advantage, and to report

42

how often each speciﬁc technology was used. All questions in this section used Likert
scale questions with a scale of 1-4 with 1 indicating “not at all” and 4 indicating “very
much/often”.

Teacher survey.

Teacher surveys included 4 sections: Section lwas about teacher background
information, including subjects taught, workload, time spent on computers, computer
use, years of teaching, and grade taught. Questions in this section were multiple
choice questions. Section 2 investigated teachers’ attitudes and beliefs, including
attitude toward using technology, beliefs in using technology and pedagogical beliefs.
Statements on attitudes and beliefs about technology use were listed and teachers
were asked to indicate the extent they agreed with each statement on a Likert-scale
from 1 to 5 with 1 indicating “strongly disagree” and 5 indicating “strongly agree”.
Section 3, which was a set of problem-solving scenarios developed according to
technology standards for teachers, evaluated teacher technology proﬁciency. Section
4 listed possible technology uses for teachers based on interviews and classroom
observations, and asked teachers to rate each technology use on four characteristics:
how often it was used, how difﬁcult it was to use, how much change was needed to

use it, and how beneﬁcial it was.

Classroom observations

At two different points in time during the academic year, the researcher
observed how teachers and students use technology (including the laptops) in
different classroom settings. Data were collected through observations. Written

consent was sought from teachers, students and their parents. The data obtained were

43

from those teachers who gave written consent and those students who gave written

consent along with their parents.

Interview

In—depth interviews were conducted twice over the academic year. Ten
teachers and nine students were interviewed in the ﬁrst interview, and six of the 10
teachers were interviewed again in the second interview. The interviews were
designed to get inside stories on how the subjects used technology, for what
purpose(s), what factors inﬂuenced their technology use, and how their uses had
changed over time, etc. All participants were interviewed individually, and each
interview lasted for 25-50 minutes. For data coding purposes, all interviews were
audio-recorded. Written consent was sought from teachers, students and their parents.

In addition to individual interviews, group interviews were also conducted at

four teacher team meetings, two at each time point.

Data Analysis

Data cleaning

Student data cleaning.

There were 237 students attending this middle school during the 2003-2004
academic year. 207 students ﬁnished pretest surveys, and 200 students returned valid
(the number of missing values in returned surveys was smaller than one third of total
items) posttest surveys. Among them, 177 students ﬁnished both pretest survey and
section 1-5 of posttest survey. Data from students with section 6 (technology use)

missing from their posttest surveys and those with more than one third of all

44

responses missing were deleted (N =34), and data from special education students
were also deleted (N=10) from dataset one. Therefore, 133 students’ data were
retained for ﬁnal data analysis. Of the 133 students, 64 (48%) were male, 69 (52%)
were female, 64 (48%) were 7th graders, and 69 (52%) were 8th graders.

Teacher data cleaning

28 teachers ﬁnished pretest teacher surveys. 20 of these returned valid posttest
surveys while 8 teachers, who did not participate in the pretest surveys. Data from
part-time teachers (N=2) and teachers who taught non-academic subjects such as PE,
Music and Counseling (N =6) were deleted. Finally 20 teachers’ data from both

surveys were retained for ﬁnal data analysis.

Reliability Check

Reliability was checked for research designed scales. The reliability of the
student technology proﬁciency scale was 0.62 for pretest survey, 0.64 for posttest
survey, and 0.69 for both pretest and posttest surveys. The reliability of the student
technology use frequency scale was 0.92, for the technology use beneﬁt scale was
0.95, and for the technology use difﬁculty scale was 0.95. The reliability of teacher
technology use frequency, difficulty, change, and beneﬁt was 0.76, 0.92, 0.79, and

0.85 respectively. Please see Table 3 for details.

45

Table 3: Reliability Check for Research Designed Scales

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Scales Subscales Reliability
Student Technology Proﬁciency Pretest 0.62
Posttest 0.64
Both Pre-post test 0.69
Student Attitude and Belief Pretest 0.84
Posttest 0.94
Both Pre-post test 0.95
Student Technology Use Frequency 0.92
Difﬁculty 0.95
Beneﬁt 0.95
Teacher Technology Proﬁciency Pre-test 0.35
Post-test 0.34
Teacher Attitude and Belief Pre-test 0.73
Post-test 0.77
Both Pre-post test 0.84
Teacher Technology Use Frequency 0.76
Difﬁculty 0.92
Beneﬁt 0.79
Change 0.85

 

 

 

Data integrating
Based on study design and through Principal Component Analyses, the teacher
data were reduced to the following variables: positive belief about technology, current

technology use status, social/self aspect of technology use, time constraint as a barrier

46

of technology use, computer anxiety, school rapport, negative attitude on technology
use, computer interest, perceived technology support, traditional pedagogy,
constructivist technology, social connectedness, time spent on technology, and
technology use variety(see Appendix A for detailed information).

For each student, all teachers that he/ she had taken courses from during 2003-
2004 academic year were identiﬁed. Data of these teachers were pulled out for each
student. For every teacher variable, a mean score was obtained by taking the average
of the scores on this variable for all teachers this student had, and a variation score
was obtained through calculating inter-quartile scores. The mean scores and variation
scores on teacher variables were integrated with the data from each student. The ﬁnal
data set included data for each student on both pretest and posttest surveys and the
aggregated data of the teachers each student had. Taking students as the key-stone

species, all the teachers they had were viewed as environmental factors.

Data analyzing

According to several speciﬁc research questions, this study applied a number
of data analysis methods. First, paired Sample T tests were conducted to identify
changes in the users and environment. Correlation analysis were conducted to reveal
the relationships between the Key-stone species and the environment, and
Multivariate General Linear Model and Linear Regression analyses were employed to
reveal the complex relationships between different species and the environment and
how the relationships changed over time.

Second, qualitative data collected from interviews and classroom observations
were coded according to speciﬁc research questions. Coded data were analyzed to

describe and explain the process of co-evolution, such as how innovation decisions

47

were made, how different users applied technologies to solve their problems, how
different factors interacted with each other, how technology use was rejected or
adopted, and how it interacted with existing species and the environment. Patterns
were identiﬁed and speciﬁc cases and examples were derived from these data.

Third, for the ﬁnal depiction of the nature and process of technology use in
schools, a relationship model was constructed based on theories and previous research.
Multivariate General Linear Model analyses were performed to identify possible
statistically signiﬁcant relationships, and on the basis of these, individual Linear

Regression models were built to verify the ﬁnal theoretical model.

48

CHAPTER 5

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

This chapter discusses the main results from data analyses that address three
major research questions: a) What the dynamics of technology use in schools are,
which will entail a holistic discussion of the nature and process of technology use. b)
How different technology uses have changed over time; and c) What inﬂuences

change in technology use;

5.1. The Big Picture: Co-Evolution—the Dynamics of Technology Use In Schools

Through examining technology use in schools from an ecological perspective,
ﬁndings from this study reveal that what and how technology is used in schools is not
decided by the users alone, neither is it decided by the speciﬁc technologies, or the
school environment, but by the ongoing dynamic interactions among the users,
technology uses and the school environment.

As shown in Figure 2, students and their environment have mutual inﬂuences
on each other, the environment changes over time, and student characteristics
inﬂuence changes in the environment; the environment factors inﬂuence how teachers
use technology, which also affects the way teachers teach; student characteristics,
environment factors, teacher technology use, and pedagogy inﬂuence how students
use technology; students’ technology use has some impact on their performance and
developmental outcomes, which exert further inﬂuence on the environment. Therefore,
the three major components are inter-dependent and interconnected, and they exert

inﬂuence on each other. Any change can be felt throughout the whole system because

49

of the strong interrelationships and dependencies in the ecosystem. The change in one
component may cause changes in other components, which result in further changes

in the whole system.

Figure 2: Co-evolution: The Dynamics of Technology Uses in Schools

   

 

 

     
  

Teacher
Tec uses

     
     
  
 
 
  

Environment at
Time2

Environment at
Time 1

 

.V

        
      
    

Student
Tech uses

  
  
 
 

- Student
Characteristics

 
 
  

Student
Characteristics

and Performance
at Time 2

 

 

1n the following section, speciﬁc results related to the mutual inﬂuence and
interconnections between the users, the environment, and technology uses will be

presented to illustrate how the different species affect each other, co-evolve, adapt to

and change the environment.

The interconnection and mutual inﬂuence between users and the environment

First, users and the environments have mutual inﬂuences on each other. On the
one hand, users are not just passive recipients sculptured by their environment. On the
contrary, they exert a certain inﬂuence on their environment. As Lewontin (2000)
points out, the organisms not only decide what constructs their environment, but also
are “in a constant process of altering their environment” (p.55). Moreover, “organisms

alter not only their own environment but also the environments of other species in

50

ways that may be essential to the life of those other organisms” (p.55). On the other
hand, the environment also affects the activities and relationships of the species.

Table 4: Relationship between the organism and the environment at time 1
Correlations Pearson correlation) (N = 130)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Environment
variables Time 1
pressure negative Perceived
Student variables of tech time tech attitude on tech
Time 1 use constraint anxiety tech support
Pretest GPA .351(**) -.224(*) -.181("‘) -.096 .213(*)
Time spent on
.191(*) .069 .038 .050 .189(*)
computers
Learning Habits .082 -.189(*) -.181(*) -.189(*) .107
FITness .292(**) -.013 -.072 -.041 .321(**)

 

 

** Correlation is signiﬁcant at the 0.01 level (ll-tailed).
* Correlation is signiﬁcant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

As shown in Table 4, students’ characteristics are closely related to their
environment. For example, students’ learning habits represent an important factor that
is signiﬁcantly related to a number of environmental factors. Speciﬁcally, the better
the student’s learning habits, the less likely his teachers view time constraint as one
barrier in using technology, the less computer anxiety his teachers feel, and the less
negative attitude they have on technology. Higher student technology proﬁciency is
related to higher pressure for using technology in the environment, and also related to
higher perceived technology support. This is probably due to the fact that more
technology proﬁcient students not only help their teachers recognize the importance
and possibility of using technology, but also actually provide technology support to

their teachers in the classrooms.

51

The school environment changed overtime

The school ecosystem is a lively, human, and intensely social place, even if it
incorporates very advanced technologies. It provides many different resources and
materials and allows for individual proclivities and interests. As species in this
ecosystem change over time, the ecosystem changes too. In addition, the social and
technical aspects of an environment co-evolve. As a dynamic system, the school
ecosystem evolves as things come and go, and relationships between species change
overtime. Changes can occur in any dimension or in multiple dimensions. For
example, with more and more technologies coming in, technology availability is
gradually increased, and hence there are improved opportunities for teachers to
interact with and use technologies. Other factors such as how peers use technologies
and what expectations parents and students hold for the teachers in terms of
technology use all have an impact on how a teacher uses technologies.

As shown in table 5, almost all environmental factors changed signiﬁcantly
over one academic year. Compared with the beginning of the year, teachers spent
more time on computers at the end of the school year, their beliefs and attitudes
signiﬁcantly increased, while their perception of the availability of technology
support decreased considerably. This may be due to the fact that with increased
technology use, more technology support was needed, or that their expectations of

adequate technology support were not met.

52

Table 5: Changes in the environment

 

 

Mean Variation
P P
difference Difference
Positive belief .081 .004 -.066 .376
School rapport .1 86 .000 .1 80 .001
Attitude on Laptop .437 .000 -.032 .147
Attitude on tech use .335 .000 -.168 .000
S/ S Aspect of Tech Use .345 .000 -.475 .000
Pressure on tech use .2545 .000 -.231 .000
Time on tech use .322 .000 .343 I .000
Time constraint -.299 .000 -.067 .214
Tech anxiety -.276 .000 -.317 .000
Tech interest -.004 .766 -. l 89 .000
Perceived Tech support -.074 .012 .318 .000
Environment Having Many
-.031 .033 -.061 .006
Innovation i
Social connectedness -.265 .000 -.092 .000

 

 

 

 

 

Teachers have changed greatly. The changes are visible to students. During
the interview, one student said: “At the beginning of the year, because this is the ﬁrst
year the teachers have laptops, so at the beginning, they kind of don’t know what to
do with us. We asked: can we use out laptops? They said: “NO.” because they didn’t
know what we could do on the computers. As opposed to taking notes on our
computers, we could go on to the Internet, and it was hard for them to tell. But now

they know when we are at the First Class.” Another student also said: “The teachers

53

have changed; they’ve grown to like it, the laptops. I think they are better with them
(laptops) as they are using them more.”

Parent involvement has signiﬁcantly increased in the last year. At the
beginning of the academic year, parents, in general, spent little time with children
working on their homework or on computers. About half of the parents (46.3%) spent
no time working with their children on their homework, and 78% of them never
worked with their children on computers. At the end of the school year, parents spent
signiﬁcantly more time working with their children on their homework and on their
computers. The percentage of parents who never spent any time working with their
children on their homework or computers decreased to 31.6% and 54.2% respectively.

One direct beneﬁt of these changes is timely and convenient communication
between teachers, students and parents, which seems lead to more equal learning
opportunities: “I can say that students and parents can not say that they are not aware
of what’s going on in the school, what’s going on with their child. Students cant’ say
they don’t know what’s going on in their classes even if they are on a ﬁeld trip.
Everybody is on an equal ground in terms of information available. Set everybody on
the same page in terms of the goals and objectives of the school.”

Concerns related to technology use

However, “With great power, comes great responsibility”. The laptop project
has provided great opportunities and resources for teaching and learning, but also
brought some new issues that teachers, students, and parents need to learn how to deal
with.

As an innovation in its experimental stage, the laptop project has inevitably
aroused some concerns, mainly from adults. For example, 39.3% of the teachers

believed that it had become harder for their students to concentrate in class after

54

having the laptops. They thought that students were being distracted by the Internet,
e-mail, games, music, and so on. However, students were more optimistic about their
ability to deal with laptop related problems. Most of the students (83.9%) did not
agree that it was harder for them to listen to the teachers in class after having a laptop.
Data from interviews also show that students were able to recognize the potential
distractions attendant with having laptops, and they were learning to deal with these
problems. Classroom observations reveal that the extent of students not concentrating
in class varied greatly in different classes. Some teachers had good strategies to
monitor students and kept students engaged in their tasks, while a few teachers were
deeply concerned with this problem.

Another concern related to how to teach students to be more critical and not to
take everything online for granted. Teachers worried that students might just copy and
paste from the Internet, that they did not think critically, and took everything online as
facts without careful scrutiny. Some teachers started thinking of ways they could help.
For instance, one literacy teacher, through the Media Literacy Grant program, was
teaching students to be more conscious consumers of the laptops and media, to learn
how view things critically and scrutinize them.

Some of the concerns are actually attitudes and beliefs. Some people are more
comfortable with traditional ways of teaching and learning and do not feel secure with
innovations and changes. For instance, some parents preferred their children learn
from books than computers, although no evidence showed that learning from books
was better or more efﬁcient than learning from computers. Similarly, some teachers
worried about students’ ability to read and write with paper and pencil. Like these
parents, some teachers hoped students would still value traditional ways of learning

through books, paper and pencil. Their feelings were mixed because, on the one hand,

55

they knew students were going to be living in a digital era where paper and pencil
might not be as important as in the past; on the other hand, they still wished students
would have good penmanship and appreciate the value of books.

It might be helpful for teachers to discuss these issues and exchange their
experiences and ideas, and also to discuss them with students and help them better
discipline themselves in class.

What contributes to the environmental changes

The school ecosystem has changed signiﬁcantly along ahnost all the
dimensions evaluated. This section presents regression analysis results for two major
dimensions of environmental factors: technology support and time constraint as a
barrier in technology use.

What aﬂects teacher perceived technology support at the end of the school
year. This regression model is statistically signiﬁcant (P < .001) and it explains 46.2%
of the total variation.

Table 6: What affects teacher perceived technology support at the end of school year

 

 

 

Effect Regression coefficient t p
Effect
[3 SE([3) size
(Constant) 1.845 .426 4.326 .000

Teacher social
.398 .101 0.69 3.924 .000
connectedness Tl

 

Gender -.024 .041 -0.10 -.58 .562
Grade -.229 .046 -0.87 -4.96 .000
GPA .l 12 .037 0.54 3.06 .003
Student FIT T1 .012 .008 0.25 1.43 .156

S Learning Habits T1 .021 .040 0.09 .52 .602

 

56

As shown in Table 6: student grade and GPA have some impact on teacher
perceived technology support. Comparing with 8th grade, 7’11 grade teachers have more
perceived technology support (ES= .87, P < .001). Students’ higher GPA also helps
improve teachers’ perceived technology support (ES = .54, P < .01)

Table 6 also shows that how socially connected teachers are is a critical factor
inﬂuencing their perception on technology support (ES = .69, P < .001). In this study,
“social connectedness” means how much interaction a teacher has with her/his
colleagues. The more socially connected a teacher is, the more technology support
s/he can get. This ﬁnding conﬁrms previous research arguments that teachers’ social
network affects the social capital they can get (Frank, Zhao, & Boreman, 2003), and
more socially connected teachers have a better awareness on where and how to ﬁnd
help when needed.

Students inﬂuence the degree of teachers’ viewing time constraint as one
barrier in using technology, which greatly affects how much technology is used by
teachers. This regression model is statistically signiﬁcant (P < .001) and it explains
75.4% of the total variation.

Table 7 shows that students’ grade level and their pretest technology
proﬁciency inﬂuence their teachers’ perception of time constraint as a barrier in using
technology. Comparing with 7th graders, the teachers of 8th graders are signiﬁcantly
more likely to view time constraint as a barrier in using technology (ES = .98, p
< .001). Student technology proﬁciency has positive impact on teachers’ perception
on time constraint (ES = .30, p = .088). This may because students with higher
technology proﬁciency not only need less help on using technology to complete
learning tasks, but also may help teachers solve technological problems in classrooms,

thus help teachers save time in using technologies for teaching and learning purposes.

57

Table 7: What Affects Teachers’ Perception Of Time Constraint As A Barrier

 

 

 

 

Effect Regression coefﬁcient t p
Effect
[3 SEQSL size
(Constant) 3.952 .594 6.658 .000
Grade .263 .047 0.98 5.54 .000
Student FIT T1 -.009 .005 -0.30 -1.72 .088
Attitude on Laptop T1 -.771 .166 —0.82 -4.65 .000
Tech. support T1 -.774 .161 -0.85 -4.80 .000
Social connectedness T1 —.333 .088 -0.67 -3.79 .000
Teacher FIT T1 .583 .066 1.56 8.84 .000

 

Table 8: Environment and Teacher Variables Affect Teacher Tech Use

 

 

 

Effect Regression coefﬁcient t p
2 = Effect
R '971 p 31303) size
(Constant) -7.070 1 .372 -5. 151 .000
Tech support2 2.945 .078 6.68 37.95 .000
Attitude on tech use2 1.153 .169 1.20 6.80 .000
Tech interest2 4.127 .126 5.78 32.85 .000
Current tech use status 1.447 .091 2.81 15.96 .000
Social connectednessZ 1.975 .1 18 2.95 16.77 .000
School rapport2 .567 .199 0.50 2.85 .005
Time constraint2 -l .643 .085 -3.39 -19.25 .000
T perceived S/S effect
-4.242 .117 -6.39 -36.29 .000
of tech use2
Environment having
-2.706 .274 -1.74 -9.89 .000

many innovationsZ

 

58

Teacher technology use is aﬂected by the environmental factors at the end of the
school year

This regression model is statistically signiﬁcant (P < .001) and it explains 97.1%
of the total variation.

As shown in Table 8: all the factors that inﬂuence teacher technology use can
be categorized into two groups in terms of the directions of their impact: positive
factors and negative factors. Among the positive factors, technology support has the
biggest effect size (ES = 6.68, P < .001), which indicates that for teacher technology
use, the availability of sufficient technology support is a serious concern. Data from
interviews also reveal that the availability of technology support not only inﬂuences
how much technology teachers use, but also affects which technologies they use. For
example, the removal of Smart Board from classrooms was, to a great extent, due to
the fact that it broke down easily and timely technical support was not sufficiently
provided. Not surprisingly, teachers’ attitudes toward technology use signiﬁcantly
inﬂuences their technology use (ES = 1.20, P < .001). Teachers’ technology interest is
another critical factor that has great impact on their technology use (ES = 5.78, P
< .001). In addition, how socially connected the teachers are also signiﬁcantly
inﬂuence teachers’ technology use (ES = 2.95, P < .001). This can be explained from
a number of angles. First, more socially connected teachers can get more technology
support from their colleagues, which signiﬁcantly affects how much technology they
use, as discussed in previous sections; second, more socially connected teachers have
more channels to get information related to technology use, such as subject-related
resources, tips on using speciﬁc technologies, and professional development
opportunities and choices. This kind of information can help teachers perform better

cost-beneﬁt analyses and make well-informed decisions. Third, it is arguable that

59

more socially connected teachers are under higher peer pressure related to technology
use, especially in an environment where most people are trying hard to incorporate
technology in their classrooms.

Factors that seem to have negative effects on teacher technology use, as shown
in Table 8, are time constraint, perceived social/self effect of technology use, and an
environment with many innovations. Time constraint has been identiﬁed as one
barrier for teacher technology use in previous research (e. g. NCES, 2000). Results
from this study show that teachers’ perceived time constraint had a signiﬁcantly
negative impact on their technology use (ES = -3.39, P < .001). The social/self effect
of technology use was measured by two statements: “The more technology you use,
the more respect you will get from other teachers” and “The more technology you use,
the more likely you’ll get promoted.” It is interesting to ﬁnd that this factor was
negatively related to teacher technology use (ES = -6.39, P < .001). Another factor
that had negative impact on teacher technology use was the amount of innovations in
the environment (ES = -l .74, P < .001). When too many innovations were introduced
into this environment, it might have posed distractions to the users, thus making it
difﬁcult to make decisions and focus on innovations that best ﬁt their needs. In
addition, from the ecological perspective, as a species, a new technology use needs
resources to develop, so too many innovations consume too many resources (time,

energy, and technology support) which cause more tension on overall technology use.

Teacher technology use affects overall Pedagogy

Teachers’ technology use and their pedagogical beliefs and practices have

been controversial issues for some time. Generally it has been argued that teachers’

60

pedagogical beliefs and practices determine what technology they use and how they
use technology (e.g. Becker, 2001).

Results from this study reveal, however, that the relationship between teacher
pedagogy and technology use is not one-way and uni-lateral, but two-way and bi-
lateral. On the one hand, as previous research argued, teachers’ pedagogical beliefs
and practices do affect how they use technology. As discussed earlier in this chapter,
it was generally accepted for teachers to use technology to support their current
teaching practices, especially when these teaching practices were viewed as of high
quality.

On the other hand, teachers’ technology use also inﬂuenced their pedagogy.
During the interviews, teachers talked about how the use of technology changed the
way they teach. For example, B, a science teacher, believed he was teaching
differently from the way his teachers taught him, and also differently from how he

taught before using technology:

For the last a couple of days, we were doing moon faces, so they are going
online and looking up the moon faces on a calendar, ﬁguring out the moon
cycle, so it totally changed the way you teach because you can let them
discover things and then talk about it afterwards. When I was in school,
teachers told you about it and then you did an experiment after you already
knew about it. This way, they can ﬁnd information and start formulating their
own ideas and their own learning. I just come in the end, quote the pieces and

make sure the pieces are ﬁtting together.

61

Interviews with students also reﬂected changes in teacher pedagogy. For
instance, M, a 7th grade student, liked the Aleks program because “you can learn so
much from the computer, more than the teacher standing in front of the classroom and
explaining it. You can go on your own pace and nobody can hold you back. The
teacher still stands in front of the room, but it’s much less and it’s about different
things.”

Quantitative data also revealed the impact of technology use on teacher
pedagogy. This regression model is statistically signiﬁcant (P < .001) and explains
53% of the total variation (R2 = .53). As shown in Table 9, the variety of technology
use has signiﬁcantly positive impact on teacher pedagogy (ES = 0.74, P < .001).
Speciﬁcally, the more diversely a teacher uses technology, the more constructivist
her/his pedagogy is. However, the time spent on technology use is negatively related
to constructivist pedagogy (ES = -.97, P < .001), which means the more time a teacher
spends on technology use, the more likely that s/he adopts a more traditional
pedagogy. A possible explanation is that if a teacher spends too much time using
technology in class, the time and opportunities for students to use technology or to
work on their own are limited.

This result has signiﬁcant implications for future research and practices. In
general, teachers are asked to use more technology —— meaning spending more time
on technology —— in their classrooms, and at the same time are also asked to adopt a
more constructivist pedagogy. This ﬁnding indicates that these two requirements
might conﬂict with each other. If we want to have some inﬂuence on teacher
pedagogy through the use of technology, instead of focusing on how much technology
is being used, it probably will be more effective to encourage teachers to explore

more diverse use of technology.

62

Table 9: Factors Inﬂuencing Pedagogy

 

Effect Regression coefﬁcient t p

 

Effect
R2 = .53
B SE(B) size

 

 

 

(Constant) 5.25 .318 16.52 .000
Teacher time on tech use -.514 .094 -0.97 -5.50 .000
Teacher Tech use variety .093 .022 0.74 4.20 .000
Student Learning Habits

.001 .031 0.01 .04 .970
T1
Student GPA T1 -.043 .028 -0.27 -1.56 .122
Student FIT T1 -.020 .006 -0.54 -3.05 .003

 

Pedagogy aﬂects student technology use

Teachers’ pedagogy inﬂuences students’ overall technology use (ES = 0.44, P
< .05). Speciﬁcally, the more constructivist the pedagogy is, the more technology
students use. This is understandable in that teachers who adopt constructivist
pedagogy allow students time to work on their own projects, and also encourage
students to use technology.

Table 10: The Impact of Pedagogy on Student Overall Technology Use

 

Effect Regression coefﬁcient t p

 

Effect

[3 SE(B) size

 

(Constant) -4.630 1.844 -2.511 .014

Pedagogy 1.270 .505 0.44 2.515 .014

 

63

This model is statistically signiﬁcant (P < .05), but it only explains 6% of the
variation (R2 = .06), which means that teacher pedagogy explains 6% of the variance
in student technology use. Further analyses were conducted to explore other factors
that affect student technology use. Student technology uses were categorized into ﬁve
types: general technology use, subject-speciﬁc technology use, social-communication
technology use, construction technology use, and entertainment-exploration
technology use (Please see Appendix B for the categorization of these ﬁve types of
technology use). This categorization was based on Levin and Bruce (1997)’s terms for
technology use, but was modiﬁed to ﬁt the diverse technology uses in this study. The
following table presents the factors that inﬂuence each type of student technology use.
Results were derived from regression data analyses. Factors that have signiﬁcant or
borderline signiﬁcant impact on technology use, along with the effect sizes, were

listed in this table. For detailed results on each technology use, please see Appendix C.

~o.Vn—_.:._

8. v a v86 .. Heoz

 

em. gamete .O.>
am. Eowéom 9

EN. toga song.
*3. maﬁa 03 noon.
mm. 8:5 5E snag.
sum. 6885 coup.

em: :88
nouns—nemecoﬁﬁmtoﬁm

 

3%.- no": no 25,—. Ion. 80:98.: >52
:9..- 3.38 .> rev. eoE> ram. 8.02.80 38m 3.: no»... cowogmaoo
mm; HE .>
Rm: $825 :85 .>
mm: awe—2308 seem . $885 :8... 33 :03.
no 6:5 mo nozmim> e3. toaanm nook nowmomasﬁaovrﬁmoom
eewm. toga. nook .
mm. Homage .O 1.3.- om: £03 28280 3%. 69—85 nook cm: 3235 such Begum
2.- Eowaeom H r. S. be a. ten- essence 08: *3. 328223 385 a: :08. 030838.35
3. Eowéom .._. R. 80580 38m *3. «$0 #635 9.5 about Economy
gown—com SD 320508. eeogoagem 8.558830 :8me ED 58,—. Begum

 

5:039.

 

 

 

 

Aonmm 80me womb awe—onsooh «sou—5m wﬁoaosaﬁ Eowoam u: 055.

65

First, the environment factors signiﬁcantly inﬂuence how students use
technology in schools.

Technology interest of the teachers was evidently the most prominent
inﬂuence on student technology use. It signiﬁcantly affected student subject-speciﬁc
technology use (ES = 0.69, p < .01), Social-Communication Technology use (ES =
0.50, P < .01), and Entertainment-exploration technology use (ES = 0.37, P < .05).
Presumably, if teachers had high technology interest, they were more encouraging and
supportive to their students in using computer technology.

In addition, the consistency of technology interest in the environment also has
an inﬂuence on student technology use, speciﬁcally on social-communication
technology use. The bigger the variation in technology interest, the less likely students
used technology for social and communication purposes (ES = -.32, P < .05). Large
variation in technology interest meant big differences in technology interest among
different teachers. Many not only had different attitudes toward students using
technology, but also differed in their responses to their students’ messages (such as
how quickly they responded to student e-mails and how helpful they were with e-mail
messages versus face-to-face communication). These differences might present a
measure of confusion and uncertainty for students attempting to use technology to
communicate with their teachers, and thus reduced the likelihood of them using
social-communication technologies.

Technology support was another factor that signiﬁcantly affected student
technology use. The more sufﬁcient technology support was perceived to be, the
higher uses of subject-speciﬁc technologies (ES = 0.58, P < .01), and Social-

communication technologies (ES = .44, P < .05).

66

Second, in examining the impact of teacher technology use and ability on
student technology use, Teachers’ technology proﬁciency was a positive predictor of
subject-speciﬁc technology use (ES = 0.49, P < .01), and the variety of teacher
technology use facilitated student construction technology use (ES = 0.49, P < .01).
The more time teachers spent on technology in the classroom, the less likely students

used technology for construction (ES = -.54, P < .01).

The impact of technology uses on student outcomes

Student outcomes focused on four aspects: GPA, F ITness (Technology
proﬁciency), Learning habits, and Developmental outcomes (self-esteem, attitude
towards school, and life skills). The following table summarizes the impact of ﬁve
types of technology uses on these four student outcomes:

Table 12: Impact Of Student Technology Uses On Student Outcomes

 

 

Student Outcomes GPA F ITness Learning Developmental
Habits Outcomes

Student Tech Uses
General tech use 0.10 0.32 0.11 -0.03
Subject-Speciﬁc tech use 0.04 -0.43* 0.04 -0.03
Social-Communication

0.21 -0. 10 -0.09 0.35*
tech use
Construction tech use 0.00 -0.21 -0. 16 0.00
Entertainment/Exploration

-0.24 0.13 0.51** -0.08
tech use

 

 

* 0.01< P < 0.05
** P < 0.01

67

Results in Table 12 show that different technology uses have different impact
on speciﬁc student outcomes. General technology use has the biggest impact on
student technology proﬁciency (ES = 0.32, P = .07), while subject-speciﬁc technology
use seemed to have a negative inﬂuence on student technology proﬁciency (ES = -
0.43, P < .05). This is understandable in that when using more general technologies,
the tasks are not certain and students have more opportunities to explore new features
of certain technologies, and thus have the opportunity to learn more about technology;
while when they use subject-speciﬁc technologies to learn, the tasks are focused on
speciﬁc subject content, and the procedures to accomplish the tasks are generally
similar, so once students know how to follow these procedures, there are no
technological challenges, and thus no opportunities to learn new technology
knowledge and skills.

Using technology for social-communication purposes has some positive
impact on student GPA. Although this impact is not statistically signiﬁcant, an effect
size of 0.21 on GPA is considerably large comparing with a possible 0.33-0.50 effect
size gain on student performance based on “everything that happens to a student”
(Kane, 2004) across one academic year. This impact is due to the fact that students
use social-communication technologies to communicate with teachers about school
work such as assignments and questions, and they can get response more quickly than
with traditional methods. Social-communication technologies also provided students
more opportunities and avenues to ask questions. For example, one teacher mentioned
that he received email messages from students who were too shy to ask questions in
the classroom. This was also reﬂected in student interviews. All students mentioned
that it was easier and more convenient to ask questions or set appointments with

teachers through e-mail. One student said she “talk to them (teachers) a lot more. If

68

you have a question, even if you are at home, you can e—mail them and ask them. You
don’t have to wait til class to ask. By then you may have already forgot. I can get a
response pretty quick.” Another student also said that it was easier to e-mail teachers
to ask questions because “we don’t have to go and ﬁnd that speciﬁc person.”

Social-communication technology use also had a signiﬁcantly positive impact
on student developmental outcomes (ES = 0.35, p < .05). It is arguable that the more
students use technology for social-communication purposes, the more they feel
socially connected, which is very important for teenage students who need support
from their peers and adults.

Entertainment-exploration technology use signiﬁcantly inﬂuenced student
learning habits (ES = 0.51, P < .01), but had a negative impact on student GPA (ES =
-0.24, p > .05). It is likely that spending time on entertainment and exploring with
technology helps students to better organize their learning tasks; for example,
remembering and following rules in computer games may help students better follow
instructions in classrooms, which is supposed to be beneﬁcial to student learning
outcomes. However, it seems this potential advantage was nulliﬁed or even
outweighed by the consequences of spending too much time on entertainment-

exploration technology use.

In terms of the impact of technology use on student academic achievement,
none of these technology uses had a signiﬁcant effect on student GPA. This result
suggests that we should be realistic about the impact of technology use on student
outcomes.

This might be disappointing to some people in that a major argument and goal

for integrating technology in schools has been to improve student achievement.

69

However, ﬁrst, although student technology uses were divided into ﬁve types of
technology uses, the ﬁve types are still too general to be able to differentiate the
effects of different speciﬁc technology uses. Ifthe speciﬁc technology uses within the
same type had a different impact on student outcomes, their impacts might have
cancelled out each other.

Second, student academic achievement was measured by traditional methods
of assessment, which is very likely not an accurate assessment of student learning
with and about technology. As a teacher pointed out during the interview, student
learning with technology is difﬁcult to measure because much of this kind of learning
is hidden. Students have the opportunity and resources to extend much more than
what they do in classrooms, so “I don’t think we have a way to evaluate it yet, or we

don’t ask the right questions to find out what they did.”

5.2 How diﬂ'erent technology uses have changed over time — the evolution of
technology use
Analyses of interview data reveal that, as in natural ecosystems, species in the
school ecosystem evolve over time. Through interactions with the users, the context,
other technology uses, and existing practices, different technology uses took different
evolution paths. Speciﬁcally, seven different evolution paths were identiﬁed: Always
thriving in the whole ecosystem (Path 1), Always thriving in a few habitats (Path 2),
Growing (Path 3), Were thriving but now dying (Path 4), Were ﬂourishing, now dead
in most places but still thriving in a few habitats (Path 5), Introduced in but never
survived (Path 6), and Marginal existence (Path 7). Table 13 lists technology uses for

each evolution path.

70

Table 13: Evolution Paths and Technology Uses for Each Path

 

 

 

Evolution Path 1 Path 2 Path 3 Path 4 Path 5 Path 6 Path 7
path
lntemet Tl calculator PowerPoint Grade Overhead Smart Photoshop
Tech use Word Excel Aspire Machine Projector Board lmovie
E-mail Aleks Telephone TV/V CR
Stickies

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Note: To save space, technologies (e. g. “Internet” and “Wor ”) are listed instead of speciﬁc
technology uses (e. g. “using Internet to search for information” and “using Word for writing”).

The following section discusses the different evolutions paths, representing

technology uses for each evolution path, and the characteristics of technology uses for

each evolution path.

Path 1: Always thriving in the whole ecosystem.

Some technology uses were popular in the whole ecosystem throughout the

research period, similar to dominants in natural ecosystems. Some examples were:

Internet, Email, and Microsoft Word. The main reasons for this invariable success

were: a) They were in great need (niche); b) They did not consume too many

resources: they were easy to learn, easy to use, and very reliable —— seldom cause

trouble; and c) They all had great adaptability: can be used by any one in any

classroom and for any subject.

Path 2: Always thriving in a few habitats.

Some technology uses may not be popular in most of the ecosystem, but were

being used a lot in a few habitats. TI calculator in math classrooms and Excel in

science classrooms were two such examples. The main reasons for these technology

71

 

uses’ popularity in a few habitats were: a) the special niche they occupied in these
habitats; b) teachers were highly proﬁcient in using them; and c) they had easy

accessibility.

Path 3: Growing.

Some technologies were not used much at the beginning of the academic year,
but as time passed, their uses grew, such as Aspire, Aleks, Movie clips, and Stickies.
Major reasons were: a) Perceived advantages of using these technologies attract more
people to use them. b) Pressure from the environment (e. g., from peers, parents)
forces more people to use them. 0) Users were getting better at using these
technologies. A detailed example on Aspire will be presented in the next section of

this chapter.

Path 4: Were thriving but now dying.

Some technology uses were gradually being replaced by newer technology
uses. For instance, telephoning teachers, a technology use very popular in previous
years in this school, was greatly reduced this year because of the use of e-mail and the
,Intemet for communication and information sharing. Similarly, a grade machine was
being replaced by Aspire. Compared to their counterparts, these new species were
more convenient to use and more compatible with a high-tech environment. In
addition, if two technology uses had exactly the same functions and consumed the
same amount of resources, then it was generally the case that the newer technology

would replace the older one because of its symbolic meanings.

72

 

Path 5: Were ﬂourishing, now dead in most places but still thriving in a few habitats.
Some technology uses were very popular at the beginning of the school year,
but were replaced by other technology uses in most of the classrooms, yet still thrived
in a few classrooms. One example was the overhead projector. The overhead projector
was one of the most popular technologies at the beginning of the academic year. With
the introduction of laptops, every classroom was equipped with a data projector, and a
few professional development sessions on PowerPoint were provided to teachers.
Consequently, the use of PowerPoint for content presentation replaced the overhead
projector in most classrooms. The overhead projector was taken out of these
classrooms. However, it still thrived in math classrooms because these teachers
preferred to use the overhead projector for sketching and demonstrating how to solve
a problem. Another example was the use of the WW CR to play videos. This school
had access to video clips in UnitedStreaming, so most teachers used laptops to play
clips from this resource, but the special education teacher still used the TVN CR
because it provided captions, which her students needed. The reason for these
technology uses to thrive in a few special habitats was mainly because of the unique

niche they occupied.

Path 6: Introduced in but never survived.

A new technology may not be adopted by the ecosystem and thus will be
rejected. One example was the Smart board. When the Smart Board was introduced to
the school, teachers were excited about it because its functions looked very
impressive and it seemed to be very convenient. For example, the teacher could
sketch on the white board and the computer could record the sketching, so the teacher

could e-mail the revised ﬁle to her students. However, after a few trials, teachers were

73

frustrated because there were too many technical problems. It was very time-
consuming to set up and seldom worked. In addition, the niche it served —presenting
materials — had been occupied: the white board and data projector serve almost the
same purpose but work far more easily and stably. So the Smart Board was removed

from this building.

Path 7: Marginal existed.

Some technology uses existed in this ecosystem, but only to a minimal extent.
A few examples were Iphoto, Photoshop, Digital camera, Irnovie, etc. The main
reason for their marginal existence was that there was not much need for these uses, in
other words, these species didn’t ﬁnd enough niches in this ecosystem. Teachers and
students may explore some of these technology uses on their own, but did not use

them for any real tasks.

5.3 Conditions for the evolution of technology uses

As discussed in the previous section, technology uses in schools change over time.
It is a complex ongoing process inﬂuenced by its characteristics and the interactions
with other species and the environment. This section discusses why different
technology uses took different evolutionary paths and what factors inﬂuence the
process.

Factors that inﬂuence the evolution of technology use and their sources are listed

in Figure 3.

74

 

Figure 3: Factors and Interactions Inﬂuencing Technology Use

 

 

     

 

Invading species

 

 

 

 
   
     

 

 

 

 

competition Other Existing
Function Symbiosis Spec—ies
Adaptability
Complexity

Cost-Beneﬁt Resource

Analysis Consumption
Key-Stone Species Ecos stem
Grade, Subject . Technology infrastructure
Technology proﬁcrency Human infrastructure
Attitude and belief Social Network
Social Connectedness
Pedagogical belief and practice

 

 

 

 

 

75

As shown in Figure 3, factors inﬂuence technology use at different levels.
First, there are factors related to the speciﬁc technology use, the key-stone species,
and the environment that affect how the invading species change over time; second,
the interactions between these factors have critical inﬂuence on the evolution path of
a technology use; and third, the interactions between these factors affect the role each
factor plays, and thus exert further inﬂuence on technology use evolution.
Consequently, the evolution of technology use is not only inﬂuenced by factors
related to the speciﬁc technology use, the users, and the environment, but also
affected by the complex interactions between these components. The following
section will ﬁrst discuss the factors related to the technology use, the users, and the
environment that inﬂuence technology use evolution, and how these factors are
inﬂuenced by each other. Subsequently, there will be discussion of the interactions

between these components.

T he factors inﬂuencing technology use in schools

Factors mainly related to the invading species

Whether an invading species survives or perishes in an ecosystem to a great
extent depends on those of its characteristics that inﬂuence how it interacts with the
environment. Findings from this study suggest that the following aspects of an
invading species are crucial to its survival:

Technological ﬁmction: Any specific technology has its own built-in functions.
These functions represent the developer’s knowledge of the connection between a
problem and a solution (Zhao, Frank, 2003). These functions can be very speciﬁc and
ﬁxed; for example, the major function of an e-mail software is to send and receive e-

mails. The functions can also be very general and ﬂexible, such as the Microsoft

76

Word program, which has many functions and can be used in many different ways.
Therefore, these functions determine what a technology can do and how it can be used,
and therefore, to a great degree, determine the niche of a technology. However, this is
not the only factor that determines the niche. Other factors also play an important role
in shaping the niche. These factors will be discussed in the following text.

Adaptability. Adaptability means how ﬂexible a species is. Like species in
natural ecosystems, technology uses differ in terms of how well they can adapt to
different environments or speciﬁc habitats. Technology uses that can occupy more
than one niche, and serve different purposes in different setting are more likely to
survive. For instance, the popularity of PowerPoint use in this school ecosystem is
partly due to its high adaptability: PowerPoint can be used for different subject areas,
by teachers or students, and can serve different purposes such as presentation, quiz,
game, and student construction.

Adaptability of technology uses is also affected by the environment and the
users. If the environment has sufﬁcient technology support, then a technology use
might ﬁnd a bigger niche or be able to thrive in more habitats. Similarly, the users
also make a difference in the adaptability of technology uses. Users with higher
technology proﬁciency can use a technology more creatively, thus enhancing its
adaptability. For example, e-mail is being used for communication by all teachers and
students in the school ecosystem, while more technology proﬁcient people also use it
for ﬁle transferring or collaborative works, thus increasing the adaptability of this
technology use.

Complexity. Complexity is the level of difﬁculty of a technology use.
Technologies vary greatly in terms of their complexity, and this complexity affects

how well a technology use survives in the school ecosystem.

77

Complexity is relative to the environment and the user’s technology
proﬁciency and experiences. An easy technology use may be viewed as complex
when the environment lacks necessary support, or the user lacks necessary knowledge
and skills. On the contrary, a complex technology use can also be viewed as easy
when everything works together. For example, using a TI calculator for calculation
and graphics is comparatively complex. However, in one math classroom, the teacher
was very proﬁcient and experienced with TI calculators, and students, fascinated by l

the functions of the TI calculators, were eager to learn and use them, every student

1’ , inlet!

had a TI calculator, and the content taught in one semester was very suitable for using

T1 calculators. Therefore, the complexity of this technology use was greatly reduced i

 

and its popularity increased.
Some technology uses are by nature more complex than others. However, the
complexity can be reduced through providing more technology support or technology

training. The speciﬁc technology can also be redesigned to make it more user-friendly.

Factors mainly related to the key-stone species

Subject. The subject not only inﬂuences how students and teachers use
different subject-speciﬁc technologies, but also affects how they use general
technologies such as the Aspire program. First, teachers and students in different
classrooms may use different subject-speciﬁc technologies, such as Aleks,
Geometer’s Sketchpad, TI Calculator, and Carnegie Algebra Cognitive Tutor in math
classrooms, and Desktop Publishing in language arts classrooms. In different subject
areas, teachers and students also use general technology differently. For example, the
Microsoft Word program was used for composing essays in language arts classrooms,

and for Webquests in social studies classrooms.

78

Students. Students can be an important factor inﬂuencing teachers’ decisions
on whether, what and how technologies are used. For example, for the same subject,
math, 7th grade classrooms used Aleks, while 8th grade classrooms used Carnegie
Algebra Cognitive Tutor and Geometer’s Sketch Pad. Students also make a difference
in how different technologies are used. For example, the math teacher in the lower
grade used ALEXK, but the math teacher in a more advanced class use two more
complicated programs.

Moreover, student technology use and technology interest sometimes exerts
pressure on teachers so that teachers have to change the way they teach and organize
classroom activities to accommodate students’ interests and needs. During the
interviews, one teacher made these comments:

Students have grown up in the technological age, so they are used to
computers, they are really comfortable with computers. Every time they work
on computers, you see their interest level goes up, as opposed if I just have to
stand there and tell them everything. Normal lecture is not exciting for them.
They are used to video games, they like that constant glow of computers.
When we do activities like that, I think they have changed, really engaged
students.

Class size. Some technologies may work better with a bigger class size, while
other technologies may work better with a smaller class size. An example is the
Aspire program. The program Aspire was used by almost all the teachers, but the
special education teacher did not use it as much because she had a very small group (4)
of students. Her students, although in the same class, were at different levels. So she

had to assign different homework to each of them. Aspire did not save any work for

79

her. The only thing she liked about Aspire was that the parents could check their
students’ grades conveniently.

Technology proﬁciency. Technology proﬁciency makes a difference among
different people, also within the same person at different times. People with different
technology proﬁciency levels use technologies differently. Generally speaking, people
with higher technology proﬁciency use a bigger variety of technologies, use
technologies in a more creative way, and encourage students to use technologies more.

Technology proﬁciency of both teachers and students increased over the year.
This school provided many professional development programs for teachers. The
school had a collaboration program with a local university. Through this program the
teachers could take professional development courses within this school but received
college credits or graduate credits. The courses were sometimes taught by a teacher
from this school, and the content was focused on the speciﬁc technology programs
used in this school, such as the Aspire program, PowerPoint, and Irnovie. These
programs were very convenient and helpful to teachers, especially those teachers who
were not very comfortable with technology.

Pedagogical practice and belief Teachers with different pedagogical practices
and beliefs use technologies differently, and they all use technologies to support their
pedagogies. For example, when talking about how technology use in this school
facilitated teaching and learning, the principal gave a very good example involving
two social studies teachers in this school who had very different approaches to
teaching. One used a more traditional approach, while the other was more
constructivist and problem-based; each used technology very differently:

We have excellent social study teachers: Dave and Gary. They are

probably on the opposite ends of the spectrum for how they teach. They were

80

that way before the laptops, and they are that way now. You can go into

Dave ’s room. Kids are in straight rows, he teaches more structured things,

they are having debates, he uses it for the quizzes, for the lesson plans, kids

are taking notes on their laptops, he shows movies on the laptops, having

American history discussions... you go into the next room, and Gary is doing

small groups, the desks are all over the place, the kids are all over the place,

they are making posters, they are designing webpages, they are doing
projects...I think both teachers are being able to maintain teaching the way
they want to teach and they are using technology as a tool. It doesn ’t drive the
curriculum, it doesn ’t drive how they teach, they are able to still continue to
do things the way they are comfortable doing it, the way they feel that needs to
be done. They do use it very dtﬂerent ways, but use it successfully in their
areas and it hasn ’t changed the quality of their instruction.

In this case, technology use facilitated teachers’ existing teaching practices
and pedagogy, and technology use was not even expected to change teaching
practices. However, it should be clariﬁed that the principal was very satisﬁed with the
quality of both teachers’ teaching. Therefore, changing pedagogy seemed to be
unnecessary.

Social Connectedness. The school ecosystem is a lively, human, and intensely
social place. As the key stone species in this social environment, the users are related
to each other, and they have a mutual inﬂuence on each other’s decisions about what
and how technology is used. As a student said during his interview: “Everyone
inﬂuences each other, because everyone has his own way.” Similarly, another student
commented: “Sometimes we learn from our teachers, sometimes from ﬁiends. We tell

each other what we’ve learned and found out. That’s how we learn.” When talking

81

about how she learned the Photoshop program, Alison, an 8th grader, said: “It’s really
kind of like “monkey see, monkey do”. My good friend was working on her picture
on Photoshop, and I said wow, can you show me how you do that?”

Social connectedness not only inﬂuences how users learn a new technology,
but also affects how they use technology by providing related information and
exerting pressure to use the technology. Pressure for technology uses can come from

different sources such as parents, peers, students, the principal, and so on.

Factors mainly related to the ecosystem environment

Factors related to environment that inﬂuence how technology uses evolve are:

Technology infrastructures. Technology infrastructure is the technology
hardware facilities, software, and technology support available to teachers and
students. This school had rich technology infrastructure. Besides one-on-one laptops,
every classroom was equipped with a computer projector, screen, TV/V CR, an
overhead projector, a data projector and some other stand-alone technologies, and the
whole school had wireless access to the network. However, access was sometimes
still a problem. For example, the science probes were described by some students as
“very cool” during the interviews, and the science teachers also reported that students
were very interested in and excited about using science probes. However, the fact that
the whole school only had one set of science probes because of the high cost greatly
limited its usage. This reveals a problem that many schools may face. On the one
hand, there is not sufﬁcient access to technology that students and teachers want to
use; on the other hand, some technology facilities, such as the SmartBoard, are

available but no one uses them. This suggests that when making decisions on what

82

technology to purchase, more attention needs to be paid to the needs of teachers and
students based on their current technology use.

Human infrastructure. This school provides good human infrastructure in the
following major areas: a) Strong leadership. The principal had a strong vision about
technology use in this school. He set the tone, communicated the school vision with
staff, teachers and students, and enlisted their support. In addition, he gave teachers
freedom, which helped them work together. He also recognized good practices of
technology use and strongly advocated for these good practices. As mentioned by the
teachers during interviews: “He has created an environment that works out for
everybody.” b) The environment was supportive and the atmosphere was friendly.
People were encouraged to try new technology and new teaching practices. Teachers
had many opportunities to try their own ideas, or to work collaborately and learn from
each other. c). Convenient, effective, and sufﬁcient professional development
opportunities. This school (school district) provided teachers with plenty of
professional development opportunities, strongly encouraged teachers to learn, and
was able to “make it very easy for teachers to take technology classes that help”. (I).
Timely technical support. The technical support staff was highly praised by the
teachers and students during interviews. They worked diligently to help teachers
integrate technology into classrooms, solved technical problems, learned about and
introduced new technology, and provided resourses for teaching and leanring.

Objectively, the ecosystem has one environment at a certain time point, but to
every species or every organism in this ecosystem, the speciﬁc environment is
different to each individual. For example, more socially connected people may get
technical help from their friends in addition to school technology specialists. For

instance, when asked where she could get help when something did not work, Julie,

83

an 8th grade students said that she got help from her friends: “My friends, I think they
know more about it than I do, so when I don’t know how to do things, they usually
help me out. ” Therefore, the environment has more technology support for a more

socially connected person than some one who is less socially connected.

The interactions

Niche. Niche is the role a species plays in the ecosystem. The more important
the role is, the more likely a species will survive. All popular technology uses serve
universally important purposes in this school ecosystem, such as e-mail for
communication and PowerPoint for presentation. In this sense, niche is decided by the
speciﬁc technology uses, because technologies are designed to have certain functions
and their uses are consequently deﬁned by their capabilities.

The niche of a technology use is the results of the interactions between the
technology use and the environment, and the interactions between the technology use
and the users. First, the environment inﬂuences whether or not the niche of a
technology use can be realized. A technology use may survive well if it serves a
unique niche, such as using an overhead projector for sketching in math classrooms.
On the contrary, if the environment does not have a niche and the technology use can
not create one, then it can not survive. For instance, using Adobe Photoshop for
digital editing was taught to students, and students also spent some time exploring it;
however, it could not survive in this ecosystem because, as a student explained during
the interview: “we really don’t have any classes we can use it for. Also, you need a
digital camera to use it. I don’t have one. I can’t use it anyway.” In this case, the
current practice and the limited resources in the ecosystem constrained this

technology use.

84

Second, the characteristics of the key-stone-species, the users, affect whether
or not a niche is identiﬁed for a technology use, and what speciﬁc niche a technology
use can occupy in the school ecosystem. Even if users are very familiar and
comfortable with using a speciﬁc technology, they still do not use it if there is no
niche for this technology in their daily practices. For example, a social studies teacher
mentioned that he did not use Excel although he knew this program very well,
because “I don’t need it in a 7th grade social science class.” Different species migrate
and change to ﬁll various niches. Moreover, their niches also change according to the
dynamic interactions among species and the system.

Resources consumption. Like their natural counterparts, technology use
consumes resources. Resources in a school ecosystem can be money, technical
support, time, and energy. The more complex, more difﬁcult to learn, and more
unreliable a technology use is, the more resources it consumes, and thus the less
probability of its survival.

Resource consumption is the result of interactions between the technology use
and the environment, and this result is mediated by the users’ perception. The same
technology may be viewed very differently in terms of resource consumption (more
elaboration).

Competition and Symbiosis-Interactions between the invading species and
existing species. The nature of interactions between species can be either competition
or symbiosis. Competition happens when two species compete for the same niche or
resources. For example, the overhead projector and PowerPoint compete for the same
niche: presenting materials. Another example is the use of the Internet for information
and getting information from the library. Symbiosis occurs when two species support

each other. In classrooms, the use of the Internet makes PowerPoint presentations

85

more interactive, dynamic and interesting. The use of one increases the use of another.
So the nature of their mutual inﬂuence is symbiotic. Similarly, the use of Word to
compose and using e-mail to communicate also support each other. In fact, in this
school, using Microsoft Word for composing various writing tasks, using the Internet
to search for information, and e-mailing friends were three of the most favorite
technology uses. Sometimes these three types of technology uses were combined. For
example, one popular learning activity in this school was Webquest. The teacher
would e-mail students a work sheet in Word format, which asked students to search
for information online and answer questions on the work sheet. When working on a
Webquest task, students generally had two windows open at the same time, one for
Microsoft Word and one for Internet Explorer, searching for information in one
window and ﬁlling in answers in another window. After they ﬁnished answering the
questions, they would email their complete work sheet to the teacher.

In an ecosystem, different species migrate and change to ﬁll various niches.
Moreover, their niches also change according to the dynamic interactions among
species and the system. For example, the invasion of technology has dramatically
changed the niche of the library and the librarian.

“Maggie ’s job has changed probably the most, at least twice since she ’s been

here. When she ﬁrst started, she was in the library where kids checked out

books, then the library became the place where we had the computers, we had
the computer lab in the library that was open all the time. Students and
teachers came to check their e-mails, do research, ...and now with everybody
having a laptop, kids don ’t have to go therefor computers any more. With kids
having all these resources, they don ’t have to use books for research as much.

Everyday Maggie is redeﬁning her position as a media center librarian and

86

determining what her job is going to be what role the media center is going to

be in a laptop school. There is no handbook to tell her how to do that. I think

she is developing new ideas every week on how we can help support teachers
and the kids. ”

Cost-beneﬁt analysis. Whether or not a user adopts a technology use depends
to a great extent, if not totally, on the analysis of how much cost has to be put in and
how much beneﬁt this technology use can bring. Cost-beneﬁt analysis not only
decides what technology innovations to be introduced at the ecosystem level, but also
determines what and how technology is used at the individual level.

First, cost-beneﬁt analysis plays a crucial role in the decision-making process
regarding what speciﬁc technology will be introduced in the school ecosystem. At a
teacher team meeting, the principal discussed the choices of class management
systems. It was a good example that clearly illustrates how different factors were
taken into account for a cost-beneﬁt analysis in deciding what program to use for
class management for the next academic year. There were three options under
consideration. Each of the options had advantages and disadvantages, which affected
how much resource needed to be invested (Cost) and how much the school could get
out of it (Beneﬁt):

m: the advantages of the Aspire program were that it was already being
used in this school, it was working well, and teachers and parents had already been
trained for using it. The disadvantage was that they had to pay for using this program.

E-system: The advantages of the E-system were that it worked the same as
Aspire; the school was already using some of its programs and paying some money
for it. However, the disadvantages were that this program lacked the parent module,

and the school might need to pay some extra money to implement it.

87

Apple Mac Schools: The Apple Mac Schools system had “everything ﬁom
report cards, degrees, communicating with students and parents, posting grades,” and
“it also has administering stuff like scheduling, putting kids’ proﬁciency scores,
basically their permanent records will be available through that.” Although they
would also need to pay for using this program, if they chose this program, they could
reduce the cost of a few other programs. The major drawback was that they had to
train teachers, students, and parents for using this program, which they really did not
wish to do.

There were advantages and disadvantages for each choice. Based on species

characteristics, the data for cost-beneﬁt analysis are listed in the following table 14:

Table 14: Cost-Beneﬁt Analysis of Three Invading Species

 

 

Dimension Current Function Training Cost Cost-
availability Beneﬁt
Technology Analysis
Aspire + + + ++
E-system + - + 0
Apple Mac 0 ++ - 0 +
Schools

 

 

According to the principal, the criterion for the ﬁnal decision was to “Think
about what works the most effectively and what costs the least”. The cost-beneﬁt
analysis, as shown in Table 14, clearly favors the Aspire program. It was not
surprising, therefore, that ultimately the Aspire program was retained and no new
program was introduced.

Second, cost-beneﬁt analysis fundamentally determines what and how

technology is used at individual level. A common thread across all interviews is to

88

lower the cost of using technology and to maximize the beneﬁts. For example, when
taking about a program called FileMaker Pro, a teacher complained that it was
somewhat troublesome to learn something different about this program every year,
but “but for the most part, it’s better than hand-writing for 10 pages” , so she still used
it. Similarly, another teacher was suspicious of using Aspire program because “It was
time-consuming to set up the student roster, set up the classes, putting in the
assignments and grades, that’s time-consuming.” But he soon realized that “Once you

have everything in place, it actually take much less time to do the work.”

Summary

This section discusses the factors that inﬂuence technology use evolution in a
school ecosystem. These factors are not independent of one another, and their impact
on technology use evolution is not a simple and linear one. On the contrary, they are
entangled with each other, and their inﬂuence varies from case to case. As shown in
Figure 4, if F1 (Force 1) represents the interactions between the invading species and
the school ecosystem, F2 (Force 2) represents the interactions between the key-stone
species and the school ecosystem, F3 (Force 3) represents the interactions between the
key-stone species and the technology use species, and F4 (Force 4) represents the
interactions between the invading species and the school ecosystem, then the
evolution of the invading species is not determined by any single speciﬁc factor or
force, but by the combination of all the forces. In the following section, three speciﬁc
cases will be presented to illustrate how technology uses evolve under the inﬂuence of
the ongoing dynamic interactions between the ecosystem, the key-stone species, and

technology use species.

89

Figure 4: What Inﬂuences Technology Use Evolution?

 

 
     

 

 

 
   
   

Schopl The Key-stone
ecosys cm s i es
F2 pec
F3
F1
Invading Other
species species

F4

 

5. 4. How Technology Uses Evolve: Cases
By comparing and contrasting technology uses taking different evolution paths,
the following examples illustrate the complex process of technology use evolution,
and how this process is shaped by continuous interactions between the components of

the school ecosystem.

Case 1 : PowerPoint and Overhead projector—growing versus aying

PowerPoint and the overhead projector are similar in a few ways: they both
serve the same major niche in the school ecosystem: presenting materials. They both
have great adaptability: they can be used by different users in different classrooms for
particular subjects. They both are easily accessible in this ecosystem because every
classroom is equipped with an overhead projector and a data projector.

They are also different in a few aspects: First, PowerPoint is more dynamic in

that it is interactive and it can incorporate multimedia, while the overhead projector is

90

plainer; Second, they consume different resources: using an overhead projector
requires a copy machine, printer, transparencies, markers, etc, while using PowerPoint
requires users to put more time and energy into learning and using it. Third, the
overhead projector had been around for along time and was established in this
ecosystem; while PowerPoint was a new technology and was an invading species.

At the beginning of the year, using the overhead projector for presentation was
ubiquitous. Everybody knew how to use it and used it every day. It was especially
convenient for some teachers who had accumulated many transparencies after
teaching the same subject at the same grade for some years. They didn’t need to make
many new slides for their lessons. At ﬁrst, then, the use of PowerPoint was mainly
limited to a few teachers with high technology proﬁciency and those who were
innovative at using technologies. Most teachers did not know how to use PowerPoint
and were happy with the overhead projector. For them, the beneﬁt of using
PowerPoint was not enough to justify the time and energy they had to invest in order
to use it.

As time passed, the use of PowerPoint steadily grew due to a few reasons:
First, the increasingly technology-rich environment expected teachers to use more of
PowerPoint because PowerPoint is a newer technology, and research shows that
people generally favor newer technologies than older technologies (Zhao, Lei, &
Conway, 2004). Second, there was pressure from the school district, students and
peers that made teachers want to keep up with their peers who had already been using
PowerPoint. Third, the school district had provided some professional development
sessions on how to use PowerPoint, which not only greatly increased teachers’
proﬁciency with PowerPoint and decreased their fear and doubt about it, but also

provided opportunities for them to interact with PowerPoint. Fourth, the more familiar

91

the teachers were with PowerPoint, the less time and energy they put into preparing a
lesson with PowerPoint, which meant less resources were needed to use PowerPoint.
Fifth, PowerPoint has a symbiosis partner: the use of the Internet. The support of the
Internet made the use of PowerPoint more interactive, dynamic and easier for
incidental learning, which was greatly favored by teachers and students. Sixth, some
teachers made creative uses of PowerPoint besides presentation, including using it for
games, quizzes, and student collaboration projects. These creative uses signiﬁcantly
improved the adaptability of PowerPoint and expanded the niches it served. In
summary, the beneﬁt of using PowerPoint was gradually increased and the cost
decreased.

By the end of the academic year, the use of PowerPoint was ubiquitous, while
overhead projectors were removed from most of the classrooms. One exception was
the math classrooms. Math teachers still used the overhead projector from time to
time because it was easier to sketch on transparencies than on PowerPoint. Overhead
projectors survived in math classrooms because they served a special niche that could

not be replaced by PowerPoint at this moment.

Case 2: Aspire

The Aspire program was mentioned by all teachers interviewed. It is an online
course management system which was introduced into this school at the beginning of
2003-2004 year. The Aspire program has the following main functions: discussion
boards, student-teacher communication, teacher-parent communication, class
management, and grade book.

The invading of Aspire was a serious disruption to the school ecosystem

equilibrium. Before Aspire was introduced in the school, teachers were very

92

comfortable with the technologies they used for the tasks that Aspire was going to
take over: they handed assignments to students in class, every teacher had a
homework hotline so students and/or parents could check assignments by telephone;
they used Grade machine to record and manage student grades; teachers and parents
communicated mainly by means of the telephone or by appointments. Teachers,
students, and parents were all very comfortable with what they had, and equilibrium
was kept well. When Aspire entered this system, most teachers did not use it for
various reasons. Some teachers expressed doubts, even distrust towards it. For
example, one teacher said: “At ﬁrst I didn’t use Aspire because I didn’t trust it. I was
afraid that the system would crash and I would lose all my grades.” One teacher said
it was difﬁcult to use and he would rather stay with grade machine; and another
teacher said it was too time-consuming to set up.

Things gradually changed because of a number of reasons: First, to help
teachers, parents and students use the Aspire program, the school had a series of
training sessions within the school. These training sessions provided all groups of
users with knowledge and skills for using Aspire. Second, there was pressure from the
school: teachers were “strongly encouraged” to use Aspire, so a few more
technologically adventurous teachers started to explore with it. Once these few
teachers started using it, they posed peer pressure on the rest of the teachers.
Meanwhile, since the Aspire program had a parent module from which parents could
check their children’s progress and grades, once this group discovered this function
for one class, they wanted to use it for all classes; therefore, parents also posed
pressure for all teachers to use Aspire. Third, with some knowledge and skills of using
Aspire, and under pressure to use it, more and more teachers started playing with

Aspire and exploring its functions. The more they explored with Aspire, the more

93

advantages they found for this program. For example, the teacher who complained
that using Aspire was too “time-consuming” at the beginning of the year found that
“once you set it up, it actually saves your time because you don’t have to e-mail every
student about their grades or assignments, so I guess you pick up the time on the other
end.” The beneﬁt of using Aspire gradually outgrew the cost as teachers’ familiarity
with Aspire increased.

The transition from established technologies to Aspire was by no means a
quick or smooth one. At the end of the year, even when all teachers used Aspire, they
used it differently. Some teachers only used the Aspire program to post students’
grades, some teachers also used it for posting messages and assignments for students,
and some teachers used most of the functions available, and one teacher even created
a few student discussion rooms, assigned a speciﬁc topic to each discussion room, and

asked students to post their responses.

Case 3: Instant Messenger vs. First Class —dead versus always prosperous

Instant Messenger was introduced into this ecosystem by students soon after
they received the laptops and immediately started thriving. The instant popularity of
Instant Messenger was based on the great niche it served: students at this age love to
chat with their ﬁiends, and Instant Messenger provided them with a channel to chat
with their friends anywhere and anytime—especially when they were bored in classes.
In addition, this high-tech method of chatting was not only fun, but also very
fashionable. So students spent so much time chatting through Instant Messenger that
using Instant Messenger to communicate with their friends was taking too much of
their time and energy, in other words, it was consuming too many resources. This

developed into a serious problem, especially when teachers discovered that students

94

were spending too much time chatting with their friends in other classrooms when
they were supposed to be listening or participating in class activities. Then it became
incompatible with the school philosophy and policies. So two weeks after the laptops
were distributed, using Instant Messenger was banned throughout the whole school
ecosystem. The rapid spread and growth of using Instant Messenger directly resulted
in its extinction.

But, students soon found an alternative method to chat—e-mail. They sent e-
mails to their ﬁiends and some of them checked their e-mails all the time. E-mail
became a kind of messenger and the only drawback was that it was not “instant”. It
was still very convenient and quick because they checked it very often and replied to
the messages right away.

In this case, what creates the use? Did the niche create the use, or did the use
create the niche? On the one hand, students have the need to communicate with their
peers. This need creates a possible niche for Instant Messenger, which provides a
channel for student communication. On the other hand, the use of Instant Messenger
expands this niche because it makes student communication available anywhere and
anytime. They don’t have to wait till recess to talk to their friends, nor do they need to
meet their friends somewhere to talk. The expanded niche was kept even after Instant
Messenger was taken away from students; then another species —— the use of e-mail

for quick communication - ﬁlled in this niche.

Summary
These cases illustrate how the use of one technology changed its immediate
environment (the niche, users, relationships, etc) and the whole ecosystem, how these

changes, in turn, changed the use of this technology, and how these changes resulted

95

in further changes in the use of other technologies in this ecosystem. During this
process, the factors from different sources work together, and inﬂuence how a
technology use evolves from different angles. The evolution path of a technology use
is determined by the ongoing dynamics of interactions between different factors.
These interactions not only shape the evolution paths of technology uses, but
also change every component within this ecosystem. So far this chapter has mainly
focused on discussing how different technology uses change over time and what
inﬂuences their evolution. This is only a part of the big picture, in which all
components of the whole ecosystem changed, the changes were connected with each
other, and any change in one part of the system had some impact on the whole
ecosystem and caused further changes. This big picture will be discussed in the

following sections.

5.5 Discussion

Summary

Technology use in schools is not an independent series of isolated events or
artifacts, but is situated in and connected with its context, and is an integral part of a
network of changes. Technology use evolves. It’s a complex ongoing process
inﬂuenced by continuous interactions with other species, the users, and the
environment.

The interactions and mutual inﬂuences between technology use, the users and
the environment are not simple and linear, but are built upon circular causality and
reﬂexivity. It is a cycle of changes, co-adaptation, and co—evolution. The school

system is a network of changes,

96

Different technology uses have different impacts on student outcomes.
Therefore, the quality of technology use is a critical issue.

The ecological perspective can be a useful approach to the study technology
use in schools. From the ecological perspective, it is easy to understand why
technology innovations are not adopted or not used as much as expected. First, as an
invading species, a technology innovation breaks the system equilibrium and creates
disturbances, which may cause emotional uneasiness. Second, as a new species, it
costs more resources; besides the investment of purchasing and installing technology,
more investment is required for training, and teachers need to spend time and energy
on learning the new technology. Third, teachers may not immediately recognizes uses

for the new technology.

Limitations

This study has some practical limitations which may limit the generalizabiity
of the ﬁndings. First, data were collected from only one school, so the environmental
variables did not vary much, thus it was difﬁcult to see how the environments at
different school ecosystems affect the dynamics of technology use differently.

Second, this school had extremely rich technology resources that are not
available to all schools; thus it was not a regular school that can represent most of the
schools in the United States. However, this school may provide a glimpse of where all

schools will be in the near future.

97

CHAPTER 6

IMPLICATIONS

Findings ﬁ'om this study have some important implications for policy making,

technology integration and ﬁrture research.

Implications for Policy Making

Successﬁrl technology use in schools depends, to a great extent, on a supportive
policy environment. This study suggests that policy-making can support effective
technology integration into schools though providing holistic support, providing ongoing
technology planning, setting realistic and speciﬁc educational goals for technology use,
and supporting more research on the quality of technology use.

Provide holistic support for technology use in schools to facilitate a virtue cycle
and grow a healthy ecosystem. As results from this study show, technology use in schools
is not independent nor a series of isolated events or artifacts, but is situated in and
connected with the context, and is an integral part of an ongoing process of changes. The
school system is a network of changes, so it is impossible to change one thing but keep
others the same, and it is also impossible to achieve a goal, e. g., improving student
achievement, through changing one factor at a time. Consequently, merely putting more
technology into classrooms does not necessarily help to integrate technology in teaching
and learning. Holistic support from all aspects of the ecosystem is critical in facilitating a

cycle of changes and helping to grow a healthy ecosystem.

98

Provide ongoing technology planning. Since technology uses in schools
constantly change and so do all of the other members of the ecosystem - the users, the
school system, and the relationships between these subsystems - there is no “once and for
all” solution to technology use in schools. A technology plan that works at one time may
not work at another time. Therefore, it is important to provide ongoing technology
planning and evaluation, to continuously reﬁne current practices, and to provide timely
support.

Be realistic about the impact of technology. Results from this study show that
student performance, especially academic outcomes, are under the inﬂuence of many
factors, and technology use is just one of these factors. It may not be possible to create
direct and signiﬁcant impact on student academic achievement through the use of
technology. The impact of technology use on student outcomes is not determined merely
by the particular technology, but is mediated by environmental factors, the users, and the
technology, and by their constantly changing interactions and mutual inﬂuences.
Therefore, it may be unrealistic to expect dramatic changes in student performance
through one or two speciﬁc technology uses. Technology cannot revolutionize education,
but it can cause changes that make the education system gradually evolve.

Set specific educational goals for technology use. Since different technology uses
have different impacts on student outcomes, to facilitate technology use in schools and to
accurately assess the effectiveness of speciﬁc technology uses, it is of crucial importance
to set clear educational goals even before technologies are purchased. The decision-
makers should ask questions such as what students need to learn, what abilities students

need to develop, what daily tasks teachers need to perform, and how technologies can

99

help achieve these goals and accomplish these tasks. Based on this information, clear
educational goals and expectations can be set for speciﬁc technology uses. Consequently,
teachers and students can have a clear understanding of the purpose of technology uses,
and the impact of technology use can be assessed in more meaningful and practical ways.

Support more research on the quality of technology uses. Technology is believed
to have great potential to help teaching and learning and great efforts have been made to
promote technology use in schools. In the past the emphasis has been mainly on how
much technology is used. Results from this study suggest that the quality of technology
use is a more critical issue. Therefore, more policy efforts should be focused on
improving the quality of technology use. Speciﬁcally, to improve the quality of
technology use, more research on meaningful technology uses is required. The quality of
technology use has begun to receive attention from educators and researchers, but
empirical studies on this topic are still very scarce. Sufﬁcient policy and ﬁnancial support
for this kind of research is important because a sound understanding of the quality of
technology use is the premise of any effort to promote meaningful technology use.
Second, education policy, to a great degree, determines how and how much schools
integrate technology. With the acknowledgement of the importance of technology use
quality on student learning, more policy emphasis should be placed on promoting
meaningful technology uses in schools. For instance, when evaluating schools’ efforts in
technology integration, the criteria should not be solely on how much technology is used,
but also on what and how technology is used. In addition, since education policy also

inﬂuences how funds are allocated and spent, a focus shift from quantity to quality in

100

educational technology policy and standards can help create necessary conditions for

meaningful technology uses.

Implications for Technology Integration in Schools

Since technology use in schools is an ongoing process inﬂuenced by every
components of the school system, it is of crucial importance to understand this process, to
control factors that are positively related to student outcomes, and to grow a healthy
ecosystem that facilitates virtue cycles and avoids vicious cycles. Findings from this
study suggest the following:

First, before a new technology innovation is introduced into the school system, it
is helpful to estimate what kind of technologies can be expected to survive in a particular
school. Results ﬁ'om this study suggest that technology uses that serve an unoccupied
niche (no serious competition), can adapt to a variety of environments (with high
ﬂexibility), and do not consume too many resources (low difﬁculty, high stability, user-
friendly—designed, low tech support needed) are more likely to survive. It might also be
helpful not to introduce different technology uses that serve identical purposes in order to
mitigate species competition, and provide more complementary technology uses to
facilitate symbiosis.

Second, after a technology is introduced into a school setting, it would be helpful
to think about what we can do to help a technology use to survive. This study suggests
that healthy interactions among species and between species with the environment are
critical to the survival of technology uses. Healthy interactions can be facilitated through

a number of approaches: a) Identify/create a niche for the technology use. Identifying the

101

niche for the technology use helps users to see how a speciﬁc technology can be used for
teaching and learning purposes. If there is no existing niche, can we create a niche
through, for example, curriculum reform? b) Species characteristics might be altered in
order to increase adaptability and to decrease resource consumption. For example, the
Geometer’s Sketchpad program was only available online during class time, so the use of
this program was limited to places with Internet access and during speciﬁc time periods.
If it were also available in CD-ROM format, then students could use it even without
Internet access and at times more convenient to them. c) Decrease resource consumption
of speciﬁc technology uses. This can be achieved in different ways. The technology
programs can be designed to be more user-ﬁiendly so that it takes less time and energy
for teachers, students, and parents to learn how to use them. Content-speciﬁc technology
training can be provided to users to increase their familiarity with these technologies. (1)
The environment can also be changed to make it more supportive of technology use. The
school can invest in the provision of timely and sufficient technology support. Teachers
can form peer support groups and increase their social connectedness so as to obtain
technology support from one another. e) Inﬂuence teachers and students’ cost-beneﬁt
analysis. For example, the school administrator can recognize and articulate good
technology use practices and specify the perceived advantages of technology uses. The
cost of not adopting can be increased by policy changes. Experimental technology use in
small groups of technologically proﬁcient and innovative users can be formed. And
administrators can provide more information regarding speciﬁc technology use so the

users can make more informed decisions.

102

Third, since new technology innovations are invading species that disrupt system
equilibrium, they may cause some unexpected or unwanted changes in the whole system.
Therefore, when introducing new technologies into schools, educators must anticipate
disruptions and changes in the school system, and prepare for the disruptions.
Accompanying a new technology innovation, some changes and arrangements to things
like school policies, class schedules, relocation of resources, and training sessions for
teachers and staff might be necessary. Schools must make accommodations to use
technology.

Fifth, the ultimate goal of technology integration into schools is to help students
learn. Findings from this study suggest that the impact of technology use on student
learning depends on how the technology is used. What is crucial to educational
technology integration, therefore, is not how many technology innovations have been
purchased, introduced, and installed, nor how much time is being spent on technologies,
but how these technology innovations are used by students. Moreover, not all technology
uses are equally useful to student learning. Therefore, the need to provide more resources
and to create supporting environments for meaningful technology uses is of critical
importance in schools. Speciﬁcally, school administrators, teachers, and parents should
pay close attention to how students use technology, and to provide guidance to help
students use technology more effectively and efﬁciently. In addition, new regulations and
classroom disciplines may be necessary to help students resist distractions and make

better use of available technology and resources.

103

Implications for Professional Development
To better help teachers make use of available technology, it is very important to
help teachers make connections between technology uses and their teaching tasks (to
locate a technology niche) and to help teachers make creative uses of technologies (to
increase technology adaptability). Schools must provide the opportunities for teacher—
technology interaction, show teachers speciﬁc ways of using technology so it can ﬁnd the
proper niche in classrooms and make it easier and less time-consuming for teachers to use

technology. Teachers need assistance in making creative use of technology so it can adapt

 

to different situations (Expand). ﬂ ‘

Suggestions for Future Research

Some important issues regarding the quality of technology use need more
exploration. Speciﬁcally, more research needs to be done along the following lines.

First, technology should be studied in the context where it is used or not used.
Technology use is situated in the context and its impact is interdependent with the
speciﬁc conditions where it is used.

Second, further identify what technology uses are most educationally meaningful.
This study shows that different technology uses have different impacts on different
student outcomes. Therefore, the meaningfulness of technology use is contingent on the
speciﬁc student outcome. Academic achievement should not be the only criterion for
evaluating the meaningfulness or effectiveness of technology uses. Some other outcomes

are also important components of school education, such as student behavior, attitude,

104

self-esteem and career aspiration. Exploration of these aspects can enhance the
effectiveness of using technology to help to develop complete learners.

Third, there is a need to explore and develop evaluation methods and instruments
which evaluate student learning with technology. Student technology use and learning is
experience-related and at times hidden or subtle; consequently, it can not be assessed
through traditional outcome evaluation. Some alternative assessment methods such as
performance assessment, essays and portfolios might be more effective in assessing

student learning with and about technology.

105

CHAPTER 7

CONCLUSIONS

By studying technology use in schools as a function of evolutionary paths and
ecosystem co-evolutions, this study and discussion has demonstrated that the introduction
of technology sets in motion a wide range of changes. The emergence of new adaptations
and complex attempts on the part of the school ecosystem environment and its inhabitants
to ingest, absorb, explore, expand, or reject these changes creates certain measurable and
predictable patterns. Demonstrably, only a few technology evolutions ultimately survive,
and most undergo considerable adaptations. Where technology as a species survives, it
changes the school ecosystem and extends its inﬂuence to all aspects of its environment.

If schools continue the recent dizzying upward spiral of technology investment, it
will be worthwhile to study the evolutionary patterns of species, resources, users, policies,
adaptations, and co-evolutions that result. The school ecosystem has, as has been
described in detail here, elements which inevitably conﬂict with the technology species.
But the tenacity of this species has been demonstrated under certain conditions, and one
can easily imagine that this tenacity may increase as more and more teachers and students
ﬂick on machines, discover uses and applications, and encounter peer and institutional
pressure to interact with the species.

It may be that future studies will reveal progeny in this environment that bare
little resemblance to the species described in this research. Future teachers and students
will approach their ecosystems with different needs, resources, perceptions, and abilities.

The school ecosystem itself will undoubtedly be characterized by different environmental

106

 

factors. And new technologies - always unpredictable - will doubtless have features and
adaptative abilities that reﬂect some of the experiences gained from the pioneering
generations. With each generation, the rules and parameters of the survival game change
and undergo redeﬁnition.

In this study, technology survival in a speciﬁc school environment was seen to be
dependent on many environmental and adaptive factors. The research measured the
adaptations and changes in sufﬁcient depth to reveal the limitations of these measures
and to identify several subtle, signiﬁcant inﬂuences. Change one of these variables and a
thriving species (like an overhead projector) may vanish, or a failing species (like a
SmartBoard) may revive and ﬂourish.

Teachers and students in this study learned to use some new technologies with
ease, to court other ways of adapting to their school environment, and to react to changes
in their views of the ecosystem. Other new technologies failed to thrive and became
extinct. What mattered was the combination of factors and their mutual impact on one
another. The next cycles are predicated by these: future adaptations and co-evolutions
will incorporate the changes to the ecosystem and its inhabitants that resulted from these

developments.

107

APPENDICES
Appendix A: Teacher and Student Variable Scales

Teacher scales (The numbers are the item numbers of these statements in the surveys.)
Positive belief:
1. Computers are generally reliable.

Social/Self aspect of tech use:
2. The more technology you use, the more respect you will get from other teachers.
3. The more technology you use, the more likely you’ll get promoted.

Pressure on using tech:
4. My students know more about technologies than I do.
9. I need to use computers to keep up in this school.
10. Others in this school expect me to use computers.
11. My colleagues use computers more than I do.

Time constraint:
7. I have a schedule problem when using computers in my classroom.
8. If I use technology in my classroom, I may not be able to ﬁnish my teaching tasks.

Computer anxiety:
6. Using technology in my classroom is more likely to make myself look foolish.
12. I am not the type to do well with computer technologies.
19. I don’t feel comfortable using computers in ﬁont of my students.

School rapport:
16. Most teachers here share my beliefs about what the central goals of the school should
be.

Ng. attitude on tech: 18, 20, 22, 541
5. I teach better WITHOUT technology.
17. It is difﬁcult to integrate computer activities into most of my regular lesson plans.
18. I fear that computers and related technologies will isolate me from the students.
20. Computers and related technologies will isolate students ﬁom one another.
22. Students shouldn’t be allowed to explore on computers by themselves.
(inverted the items and change negative attitude into positive attitude)

Computer interest: 21, 25
21. I am very interested in computers and related technologies.
25. I am interested in learning new technologies.

Tech support: 23, 24-

23. I have sufﬁcient technology support in this school.
24. I would use technology more if I had more technology support.

108

Pedagogy: -32, -33, +34 (constructivist)
32. My students won’t really learn the subject unless you go over the materials in a
structured way.
33. It’s my job to explain, to show students how to do the work and to assign speciﬁc
practice.
34. I try to provide opportunities and resources for my students to discover or construct
concepts for themselves.

School environment for new ideas: 13, -14, 15
Q. We introduce many new things in this school.
-14. It is difﬁcult to implement all of the new things in this school.
l_5. Teachers in this school are continually learning and seeking new ideas.

Student scale:
Life skills/ behaviors: 2, 13, 14, 17, 18, -19
2. I am well-behaved in class/school.
13. I follow instructions as they are given to me.
14. I think about the consequences before I make a decision
17. I know good/positive ways to handle my stress.
18. I say no when asked to do something I do not believe is right.
19. I hit or ﬁght when I am angry.

Learning habits: 3, 1 l, 12, 16
3. I complete my homework on time.
1 1. I like participating in class activities.
12. I can ask questions to get the information I need.
16. I do my homework on my own.

Attitude toward school: 4, 6, 8, 9
4. Overall, I like school.
6. School is worth my time.
8. School is helping me.
9.The things I learn in school are useful to me.

Self-esteem: 5, 7, 10, 15
5. I am conﬁdent about myself.
7. I have high self-esteem.
10. I am conﬁdent about my ability to learn.
15. I know my strength;

Computer Interest: 20
20. I am interested in working with technology/computers.

Self-rated computer ability: 1
1. I am very skilled with computers.

109

Appendix B: 5 Types of Technology Use

Table 15: 5 Types of Technology Use

 

Type

Technology Use

 

General Technology Use

Overhead projector for presentation
PowerPoint for presentation

ELMO for presentation

Poster for presentation

PowerPoint for taking notes

Word for taking notes

Internet for information

Stickies to take notes

Word for writing

 

Subject-related Technology Use

Learning with Geometer's Sketchpad

Learning with Aleks

Learning with Science probe

Other software for learning

Spreadsheet for data recording

 

Social/communication Technology

Use

Telephoning teachers
Emailing teachers
Telephoning friends
Emailing ﬁiends

Chatting online with ﬁiends

 

Construction Technology Use

Creating websites
Editing Movie/pictures
Desktop publishing
Doing artwork

Programming

 

Entertainment/Exploration

Technology Use

 

Download p/m/m
Playing games
Exploring new tech.

Shopping online

 

110

Appendix C: Factors inﬂuencing 5 types of technology uses

Table 16: Factors inﬂuencing general tech use

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

111

Effect Regression coefﬁcient t p

2 _ Effect
R ‘ 0°30 13 seq» size
(Constant) 1.821 1.496 1.217 .226
Student Pretest GPA .166 .068 0.43 2.421 .017
Student technology interest -.018 .035 -0.09 -.521 .603
Traditional pedagogy .582 .343 0.30 1.696 .093
Constructivist pedagogy -.310 .412 -0.13 -.753 .453
Teacher tech use T2 .002 .049 0.01 .039 .969
Teacher s/s effect of tech use T2 -.049 .071 -0.12 -.689 .492
Teacher negative 3mm" and -.127 .121 -0.18 -1050 .296
computer anxrety T2
Teacher socral connectedness and .1 89 .125 0.27 l .51 6 .132
rapport T2

Table 17: Factors inﬂuencing subj ect-speciﬁc tech use

Effect Regression coefﬁcient t p

2 _ Effect
R ‘ 0'43 13 SE03) size
(Constant) -23.99 6.50 -3.69 .000
Parental involvement2 .16 .07 0.40 2.28 .025
Student Tech interest -.08 .05 -0.26 -1.50 .135
Teacher FIT2 1.76 .63 0.49 2.78 .006
Tech interest2 4.73 1.21 0.69 3.91 .000
Tech support2 1.89 .58 0.58 3.29 .001
Traditional pedagogy -.61 .37 -0.29 -1 .64 .103
Constructivist pedagogy 1.26 .69 0.32 1.82 .072
Teacher general tech use -.60 .17 -0.64 -3.63 .000
Time constraint2 -2.34 .74 -0.56 -3.16 .002
Teacher social connectedness T2 -.82 .58 -0.25 -1.42 .159

Table 18: Factors inﬂuencing social-communication tech use

Effect Regression coefﬁcient t p

2 __ Effect
R _ 0'37 [3 SE(B) size
(Constant) -10.156 4.371 -2.324 .022
V.T.FIT2 -.156 .112 -0.25 -l.394 .166
VTanxty2 .673 .354 0.33 1.900 .060
Teacher tech interest2 2.234 .789 0.50 2.831 .006
Variation of Teacher
technology interest2 -.563 .310 -0.32 -1.816 .072
Teacher perceived 1.065 .430 0.44 2.480 .015

technology support2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

VTsppt2 .313 .276 0.20 1.131 .261
vanatm °f Team“ T‘m" -.269 .147 -032 -1.838 .069
spent on technology2
Table 19: Factors inﬂuencing Construction Tech Use

Effect Regression coefﬁcient t p

2 _ Effect
R _ 0'45 B SEQS) size
(Constant) -14.69 7.924 -1 .854 .066
parent involvement2 .088 .086 0.18 1.022 .309
M.T attitude on laptop2 -5.13 1.916 -0.47 -2.678 .009
vanam“ °f Teacher ammde 1.39 .591 0.41 2.355 .020
towards the laptops2
Teacher technology anxiety2 4.36 1.613 0.48 2.705 .008
“mm“ °f Trad‘twnal -.79 .287 -0.49 -2.763 .007
pedagOgyZ
MT “Y““mem suppmmg 7.60 2.671 0.50 2.846 .005
mnovatron2
VTenvth 1.14 .458 0.44 2.499 .014
M.T social connectedness2 4.25 1.273 0.59 3.338 .001
Teacher time on technology2 -4.73 1.532 -0.54 -3.086 .003
Vanatlon of Constructrvrst .49 .231 0.37 2.101 .038
pedagogy
Teacher technology variety 1.47 .532 0.49 2.758 .007

Table 20: Factors inﬂuencing Entertainment/Exploration Tech use

Effect Regression coefﬁcient t p

2 _ Effect
R 0'40 p SE03) size
(Constant) -7 .676 7.446 -1 .03 1 .305
Teacher attitude on laptop2 2.337 1.476 0.28 1.584 .117
Teachercumm ’“hmbgy use 2.840 1.165 0.43 2.437 .017
statusZ
Ligation of teacher current Tech _1 .492 .690 -0.38 -2.160 .03
Teacher tech interest2 2.206 1.041 0.37 2.1 19 .037
Teacher perceived tech support2 .849 .562 0.27 1.51 1 .134
Traditional pedagogy2 .669 .405 0.29 1.654 .101
vanatw” °f °°“S”“°“‘"St .628 .327 0.34 1.923 .057
pedagogy
Teacher tech use variety -.654 .364 -0.32 -l .798 .075

 

112

Appendix D: How technology uses affect student outcomes

Table 21: Factors inﬂuencing student GPA at the end of the school year (time 2)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Effect Regression coefﬁcient t p
2 = Effect
R 0'71 0 SE([3) size
(Constant) 5.735 2.243 2.557 .012
General tech use .092 .159 0.10 .578 .565
Subject-Speciﬁc tech use .023 .103 0.04 .218 .828
ﬁgglal’cmmumcatwn tech .120 .099 0.21 1.210 .230
Construction tech use .002 .098 0.00 .023 .982
Entertain/Explore tech use -. 129 .095 -0.24 -1.361 .177
Traditional pedagogy .258 .396 0.1 1 .653 .516
Constructivist pedagogy -1.325 .579 -0.40 -2.289 .025
Teacher Tech use Variety .126 .149 0.15 .847 .399
Teacher Common tech use -.060 .099 -0.11 -.607 .546
Teacher time on tech T2 .383 .654 0.10 .585 .560
Student Development T1 .015 .068 0.04 .216 .830
Student time on computer T2 -.170 .057 -O.53 -2.991 .004
Student tech use variety -.004 .019 -0.03 -.191 .849
Learning Habits T2 .307 .097 0.55 3.148 .002
F ITness post .088 .019 0.81 4.611 .000
Table 22: Factors inﬂuencing student technology ability at the end of the school year
Effect Regression coefﬁcient t p
2 _ Effect
R _. 0'38 [3 SE([3) size
(Constant) 8.051 1.995 4.036 .000
General tech use 1.416 .774 0.32 1.829 .071
Subject-Speciﬁc tech use -1.291 .533 -0.43 -2.422 .017
Egglal'cmmumcatm tech -.280 .504 -0.10 -.555 .580
Construction tech use -.596 .495 -0.21 -1.206 .231
Entertain/Explore tech use .322 .449 0.13 .718 .474
Table 23: Factors inﬂuencing student learning habits at the end of the school year
Effect Regression coefﬁcient t p
2 _ Effect
R 0'69 13 813(0) size
(Constant) 2.542 2.468 1.030 .306
General tech use .108 .176 0.11 .611 .543
Subject-Speciﬁc tech use .027 .114 0.04 .234 .815
Social-Communication tech use -.059 .110 -0.09 -.535 .594

113

 

 

 

 

Construction tech use -.097 .108 -0. 16 -.899 .371
Entertain/Explore tech use .290 .100 0.51 2.894 .005
Traditional pedagogy -.195 .438 -0.08 -.444 .658
Constructivist pedagogy .1 15 .641 0.03 .179 .858
Teacher Tech Use variety -.094 .165 -0.10 -.571 .569
Teacher common tech use .131 .109 0.21 1.199 .234
Teacher time on tech T2 -.287 .723 -0.07 -.396 .693
Student development T1 .401 .062 1.14 6.465 .000
Student time on computer 2 .060 .062 0.17 .963 .338
Student tech use variety -.008 .021 -0.07 -.394 .695
Student FITness T2 .022 .021 0.19 1.062 .291
Table 24: The impact of technology uses on student developmental outcomes
Effect Regression coefﬁcient t p
2 _ Effect

R ’ 0'86 [3 SE([3) size

(Constant) -5.844 1 .21 -4.84 .000
General tech use -.025 .149 -0.03 -.17 .869
Subject-Speciﬁc tech use -.018 .103 -0.03 -.18 .859
Social-Communication tech use .190 .097 0.35 1.96 .053
Construction tech use .000 .098 0.00 -.002 .999
Entertain/Explore tech use —.046 .095 -0.08 -.48 .631
Student Tech interest .100 .049 0.36 2.04 .044
Student Learning Habits T2 1 .15 1 .092 2. 19 12.45 .000
Student GPA T2 .000 .095 0.00 .002 .998
Constructivist Pedagogy .132 .310 0.08 .43 .671

 

114

REFERENCES

Ager, R. (1998). Information and Communications Technology in Primary Schools:
Children or Computers in Control? David Fulton Publishers.

Anderson, R.E., & Ronnkvist, A. (1999). The presence of computers in American schools.
Irvine, CA: Center for Research on Information Technology and Organizations,
University of California, Irvine.

Becker, H. J. (1998). Running to catch a moving train: Schools and information
technologies. Theory Into Practice, 37(1), 20-30.

Becker, H. J. (1999). Internet use by teachers: Conditions of professional use and teacher-
directed student use. Irvine, CA: Center for Research on Information Technology
and Organizations, University of California, Irvine, and the University of
Minnesota.

Becker, H. J. (2000). Findings from the teaching, learning, and computing survey: is
Larry Cuban right? Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8(51), p.2-32

Becker, H. J. (2001). How are teachers using computers in instruction. Paper presented at
the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle.

Becker, H. J ., Ravitz, J. L., and Wong, Y. (1999). Teacher and teacher-directed student
use of computers and soﬂware. Irvine, CA: Center for Research on Information
Technology and Organizations, University of California, Irvine, and the
University of Minnesota.

Bennett, N. D., Kelly. (1997). Habits of mind-~using multimedia to enhance learning
skills. Learning and Leading with T echnology, 24: 18-21.

Berliner, D. C., & Biddle, B. J. (1995) The Manufactured Crisis: Myths, Fraud, and the
attack on America ’3 public schools. Longman.

Berman, P., & Pauley, E. W. (1975). Federal programs supporting educational change,
volume 2: factors affecting change agent projects, Santa Monica, California, Rand
Corporation, Report, E(E).

Besser, H. (1993). Education as Marketplace. in Muffoletto, R., Knupfer, N. (1993)

Computers in education: Social, historical, and political perspectives, New Jersey:
Hampton Press.

115

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The Ecology of Human Development, Harvard University
Press.

Bruce, B .& Levin, J. A (1997). Educational technology: Media for inquiry,
communication, construction, and expression. Journal of Educational Computing
Research. 17(1) 79-102

Bruce, BC. (1993). Innovation and social change. in Bruce, B. C., Peyton, J .K., &
Batson, T. (ed.) Network-Based Classrooms: Promises and realities, Cambridge
University Press

Bruce, C. B. & Hogan, M. P. (1998). The disappearance of technology: toward an
ecological model of literacy. In Reinking, D., McKenna, M. C., Labbo, L. D., &
Kieffer, R. D. (Edi.) Handbook of Literacy and Technology. Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Publisher.

Brunet, J .S. (1996). The Culture of Education. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University
Press.

Burbules, N. and Callister, Jr., T. (2000). Watch IT: The promises and risks of new
information technologies for education. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.

Butler, D. L., & Cartier, S. C. (2004). Promoting Effective Task Interpretation as an
Important Work Habit: A Key to Successful Teaching and Learning. Teachers
College Record. 106(9): 1729-58.

Byrom, E. (1998). Factors inﬂuencing the eﬂective use of technology for teaching and
learning: Lessons learned from the SEIRT EC intensive site schools. Greensboro,
NC: SERVE, Inc.

Christensen, C. A., Massey, D. R.; & Isaacs, P. J. (1991). Cognitive strategies and study
habits: an analysis of the measurement of tertiary students' learning. The British
Journal of Educational Psychology. 61, 290-9.

Coley, R., Cradler, J ., and Engel, P. K. (1997). Computers and classrooms: The status of
technology in US. schools. Policy information report. Princeton, NJ: Educational
Testing Service.

Collis, B.A., Knezek, G.A., Lai, K., Miyashita, K.T., Pelgrum, W.J., Plomp, T., &
Sakamoto, T. (1996) Children and Computers in School. Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Publishers Mahwah, New Jersey.

Conway, P. & Zhao, Y. (in press). From Luddites to Designers: Portraits of Teachers and
Technology in Political Documents. In Zhao, Y. (ed). What Should Teachers
Know about Technology: Perspectives and Practices, Greenwich, CT:
Information Age Publishing. 14—30.

116

Cuban, L. (1986). Teachers and Machines: The classroom use of technology since 1920.
Teachers College, Columbia University, New York and London.

Cuban, L. (1999). The Technology Puzzle: Why is greater access not translating into
better classroom use? Education Week, pp. 68, 47.

Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and Underused: Computers in the Classroom. Harvard
University Press.

Darwin, C. (1965). The origin of species by means of natural selection, or the
preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life. Edited and abridged by
Irvine C. & Irvine W. Frederick Ungar Publishing Co.

Frank, K. Zhao, Y., & Boreman, K. (2003 Winter). Social Capital and the
Implementation of Computers in Schools. Sociology of Education. 77(2), 148-171.

Harris, J. B., & Grangenett. (1999). Correlates with use of telecomputing tools: K-12
teachers' beliefs and demographics. Journal of Research on Computing in
Education, 31(4), 327-340.

Honey, M., & Moeller, B. (1990). T eacher's beliefs and technology integration: Diﬁ’erent
values, different understandings (Technical Report 6). New York: Center for
Children and Technology.

Iansiti, M. (1998) Technology integration: making critical choices in a dynamic world,
Harvard Business School Press.

Keiny S. (2002). Ecological Thinking: A new approach to educational change.
University Press of America.

Leamnson, R. N. (1999). Thinking about teaching and learning : developing habits of
learning with ﬁrst year college and university students. Stylus Pub, United States.

Levin, J. A. & Bruce, B. C. (2001). Technology as media: the learner centered
perspective. Paper presented at the 2001 AERA Meeting, Seattle WA

Lewontin, R. (2000). The Triple Helix: Gene, Organism, and Environment. Harvard
University Press.

Margerum-Leys, J ., & Marx, R. W. (2003). Teacher knowledge of educational
technology: a case study of student/mentor teacher pairs. In Zhao, Y. (ed). What
Should Teachers Know about Technology: Perspectives and Practices,
Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing. P. 123-160.

117

 

Miller, L., & Olson, J. (1994). Putting the Computer in its Place: A study of teaching with
technology. Journal of Curriculum Studies, p. 121-141

Nardi, B. A., & O’Day, V. L. (1999). Information Ecologies. The MIT Press.

Odum, E. P. (1975). Ecology: the link between the natural and the social science. Holt,
Rinehart and Winston. New York

Odum, E. P. (1997). Ecology: a bridge between science and society. Sinauer Associates,
Inc. Publishers. Sunderland, Mass.

OPA: On Purpose Associates. http://www.funderstanding.com/constructivism.cfm if

Papert, S. (1992). The children’s machine: rethinking school in the age of the computer.
New York : BasicBooks

Pelgrum, W. J., & Plomp, T. (1996). Information Technology and Children From a
Global Perspective. In Collis, B.A., Knezek, G.A., Lai, K., Miyashita, K.T., '5
Pelgrum, W.J., Plomp, T., & Sakamoto, T. Children and Computers in School.
Lawrence Erlbatun Associates, Publishers Mahwah, New Jersey.

 

Pelto, P. J ., & Muller-Wille, L. (1972). Snowmobiles: Technological Revolution in the
Arctic. In Technology and Social Change, The Macmillan Company. p.165-200.

Peyton, J. K., & Bruce, B. C. (1993). Understanding the multiple threads of network-
based classrooms. in Bruce, B. C., Peyton, J .K., & Batson, T. (ed.) Network-
Based Classrooms: Promises and realities. Cambridge University Press.

Piaget, J. (1964). Development and Learning. In R. Ripple & V. Rockcastle (Eds.),
Piaget Rediscovered (pp. 7-19): Cornell University

Prawat, R. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs about teaching and learning: a constructivist
perspective. American Journal of Education. V.100 p.354-95.

Resnick, L. (1987). Learning in school and out. Educational Researcher, 16(9), 13-20.

Rodkin, P. C., & Hodges, V. E. (2003). Bullies and Victims in the Peer Ecology: Four
Questions for Psychologists and School Professionals. School Psychology Review,
Vol. 32.

Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diﬂusion of innovation. The Free Press.

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, Vol.54, No.4, September/October, p.297-310.

118

Schoﬁeld, J. W. (1995). Computers and Classroom Culture. Cambridge University Press.

Schoﬁeld, J. W., & Davidson, A. L. (2001). Bringing the internet to school—lessons from
an urban district. Jossey—Bass.

Tan, 8., Lei, J ., Shi, S., & Zhao, Y. (2003). The Adult-Children Tension: Activity Design
and Selection in Alter-school Programs. Paper accepted for presentation at
American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, Chicago, April 19-
23.

Tyack, D. B., & Cuban, L. (1997). T inkering toward Utopia; a century of public school
reform. Harvard University Press.

US. Congress, Ofﬁce of Technology Assessment. (1995). Teachers and technology:
Making the connection (OTA-EHR-6l6). Washington, DC: US. Government
Printing Ofﬁce.

US. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2000).
Teachers’ tools for the 21st century: A report on teachers’ use of technology.
Washington, DC. Retrieved February 17, 2004, from
http ://nces.ed. gov/surveys/frss/publications/20001 02/

US. Department of Education, Ofﬁce of Educational Research and Improvement. (1993).
Using technology to support education reform (Contract No. RR91172010). B.
Means, J. Blando, K. Olson, T. Middleton, C.C. Morocco, A.R. Remz, and J.
Zorfass. Washington, DC.

Urban-Lurain, M. (2003). Fluency with information technology: the computer science
perspective. In Zhao, Y. (ed). What Should Teachers Know about Technology:
Perspectives and Practices. Information Age Publishing. P.53-74.

Willis, J .; Thompson, A.; & Sadera, W. (1999). Research on technology and teacher
education: current status and ﬁiture directions. Educational Technology Research
and Development v. 47 n04 p.29-45

Zhao, Y, Mishra, P., & Girod, M. (2000). A Clubhouse is a Clubhouse, a Clubhouse.
Journal of Computers and Human Behavior, 16(3), 287-300.

Zhao, Y. & Cziko, G. A. (2001). Teacher adoption of technology: A Perceptual-Control-
Theory perspective. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 5-30.

Zhao, Y. & Frank, K. (2003). Factors affecting Technology Uses in Schools: an
ecological perspective. American Educational Research Journal. winter, vol. 40.
no.4, pp.807-840

119

 

Zhao, Y. (2003a). What Teachers Need to know about Technology? Framing the question.
In Zhao, Y. (ed). Mat Should Teachers Know about Technology: Perspectives
and Practices. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.

Zhao, Y., Frank, K., & Ellefson, N. (In press). Fostering Meaningful Teaching and
learning with technology: Characteristics of Effective professional Development
Efforts. In F loden R. & Ashbum, E. (Eds). Leadership for Meaningful Learning
with Technology. Teachers College Press.

Zhao, Y., Kendall, C., & Tan, H. S. (2003). Educational Technology standards for
teachers: Issues of interpretation, incorporation, and assessment. In Zhao, Y. (edi.)
What teachers should know about technology? Perspectives and practices,

Information Age Publishing. P. 31-44

Zhao, Y., Pugh, K., Sheldon, S. & Byers, J. L., (2002). Conditions for Classroom
Technology Innovations. Teachers College Record. 104(3), 482-515.

Zhao, Y., Tan, S. H., & Mishra, P. (2000). Going Beyond the Teacher's Machine. Journal
of Adult and Adolescent Literacy. 44(4). Also appearing in Reading Online:

http://www.readingonline.org/electronic/elec_index.asp?HREF=/electronic/jaal/1
2-00_Column/index.html

Zhao, Y., Tan, 8., Lei, J., Shi, S., & Martineau, J. (2003). Evidence of Learning: Studying
Learning Outcomes of an After-school Program. Paper accepted for presentation

at American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, Chicago, April
1 9-25.

120

   

I19111111131111111111111161111