This article describes a follow-up study that
investigated the skills and strategies used and outcomes effected by
computer coordinators in three elementary school programs. The
purpose of the present study was to revisit those same three schools,
seven years later, to examine current levels of computer use and
related implementation issues. Results across cases suggest that
while barriers to increased technology use have been eliminated or
minimized due to the work of the coordinators, many obstacles still
remain. One finding of particular importance involves the
coordinators' plans to "work themselves out of their jobs". That
ambitious goal appears to have underestimated the degree that
educational change with technology is a "moving target" that requires
ongoing coordination and support. (Keywords: technology coordinators,
staff development, educational computing, integration of
technology.)
While much has been written about the potential of
computers to enhance teaching and learning, the current literature
suggests that K-12 schools are relatively unaffected by new
information technologies (Cuban, 1993; Papert, 1993). Commonly cited
reasons include inadequate computer resources, lack of teacher
preparation, lack of planning time, and lack of on-site support
(Sheingold & Hadley, 1990; Strudler & Gall, 1988; U.S.
Congress, 1995; U.S. Congress, 1988). One approach to addressing such
obstacles has been to employ computer coordinators at the school and
district levels. A series of national surveys (Barbour, 1986; Bruder,
1990; McGinty, 1987) have documented the growth and challenges of
this new role.
In a study initiated in 1986 with Meredith Gall (Strudler & Gall,
1988) we conceptualized computer coordinators as change agents and
analyzed their strategies, skills, and outcomes of their efforts. The
three case studies showed how school-based computer coordinators use
a combination of product- and client-centered strategies to
facilitate computer use. These strategies include training of
teachers, providing technical assistance, organizing the school's
instructional computing program, and supporting and energizing
teachers. Outcomes effected by the computer coordinators include
improved teacher skills and readiness for further growth,
implementation of school goals, teacher satisfaction with the program
and increased feelings of self-esteem and professional growth, and
greater student comfort with computers. Interestingly, the
coordinators in that study all saw their role as transitional and
expected to "work themselves out of their jobs" within two to five
years.
The purpose of the present study was to revisit those same three
schools to examine the work of the technology coordinators and the
outcomes that they were able to effect since 1986 . Specifically, it
set out to answer the following questions:
Findings of this study have much practical significance for researchers, policy makers, and practitioners involved in the integration of technology in schools. As stated in a recent federal report (U.S. Congress, 1995), "In the process of equipping our students to learn with technology, a valuable--perhaps the most valuable--part of the education equation has been virtually overlooked: the teachers" (p. iii). This study focuses specifically on teachers' implementation of technology in three elementary schools over a seven-year period. It examines the many impediments to technology integration and how teachers can overcome these problems with support from technology coordinators. Overall, the longitudinal nature of the study provides a helpful context from which to reflect upon past promises, current realities, and future visions for technology in schools. For example, consider the goal of computer coordinators to "work themselves out of their jobs" within two to five years. Much can be learned from examining the assumptions behind this goal as well as the difficulties encountered by teachers when coordinator positions were indeed eliminated.
Specifically regarding the technology coordinator, knowledge of
this role may help school districts and other planners to formulate
policies and procedures to guide allocation of these personnel. Also,
information on successful strategies used by this sample of
coordinators might be used by other technology coordinators to
increase their effectiveness. Ultimately, knowledge about the role of
school-based technology coordinators might increase the likelihood
that resources committed to technologies in schools lead to
successful implementation.
Research Design
This study employed a case study design (Yin, 1989) that used
questionnaires, interviews, observations, and the review of relevant
planning documents to examine the work of three computer coordinators
and the implementation of computers at their schools. Multiple
sources of data were used to allow for validity checks on the
context, reported strategies, and achieved outcomes.
Sample
The present study was conducted in the same three elementary
schools in a medium sized Northwestern city that were examined during
the initial study. In 1986 a sample of three schools was selected
because their coordinators had been identified as having brought
about a high degree of implementation of educational computing. At
that time, the local school district had nine released-time computer
coordinators at the elementary level (defined as being allocated a
minimum of a half-day a week to perform their role). The
identification process involved consulting with the district computer
coordinator, the district evaluation specialist, and the Educational
Service District curriculum/staff development specialist, and through
personal observation of the coordinators as they implemented
integration of computers in the schools.
In May 1993, the three teachers who held primary responsibility
for coordination of the integration of educational computing since
1986 were still working at their respective schools. Two of them
(designated as Tom at East School and Sue at Central School in this
report) were subjects in the initial study and remain the "driving
forces" in their current programs. A third teacher (Judy at West
School), though primarily responsible for coordination of computers
at her school over the years, was not a subject in the initial study
because she served as a teacher on special assignment (TOSA) for
computers at the district level that year rather than working as a
West's computer coordinator. Judy was, however, interviewed as a
supervisor in the initial study and was considered by many of West's
teachers as the school's "computer person" despite her one-year
absence from that role. Further details about staffing the
coordinators at each of the schools can be found in the description
of the situational and historical context in the Results section of
this paper.
Data Collection Instruments
Interviews and a questionnaire were adapted from those used in the
studies of school improvement coordinators (Miles, Saxl, &
Lieberman, 1988), staff development specialists (Beaton,1985), and
computer coordinators (Strudler & Gall, 1988). A questionnaire
was given to each coordinator to assess his or her priorities,
strategies, and achieved outcomes. A similar questionnaire asked
supervisors and teachers with whom the coordinators worked to prepare
a profile of the coordinators.
Semi-structured interviews pertaining to the role and qualities of
the coordinators were also administered. Informants included the
coordinators, their supervisors (current principals, past principals,
and district computer coordinator), and their clients (the teachers
in their schools). Thirty-eight informants participated in a total of
42 interviews (the three school coordinators and the district
coordinator were interviewed twice) ranging from twenty-five minutes
to two hours in length. Further data were gathered through
examination of planning documents. The data were collected over a
three-week period. A summary of the informants in the sample by
school and type appears in Table 1.
=============================
Insert Table 1 here.
=============================
Data Analysis
All 42 interviews were tape recorded and transcribed.
Employing the constant comparative method (Strauss, 1987), data
analysis began as data were first collected and continued throughout
the study. A coding framework for four main categories (school
context, outcomes, effective change agent behaviors/strategies, and
impediments) and 26 sub-categories, was initially adapted from Miles,
Saxl, & Lieberman(1988) and Strudler and Gall (1988) and was
further revised as additional themes emerged. Interview data were
coded and more than 800 illustrative segments, ranging in length from
one sentence to two paragraphs, were copied from word processed
transcripts into a database file.
Analysis proceeded with grouping of similarly coded items (e.g.,
context or outcomes for a particular program or strategies for a
particular coordinator). Field notes and interview data were thus
systematically analyzed by searching for salient themes pertaining to
the work of the coordinators and the efforts of teachers to implement
technology in their schools. The data were first analyzed case by
case, then across the three cases. To ensure accuracy of reporting,
drafts of each case were examined by the respective coordinators,
principals, and the district coordinator, and corrections were made
where necessary.
Results of the study were organized to systematically address each
of the four research questions. In examining the context (Question 1)
of the study, an overview of district demographics and policies helps
provide the broad context in which the schools operated. Next, the
context and outcomes (Question 2) for each school are reported
together, case by case, to give the reader a flavor for each school
as a unique case. The barriers to the integration of technology
(Question 3) and strategies used to overcome them (Question 4) are
then reported across cases to allow for a broader analysis of results
across school sites.
1. What is the situational and historical context in which the
technology coordinators have done their work? What conditions exist
today? What has changed over the past seven years? 2. What
outcomes were the technology coordinators able to effect over the
seven-year period?
District Context
The study was conducted in a medium-sized district of more than 1200
teachers and approximately 18,500 students (K-12). The district is
home for a major state university and shares with two other local
districts the provision of education to a northwestern regional
center of 165,000 people. The district serves about 8500 elementary
school children in its 24 elementary schools. By Spring 1993, there
were approximately 1250 computers used in K-5 programs.
Under the leadership of the district technology coordinator, a
number of elementary schools in the district were "early adopters" of
educational computing. In 1984, a systematic, district-wide approach
to integrating computer-based tools (graphics, keyboarding, word
processing, and problem solving) was planned to be phased in over a
three-year period. The district provided software and training as an
incentive to encourage voluntary participation. The three schools
examined in this study participated in the initial efforts to
implement the three-year plan.
The program was piloted and deemed by evaluators to be feasible,
contingent upon continued district support for computer resources and
staff development. It was recommended that part-time "computer
persons" be designated to coordinate training, maintenance, and
scheduling at the school level. Without such services, evaluators
concluded that implementation of the program would be difficult.
Under the district's policy of site-based management, the decision to
employ a computer coordinator is made at the school level. Within
this system, each school is allocated a specific number of full time
equivalent (FTE) slots for hiring teachers (including specialists
such as media, physical education, music, art), based on the school's
enrollment. From the allotted FTE, building principals, often with
the input of the staff, may provide for a released-time computer
coordinator. During the 1984-85 school year, only one of the
district's 24 elementary schools (East School) employed a
released-time computer coordinator (defined as a teacher who is
assigned .10 FTE or greater for coordinating elements of the computer
program in the school). By the following school year, nine elementary
schools had opted for released coordinators.
Severe budget cuts in the years following the initial study posed serious threats to the growth of efforts to integrate computers into district elementary schools . Adequate monies were not allocated to support the implementation of the district plan and the three-year timeline was abandoned. Furthermore, resources to staff released-time coordinators became increasingly sparse due to a statewide initiative that significantly reduced property tax revenues. This led to massive budget cuts in the public schools and necessitated reductions in new hires, cuts in the staffing of specialists, and increases in class size. By 1992-93, only one of the district's elementary schools (Central School) was able to staff a released time technology coordinator.
East School
Context. East School has more than 400 students and serves
a community of middle to upper middle income families in the rolling
hills along the outskirts of the city. The school is divided into
five quads, each of which share a common building and a "mini-school"
identity. East's faculty members characterize their school as
innovative, challenging, diverse, and child-oriented. "
In 1986, the two main goals of the computer program at East were
to get students using computers in their studies and to train the
classroom teachers so that they would become comfortable
incorporating computers into their instructional program. Thus, Tom,
the coordinator, was hired to organize the program, teach the
students, and teach the teachers. One teacher described how the
program functioned:
Tom taught computers to students, he also ran workshops for teachers
and when some new program would come in, would call us in after
school or before school, or whenever we have breaks, to introduce us
to the materials. We were free to take our kids in there when the
computer lab was not being used for instruction, or we could arrange
special things if there was something that we wanted done.
Originally, East's goal was to have a computer person and a computer
lab for only one or two years. The East computer plan of May 1986,
however, stated that the computer room should remain for the
foreseeable future, space permitting. The status of the lab, as well
as the coordinator position, was reassessed annually. In 1991, the
coordinator's FTE was cut to .1 and subsequently eliminated entirely
due to budget constraints. The lab continued to function until the
beginning of the 1992-93 school year when it was dismantled to
accommodate the need for an additional classroom. Computers were then
distributed into the classrooms or "pooled" into small groups in the
quad areas.
Outcomes. Informants at East School were uniform in their
praise for Tom's work and the outcomes that he was able to effect as
East's technology coordinator. As was reported in the initial study,
Tom continued to manage the many details of computing at East while
supporting the faculty's efforts to teach with technology. One
teacher characterized Tom's style:
He's very supportive, very service-oriented--anything you want. Very
creative. "Have you tried this, have you thought about that?" Very
encouraging, I think. He tries to help people get as far as they
could, but he wasn't going to steam roll anybody or push anybody.
Commonly cited results of Tom's work include the use of new
instructional materials and the improved skills of both students and
teachers. Tom's own assessment of the teachers' progress with
computers is strongly supported by teachers' comments:
I think they feel a sense of independence that they didn't have
before with technology. They were willing to surprise themselves.
They're not afraid of punching the wrong key and exploding the
computer. They're not as tentative as they used to be. The way I see
that is when somebody new comes into the building and I see how
tentative they are, I realize that the other people have come a long
way.
The East faculty, however, expressed much dissatisfaction with the
loss of their coordinator and their lab. While they accepted that
staffing a coordinator was impossible under the wave of budget cuts,
many favored reinstituting the lab. In fact, at a faculty meeting at
the end of the 1992-93 school year, all teachers, except for Tom,
wanted the lab back. As a result of Tom's organization and modeling
in the lab, teachers got comfortable using computers in that setting.
According to East's faculty, the model worked. They learned in a
comfortable, supported setting, and students had a variety of
learning opportunities with technology.
Unfortunately, the East teachers were not prepared for the changes that were to come. While they reported functioning fine with computers during 1989-90 when Tom was on study-leave, they welcomed his return the following year, and in many cases, began to rely on having him back to help. Subsequently, when Tom's position could no longer be funded, teachers reported that some of the responsibilities of the coordinator were distributed among the faculty and the lab functioned adequately for two years--not to the level of organization attained when Tom had time to coordinate it, but to a standard acceptable to most teachers.
In 1992-93, the program went through major upheaval when the lab was
dismantled. While many teachers reported an increase in their use of
computers for their own productivity, they cited a decrease in the
quantity and quality of computer use by their students. One teacher
explained, "I think it's been a real detriment to the program not to
have a lab because we were going so strong the first two years I was
here, and then all of a sudden it pretty much dropped off." Another
added, "For me, it hasn't been real successful using them in my
classroom Prior to that I loved it. I thought it was grand."
One teacher, who admittedly was one of the few resistant to computer use, commented on the abrupt change, from having a lab with a coordinator to having one computer in each classroom.
Interestingly Tom had proposed the previous year that some
teachers pilot test distributing some of the computers in their
classrooms, but stated that "they really didn't want to do it."
[One vocal teacher] was the leader in not to do that. He
said, 'It's working fine the way it is. If it ain't broke don't fix
it.'"
Despite the abrupt changes, many East teachers are optimistic about
having computers in their classrooms. A large majority of them,
however, continue to cite the need for help in learning about new
software and technologies, and methods for using them in their
classrooms.
West School
Context. West School has nearly 400 students and
serves a community of middle income families along the outskirts of
the city. West's faculty characterize their school as conservative
with a very caring, academic, and achievement-oriented program.
Consistent with many of the informants' responses, one veteran
teacher described the faculty:
I think it's a very dedicated and experienced staff. We don't have a
lot of young teachers here. Most of the people here have taught for a
lot of years. Compared to other schools around the district from what
I've heard, I think we're probably considered a conservative school
in the sense of not trying as many new curriculum ideas as some of
the other schools. I think most of the classrooms here would be
considered very structured, very task-oriented instructional
groups...trying to match kids to their skill levels.
West's principal added, "The teachers are successful. The community
is happy with what they're doing. They can show you test scores which
show you how effective they are."
West School acquired its first computers in 1982 when a few teachers
expressed an interest. Fund-raising activities were organized, and
West's computer committee began to meet. In 1985, six West teachers,
led by Judy, a second-grade teacher, became involved in the
district's pilot computer curriculum. Subsequently, the building
principal, Glenn, and the West staff recognized a need to hire a
released-time coordinator for their growing program. When an extra .2
FTE became available after the beginning of the 1885-86 school year,
a half-time kindergarten teacher was hired for the job. The following
year, Judy was allocated released-time to function as the school's
coordinator.
Outcomes . Informants reported on questionnaires that
outcomes attributable to the work of computer coordinators include
the use of new materials, improved student performance, and improved
skills for teachers. Interview data suggest that the computer lab is
tightly scheduled and used by a majority of its teachers. Whereas
early goals cited in the initial study were on the integration of
computer-based tools in the curriculum, teachers now cite that the
main goal of the program is for skill reinforcement (i.e., drill and
practice). Since no one is now working to expand and maintain the
software collection, the teachers have accepted working with the
"well established" lab sets of older MECC software. One teacher
commented on the acceptance of drill and practice software at
West:
It seems to me there are a few people who would like to see more tool
use--kids doing writing and creating art. But it seems like that's
the minority now. Mostly, people seem fairly satisfied using the
computer as reinforcement....The time that we can get in [the
lab] there right now lends itself to little 20 minute to
half-hour blocks where the other kind of activity [tool uses]
would take more consecutive days or several during the week.
Another teacher commented, "It became part of a schedule; it didn't
become part of a curriculum." West's principal attributed the
acceptance of the status quo with computers by teachers to two
related factors: the loss of the coordinator position and the lack of
a school-wide vision:
I thought when I first got here, the program worked really well
because we had somebody to "bird dog" things, keep things on task and
keep things going. As it evolved, I think the program works well for
the teachers who make it work but we don't have anyone to go to those
teachers and say, "Hey I have this program for your curricular area.
Do you want to schedule a time to come into the computer room and use
it and work with it?" That component is gone.
Regarding the issue of a lack of vision, West's principal stated,
The technology committee has come up with a vision statement of where they would like to be. The problem is getting everybody else to share that and agree that that is where we would like to be.
A member of the technology committee concurred with that
assessment pertaining to a lack of vision and leadership.
Our committee was trying to get our school away from the drill and
practice kinds of things. We were trying to get the school away from
just bringing in whole classrooms in there and drilling and
practicing towards more of an integration of computers into the
curriculum and toward production and doing creative things. Again, we
need someone coordinating that.
There appears to be consensus among West's faculty that a coordinator
is still needed to organize and maintain the lab's hardware and
software, and to help teachers keep up with new programs,
applications, and directions. All who were interviewed agreed that
the program had declined without a coordinator and most predicted
that it probably would continue to do so. One teacher explained, "I
see things that have gone up and are going down....Until something
happens to this budget mess, I see it getting worse." Added another,
"We still are better off than we were five years ago but I think
again we're leveling off and just need to have another boost." Still
another stated,
I think it's pretty chaotic right now because there really isn't anyone coordinating it like it used to be. There used to be a definite schedule that people signed up for and the coordinator [Judy] would seek people out and ask them how can I help you. So when she was computer coordinator it was working pretty well. Now it doesn't seem to be too organized. Teachers just come in and grab what they need off the shelf.
Judy concurred with this assessment:
I wouldn't say there's a sudden breakdown. I would just say because of the lack of support it hasn't improved as it should have. It hasn't advanced. People who know what they're doing and like it are still doing it, but they're not advancing.
One teacher, who served as coordinator for one year, reported plans to obtain a computer-based publishing center. While she believes that this is a step in the right direction, she believes it will take much effort to bring a majority of the faculty "on board." She commented, "I'm afraid that unless someone comes in here who's really a real motivator, [significant change won't occur]". Recognizing the enormity of that task, she added, "That's not me; I'm not going to be the one to do that."
Central School
Context . Central School has approximately 360
students and serves one of the city's lower socioeconomic communities
along the outskirts of the city. Teachers interviewed at Central
characterized their school as challenging, collaborative yet
divisive, dedicated, child-centered, and diverse. One teacher
described the school:
It's a very child-centered, caring, somewhat discipline-based program
in that it is a school that teachers have to have discipline to be
able to get anything going. They are very caring, there's a lot of
closeness to the child, a lot of concern for kids. Also one where we
spend an awful lot of time dealing with non-academic subjects. We
have a lot of kids who are really at risk.
In 1983 Central bought two Apple systems. Subsequently the school
sponsored a triathalon and other fund-raising events to increase the
school's computer resources. All informants agreed that Sue was the
driving force that fueled the growth of Central's computer program.
Eventually, Sue was given a half-time appointment for the 1985-86
school year and proceeded to organize Central's expanding computer
lab. Sue continued conducting inservices for teachers and parent
volunteers, activities that she had previously undertaken as the
defacto coordinator. In December of that year, she
submitted a proposal with the district coordinator to Sunburst
Communications, a leading publisher of educational software. She
proposed that Central School and Sunburst form a partnership in
which, together, they would develop a "national model showing 'real
life' classroom use and integration of computers" into the math,
language arts, and problem solving curricula. Sunburst accepted the
proposal, and the Central faculty reaped the benefits of large
quantities of software and teacher inservices provided by Sunburst
staff. The "Sunburst connection" clearly boosted the teachers'
enthusiasm about instructional computer use at Central School. That
relationship with Sunburst (and later Wings) continued over the
years. In May 1993, Central School had a lab of 25 computers as well
as a computer in every classroom.
Outcomes . Central School, which maintained its staffing of a released coordinator (.35 full time equivalent in 1992-93, .3 in 1993-94), appears to be thriving with computer use well woven into the fabric of the school. In many respects, what is occurring at Central could be viewed as a realization of the vision of its computer coordinator. Early on in the program, the coordinator asserted that computers should be integrated into all subject areas and that she would help teachers to do that as an "on-site staff developer," not a computer teacher. While she still models lessons using new programs with students, the teachers accompany their students into the lab and follow up her lessons in their scheduled lab times when the coordinator is not available. In addition, all teachers have at least one computer in their room to further enhance their curriculum. Computer use covers a wide range of applications including skill reinforcement, problem solving, and a variety of tool uses.
Informants cited the improved skills of teachers and readiness for further growth as the most prominent outcome of Sue's work as coordinator. One teacher stated, "Sue spends a great deal of time helping us know how to do the programs she obtains for us and as she does that, we grow. We become more comfortable in how to do it."
Teachers growing comfort with computers appears to have
significantly reduced their resistance to technology integration. As
explained by Central's former principal, the initial resistance was
not "in the sense they didn't want to do it, but resistance in the
sense, 'I don't think I can do it.' Sue was very successful in
getting people on board and on track with that."
One teacher recalled when she began teaching at Central in 1988:
The computers were well established as part of the curriculum and
there was a tremendous effort to bring teachers up to date
technologically. Several of us were computer illiterate and didn't
see a place for them in the classroom. We sort of had to be dragged
kicking and screaming into the 21st century....[But] there
was a lot of support. There was a half-day training available. There
was computer assistance when I brought my children into the computer
lab and after school in-services, and it was incredibly remarkable,
the kind of support given to the program and the energy and
attention. It was just so necessary to make all of this
[integration of computers] happen.
In May 1993, resistance at Central appears to be almost non-existent.
One teacher assessed, "Everybody wants to be down in the lab.
Everybody would love to have more computers in the room." Another
stated, "Sue saw the staff when we were so reluctant, and she said
that we'd all be using these and we'd all feel more
comfortable....She was right."
Sue characterized the progress of Central's faculty as a "picture
of steady growth" as resources and comfort levels have increased. In
spite of this progress, however, Sue admits to "backing off" of her
earlier efforts to have the teachers gradually assume more
responsibility for introducing programs to their students. While this
stance runs counter to her goal of "working herself out of a job,"
Sue's appears to accept the compromise of that position:
Teachers said, "It would be so much easier for us, if we saw you on a
regularly scheduled basis, presenting a lesson and showing us how you
manage the class, manage the lab, manage the software, and then plan
with us as you've always done. But instead you provide the role
model." They didn't want it to be so they could send their class to
me and then they go away. Teachers still come. When they come to the
lab and I am teaching they are still there. They stay and take notes
for the most part and are ready to follow up on what's happening or
go in another direction that they want to go, depending on the
decisions that we've made as a team. It really was a request on their
part that I teach more, if possible.
One teacher explains how he benefits from Sue's approach:
Where Sue does a lot for me, in this building, is one of my computer
periods she helps introduce new material. It's a weak link with me.
I've had all of these great intentions of previewing and reworking
all of these programs and I haven't done it. It's real hard.
Sometimes I'm just staying a step ahead of the kids when I'm
introducing new material, or I get stuck with things that I can't
problem solve.
That same teacher, however, suggested that Sue's strategies in
working with him were helping him become a more independent computer
user. He explained, "She can push you off the dock when she needs to.
She can hold your hand when she needs to and she's usually pretty
good at assessing [which approach to use]."
Informants at Central cited improvement in student achievement and
attitudes as another major outcome of Sue's work. One teacher stated,
"They're [students at Central] so computer literate and I'm
always really impressed. When I have a student who transfers in from
a different school, I really notice a big gap." Another added, " I
think the confidence level [with computers] of the students,
and their competency, has definitely increased. I'm always really
amazed and excited about the skill level that our students leave here
with." Another concurred,
None of these students have any fear of technology and I'm glad to
see that with girls. I think there's a confidence that's there that
will stay there that is firmly implanted in their background...I
think we send children on who view a computer as one of the necessary
tools of school and they're all pretty comfortable in using it in a
variety of ways.
Success with technology appears to have elevated the collective self
esteem at Central for both students and teachers. Sue stated,
"There's a tremendous amount of pride about what we have accomplished
and what we have and we tend to hold that up." Central's former
principal added,
They began to get recognized for doing an exemplary type of program. This is always reinforcing when you put a lot of work into it to be suddenly recognized, nationally and even internationally, as having the program that people wanted to come and see. And I think that because of their hard work, that's why this happened--and Sue's hard work. And I think that they began to say, "Hey, we've got something to offer the world."
3. What are the barriers to the integration of technology in the schools?
Despite the groundswell of enthusiasm for computer use in schools,
there are a number of barriers to integrating this technology into
the curriculum. Data across cases suggest that while some of the
barriers cited in the initial study have been either eliminated or
minimized, many obstacles to increased computer use still remain. In
general, there appears to be much less resistance to the
goal of integration of technology throughout the
elementary curriculum. While many informants in the initial study
viewed computer use as an "add-on" to the curriculum, teachers in the
current study reported an increase in applications that fit with
their subject area goals. Furthermore, teachers in the present study
were less in favor of staffing a separate "computer teacher"--a
subject area specialist who would "do computers" with their students.
Overall, teachers appeared sold on the potential of teaching and
learning with computers across the curriculum. They still, however,
frequently cited problems that must be addressed for this potential
to be realized. Following is a discussion of barriers identified in
the present study.
Time
One theme involves the issue of time --there never seems
to be enough of it. Teachers expressed feeling burdened with their
present teaching and planning responsibilities and alluded to the
numerous demands of their work day, including their participation in
"competing" school improvement programs. While a large majority of
those interviewed expressed the desire to do more with computers,
they felt that they didn't have enough time to learn, keep up with,
and plan the use of new software and new applications. Many teachers
at West seemed to have accepted the lack of time as a given and
settled for what was familiar and readily available. A number of
teachers at East expressed a desire to keep up with new ideas and
developments, but there was only limited evidence that this was
happening. The issue of time appears to have been less pressing for
teachers at Central. While some teachers expressed frustration in not
having time to do more with computers, they acknowledged that due to
Sue's contributions, the teachers were able to progress with the
program despite the time constraints of teachers' demanding work
schedules.
Staff Development
A related obstacle involves the difficulty for teachers to
participate in technology-related staff development .
Whereas in the past on-site inservice training was available, often
with released time, such opportunities were virtually eliminated due
to cuts in staff development monies. The district, however, continued
to offer a wide range of sessions after school hours, which met the
needs of some teachers. Others, however, were disappointed in the
professional development opportunities. Explained one teacher,
When we had a computer coordinator, all of the training for using the
computers was done at the school. The district currently offers
really quite good classes, but they're 4:00-7:00 P.M, and that's just
suicide time if you have family, or even if you don't. It's just a
very difficult time after teaching all day to go do that.
Teachers also cited the need for on-site support during
the school day. One teacher from East School described her need for
help and the accompanying frustrations:
When Tom was there to be that backbone person for us, we had the
support we needed. If something was wrong, we knew that Tom could
take care of it. But now we're sort of on our own. I work right next
door to Tom and so I still scream when something really is wrong. But
I'll sit now with the computer for 45 minutes trying to figure out
one little glitch, if something has happened when I'm trying to do
something rather than going directly to Tom, because I know Tom has
his own classroom. So, by the time I get to him, I'm ready to pull my
hair out. And it would be helpful to have someone there that I could
go to right away, instead of sitting and fumbling trying to figure
out answers. Because usually I try and try and still don't get it
working.
Equipment
Another problem revolves around the scarcity of adequate
hardware and software . While this impediment was cited less
frequently than in the previous study, it was still a major source of
concern, especially at East and West schools. Informants were
particularly concerned about upgrading their current computers and
obtaining new software. They attributed their lack of resources to
the budget cuts at the state level and the lack of support from the
district. Explained one teacher,
The schools that have computers are the ones that have done things
like have jogathons or had someone who applied for grants to get
them. If you don't have anyone who does that, you don't have it
[computers] . There's no mandate to do it. There's no real
great encouragement to do it. There's no money to do it.
The need for newer hardware and software fits well with the Office of
Technology Assessment's recent recommendation that we consider a new
definition to what constitutes "access" to technology by teachers and
students (U.S. Congress, 1995). Meaningful access, the report
contends, must encompass more than student-computer ratios. Rather it
should take into account the educational goals of the teachers and
the hardware and software that will help accomplish those goals.
Often the older computers cannot run the more powerful applications
that teachers are increasingly wanting to use.
Overall, trends regarding barriers to computer use cited in this
study are consistent with those cited by Sheingold & Hadley
(1990) in their survey of accomplished, technology-using teachers.
While they reported lack of computer resources as the most prominent
obstacle in the accomplished teachers' early efforts, they cited lack
of time for learning and planning as an increasingly significant
obstacle as teachers progress in their efforts to integrate
technology.
4. What strategies are used by the technology coordinators and
teachers to overcome impediments to technology use at their
schools?
As was documented in the initial study (Strudler & Gall, 1988), coordinators perform a variety of functions that help schools to overcome impediments to increased technology use.
Time to perform their role, of course, significantly influences
the strategies employed. The importance and success of the following
strategies, which were identified in the initial study, are revisited
in this section: (a) resource adding, (b) organizing and preparing,
(c) training, and (d) collaborative problem solving. (See Strudler
& Gall (1988) for a more indepth discussion of strategies
employed by effective computer coordinators.)
Resource-adding
Resource-adding continues to be necessary to
address a major impediment to implementation--insufficient computer
resources. This strategy is critical due to the need to supplement
district funding for computer hardware and software. (Subsequent to
data collection for this study, a local bond issue provided for a
large influx of funds for computers and networking district-wide.
Prior to that allocation, however, there was clear consensus among
respondents that district funding for technology was inadequate.)
Coordinators and teachers pursue this strategy by seeking grants from
outside sources and soliciting monies from their school's budget for
equipment, software, and staff development. Successful
resource-adding does a great deal to enhance the
program's credibility with teachers. Teachers are clearly more
resistant to allocating instructional time to computer-based
activities if the quantities of hardware and software are inadequate
to meet the needs of their students. Though resource adding
takes quite a bit of time, it appears critical to keep the
momentum of a program going.
Organizing and Preparing
The strategy of organizing and preparing is a
productive response to the "plight" of elementary teachers who are
overloaded with a myriad of teaching and planning responsibilities.
Effective coordinators, as time permits, perform a variety of
functions that help to overcome this impediment. Coordinators help
by: (a) organizing and scheduling labs, (b)screening for software
that meets the needs of students and teachers, and (c) assisting with
custodial chores, often through a network of student and parent
volunteers. Data from the current study suggest that trained students
who have demonstrated proficiency in specific skills are increasingly
being used to help teachers and their classes with computers. Tom
initiated an elaborate training program in which he assessed
students' skills and matched them up with requests for help from
teachers. Sue also organized a program of student
volunteers--partners in learning. Parent volunteers,
while also effective, appear to require more time on behalf of a
coordinator to train, schedule, and retain. Findings of this study
suggest that organizing and preparing functions maximize
teachers' use of instructional time with computers and decrease their
resistance to increased use. The strategy of organizing and
preparing appears especially critical in schools that use
computers in a lab environment due to the increased organizational
needs of a centralized facility that serves multiple users.
Training
Training of groups , a prominent strategy in the
initial study, was reported to have declined a great deal at the
schools examined. This can be attributed to cuts in the budget for
staff development and reductions in FTE for coordinators. Data from
the current study suggest that on-site inservices are a luxury that
the schools in this study could no longer afford. Sue explained,
"I've done less big group presentations with the staff because there
just isn't time for the meetings, but [I've done] lots of
one-on-one kinds of stuff. My inservices are going more to district
inservice." It should be noted that such inservice sessions are
offered to teachers after school hours and with a nominal fee for
participants.
The strategy of providing follow-up support on an
individual basis, of course, was severely limited by the loss of FTE
for the coordinator role. While Tom continued to help people when the
need arose, many teachers resisted seeking his help because they knew
he had a full teaching load. Without adequate time, it appears that
follow-up support is likely to be reactive at best.
Only Sue, the remaining released-time coordinator, had time to
proactively employ effective training strategies such
as demonstrating and modeling.
Collaborative Problem Solving
Collaborative problem solving is a noteworthy strategy
that helps teachers and the coordinator integrate new technology into
the school program. Similar to other change agents (Beaton, 1985;
Miles et al., 1988), technology coordinators work collaboratively
with individual teachers, grade-level groups, and school computer
committees to effect change with technology. When allocated time to
do so, as illustrated by Sue's work at Central, coordinators can
serve as much needed consultants who "filter" through the volumes of
new ideas, application programs, and instructional software and help
teachers find those that fit their teaching areas and skill levels.
This strategy of collaboration appears especially important for
establishing teacher ownership of the program. Teachers emphasized
that effective coordinators listen to what they have to say and
involve them in making decisions about the program. Teachers
expressed being less resistant to change when they can influence the
fit between their other curricular responsibilities and the computer
program. This is consistent with the findings of the Rand Study
(Berman & McLaughlin, 1978), which suggested that involving
teachers facilitates commitment as well as more informed
decision-making.
This sections consists of a discussion of salient findings of the
present study. First, the need for the role of technology coordinator
is revisited, followed by a discussion of issues to consider when
implementing this role. Finally the implications of these findings
are discussed.
Planned Obsolescence Revisited
During the initial study all of the coordinators projected that they
would work themselves out of their jobs in two to five years.
Implicit in this goal was the idea that as teachers became
comfortable with computers and various software programs, they would
eventually use them in their teaching and no longer rely upon the
help of a coordinator. While this may be a laudable goal to work
toward, in retrospect, it underestimated the complexity of
educational change with technology and the amount of sustained effort
that it would require of teachers. Following is a discussion of
related factors: the pace of technological change as it pertains to
schools, the concerns of teachers that appear critical in their
adoption of technology-based innovations, and the need for
coordinating the "nuts and bolts" of educational computing.
Change With Technology: A Moving Target . One variable
that coordinators didn't fully account for in their optimistic
projections was the degree to which the field of educational
computing and technology is a "moving target"--one that is in a state
of constant flux and progress. Computer-based technologies and
software applications have undergone a period of unprecedented growth
that will likely continue for the foreseeable future. Thus, while it
may have been feasible to "train" teachers to use one type of
computer and a finite set of software programs, how would teachers
keep up with advancements in the field? Teachers would require
support to learn about each successive generation of
applications--new software programs, multimedia, networks,
telecommunications, etc. Even if teachers developed the expertise to
explore these areas, would they have the time to pursue them?
Teacher Concerns: Time, Comfort and Priorities . One principal in this study stated that teachers will always find the time to do things if they make it a high enough priority. While this assertion may not account for the amount of time involved in keeping up with new technologies and applications, it does raise an interesting question. When will technology become a high enough priority for a majority of teachers so that they pursue it as a regular part of their professional responsibilities? Data gathered indicate that we are still in an awkward transition period in which the benefits of teaching and learning with technology do not necessarily outweigh the costs. While teachers are increasingly citing the benefits that students derive from computer use, they must weigh the costs in terms of their time and the difficulties of managing to find appropriate software and then get adequate computer access for their students. It follows that as the quantity and quality of technology-based applications increase in the schools, more teachers will make technology a high priority. Meanwhile, the support provided by an effective coordinator serves to "tip the scales" for teachers weighing the costs and benefits of technology use.
New applications add an extra element to the cost-benefit formula--they often take teachers out of their current "comfort zone" by increasing the time and the potential risks involved in using new methods or materials. In fact, teachers' tendency to seek comfort appears to be one factor affecting the coordinators' inability to eliminate the need for their positions. Consider the case at Central. Early on, consistent with her timeline to make herself unnecessary, Sue strongly asserted that she would serve as on-site staff developer rather than computer teacher. Her willingness to "push" teachers toward independence, though met with resistance, eventually won teachers' respect and got results. On a case by case basis, Sue would introduce new programs for teachers, but would assess their readiness to "take over" and provide them with the support necessary to function independently.
Why then would Sue reverse that position and accept introducing all
of the new programs with students rather than continuing to "push"
the teachers? The rationale for that approach was that teachers had
lost their time for staff development and they could learn new
programs as Sue introduced them to students. All things considered,
this makes sense. Nevertheless, it marks a serious compromise to the
goal of working to eliminate the coordinator's position. Teachers at
Central resisted the discomfort involved in taking the next steps
toward being independent of Sue and working toward a transition. Sue
explained that the teachers would probably experience a "cold turkey"
transition only when they were forced to work without her. Meanwhile,
they are comfortable with their role and very satisfied with their
current arrangement.
Coordinating the Nuts and Bolts . In addition to the
professional functions served by coordinators in their work work with
teachers (e.g., staff development and curriculum consultation), there
are numerous custodial details that require coordination (e.g.,
ordering and maintaining hardware and software, scheduling lab,
troubleshooting). If a coordinator's position is to be phased out,
who then would provide for these needs? Teachers at East School
reported that, in Tom's absence, they distributed his
responsibilities among various teachers and that the lab functioned
adequately during that time. On the other hand, teachers at West
reported that those functions were never properly provided for upon
the elimination of their coordinator role. Unfortunately, this
appears to be the case in many schools across the country. Data from
this study suggest that the lack of coordination is a major
impediment to the effective use of technology in schools.
In summary, while these findings suggest that school programs can
survive the elimination of a coordinator's position, the costs of
doing so appear considerable. Although the goal of working oneself
out of a job is perhaps an ideal worth striving for,
unless provisions are made to distribute the coordinator's
responsibilities, schoolwide integration of technology will likely
suffer.
The Role of the Technology Coordinator: Issues to Consider
Findings of this study suggest that schools should consider
staffing technology coordinators where the goal is integration
throughout the curriculum by all teachers. Following is a discussion
of issues to consider when implementing that role: time, selection
and training, the feasibility of exporting an effective model, and
computer placement.
Time. Data from this study suggest that reducing the
barriers to the implementation of computers will not likely occur
without adequate time for coordinators to perform their role. The
role includes managing a myriad of details and providing the
leadership necessary for teachers to establish a shared vision and
school plan. If released time cannot be provided, school districts
should consider paying a stipend to coordinators as they typically do
for athletic coaches and faculty sponsors at the high school level.
While districts may currently reap the benefits of many volunteer
hours by dedicated coordinators, it is not realistic to expect these
teacher-leaders to sustain their efforts and avoid "burn out" if they
are not allocated time and/or remuneration for their work. Perhaps
some custodial functions could be coordinated by a clerical person or
aide. While this would not address the larger educational issues
involved, it would help with some of the "nuts and bolts"
requirements that must be addressed.
Selection and Training of Coordinators . Prospective coordinators should possess a good balance of technical, interpersonal, and organizational skills. Such attributes were determined to be important for coordinators in the initial study and they appear to hold true for today's coordinator as well. These skills include initiative-taking and tenacity to secure resources and "keep the program going." Another important skill involves facilitating group-functioning and decision-making. In addition, the skill of being able to "wean" teachers of their dependence on the coordinator, was, and remains a critical attribute.
Training for coordinators should be considered to increase their
effectiveness. With the increasing number of teachers serving in
leadership roles, the professional development needs of teacher
leaders is greater than ever (Fullan, 1991). Studies that have
focused on staff developers (Miles, Saxl, & Lieberman, 1988)
support this notion and suggest that professional development
opportunities be made available for teacher leaders charged with
facilitating change. While coordinators would benefit from
participating in a general forum in which they can share concerns,
training sessions for targeted needs would also be helpful. As Miles
and his colleagues (1988) recommended for change agents in their
study, computer coordinators would benefit from training in
organizational change. Such training might involve specific
strategies and skills in working with the school as an organization,
including strategies for working with computer committees to
facilitate long-range planning Other topics for training might
involve issues related to advances in current hardware and software
including networking, telecommunications, and computer-based
multimedia.
Exporting an Effective Model. While much can be learned
from examining effective
strategies used by coordinators in this study, it appears that a
successful model for technology implementation (e.g., the one
employed at Central) will not be easily exportable as a whole. The
process of change with technology is complex and appears very
dependent upon the skills and strategies of the coordinator as well
as the dynamics of the school context. Some elements of the models
examined, however, should clearly be considered by all schools.
First, the strategy of establishing a school technology committee
appears valuable if the goal is to provide broad input and facilitate
technology use school-wide. The committee, then, can provide
leadership in getting teachers involved and establishing a long-range
goal for technology use.
Furthermore, the model of staffing a coordinator as an on-site staff developer/consultant appears effective, though costly. One possible way to phase out reliance on a coordinator might be to use a "multiplier mode" to spread technology use. This strategy consists of asking teachers to lead workshops, demonstrate their work to others, act as mentors, serve as a cadre, and begin to act like teacher specialists (Miles et al., 1988). While such an approach may not eliminate the need for a coordinator, it may help decrease the FTE needed for the role. In addition, schools should continue to increase their reliance on the growing body of "student experts" for help with technology.
Computer Placement: Lab vs. Classrooms . Informants in the
current study cited both pros and cons involved in the placement of
computers. Ideally, schools will acquire enough computers to maintain
a lab for large group instruction while also distributing additional
computers for classroom use. One issue raised in the present study
involves the difficulty of maintaining a lab without a coordinator to
oversee its use. From a logistical standpoint, schools without
coordinators may find that computer resources are easier to
coordinate when they are distributed among the classrooms. It appears
that teachers are more likely to take ownership of "their own"
computers. On the other hand, if schools choose to dismantle labs in
favor of placement in classrooms (as was the case at East School),
they should provide for a sensible transition which must include
staff development that focuses on how to best use one or two (or
several) computers in a classroom setting.
Implications for Educational Policy Makers
Technology has great potential to enhance teaching and
learning in the coming years. Current literature, however, suggests
that K-12 schools are relatively unaffected by new information
technologies (Cuban, 1993; Papert, 1993). Consistent with other
innovations in schools (Fullan, 1991), inadequate funds have been
allocated to support the implementation of computers in schools.
Consider the case of Tom at East School. He was hired as the
district's first released-time computer coordinator and emerged as a
leader in the district for his work in integrating computers into his
own classes and his willingness to share his expertise with other
teachers. In 1989-90, the district recognized Tom's accomplishments
in this area by awarding him a year's paid study leave for him to
enhance his abilities to effect educational change with technology.
Both before and after that study leave (i.e., during the initial
study as well the follow-up study) teachers at East were universal in
their praise for Tom's ability to model effective technology use and
work with students and teachers. Subsequently, however, all funding
for his coordinator position was eliminated and he was placed
full-time in a second grade classroom (and later a third-fourth
combination). Without denigrating the value of excellent classroom
teachers, an objective observer would have to question the wisdom of
this personnel decision. Certainly in the business world, it would be
questionable to invest in an employee's professional development that
involves an increasingly critical area and then not capitalize on
that person's leadership potential. If the goals of technology
integration had been accomplished, then that would be a different
matter. But in this case, much work remained to be done. Rather,
funding to support the long-term implementation of technology in the
schools could simply not be sustained.
The present study yielded rich descriptions of teachers' use of
computers and the work of of technology coordinators at three
elementary schools . In so doing, it illustrates the difficulty of
effecting significant educational change with technology. The study
involved three schools that have been active in implementing and
expanding computer use. While the schools have indeed progressed,
current findings document many barriers to full-scale, sustained
integration of technology into the curriculum. Lack of time for
teachers, lack of adequate staff development and on-site support, and
lack of access to current hardware and software were all cited as
major impediments to technology integration.
Another obstacle identified involves the degree to which the field
of educational computing and technology is a "moving target" that
requires ongoing leadership and coordination. In retrospect, the
prior projection that coordinators would "work themselves out of
their jobs" in two to five years failed to take into account the
complexity of implementing new computer-based applications and the
sustained effort it would require of teachers.
Present findings have also shown, however, that school-based technology coordinators, when allocated sufficient time to do their work, provide a variety of functions that help teachers to overcome these impediments. Effective coordinators help to obtain needed computer resources, provide training and follow-up support, organize and maintain the "nuts and bolts" of the programs, and collaboratively plan with teachers for technology integration.
In conclusion, data gathered indicate that we are still in the
midst of a transitional period in which the benefits of teaching and
learning with technology do not necessarily outweigh the costs. While
teachers are increasingly citing the benefits of computer use by
students, they also note the considerable costs in terms of the time
it takes to find appropriate software, learn new applications, and
arrange for limited student access to computers. Furthermore, new
computer-based applications tend to take teachers out of their
"comfort zone" with all of the risks involved in implementing new
methods and materials. Overall, it seems clear that as access to
high-quality, technology-based applications increase in schools, more
teachers will make use of those applications on a regular basis.
Meanwhile, during the transition to increased technology use, the
support provided by on-site coordinators appears critical for many
teachers and serves to "tip the scales" for those weighing the costs
and benefits. As was concluded in the initial study, it appears that
without the implementation support that the coordinators provide, it
is unlikely that technology will fulfill its potential to impact
teaching and learning in school programs in the coming years.
Neal Strudler is an associate professor in the Department
of Instructional and Curricular Studies and the coordinator of
educational computing and technology in the College of Education at
the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. He received his Ph.D. from the
University of Oregon in 1987. (Address: College of Education,
University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Las Vegas, NV 89154; Email:
strudler@nevada.edu)
Barbour, A. (1986). Electronic learning's first annual computer
coordinator survey. Electronic Learning, 5 (5),
35-38.
Beaton, C. (1985). Identifying change agent strategies, skills, and
outcomes: the case of district-based staff development specialists.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Oregon.
Becker, H.J. (in press), How our best computer-using teachers differ
from other teachers: Implications for realizing the potential for
using computers in schools. Journal of Research on Computing in
Education .
Berman, P., & McLaughlin, M. (1978). Federal Programs
supporting educational change, Vol. VII, Factors affecting
implementation and continuation . Santa Monica, CA : Rand
Corporation.
Bruder, I. (1990). The third computer coordinator survey.
Electronic Learning, 9 (7), 24-29.
Cuban, L. (1993). Computers meet classrooms: Classroom wins.
Teachers College Record 95(2) , 185-210.
Fullan, M. (1991). The new meaning of educational change (rev.
ed.) . New York: Teachers College Press.
McGinty, T. (1987). Electronic learning's second annual computer
coordinator survey: Growing pains--A portrait of an emerging
profession. Electronic Learning, 6 (5), 18-23,48.
Miles, M., Saxl, E., & Lieberman, A. (1988). What skills do
educational "change agents" need? An empirical view. Curriculum
Inquiry 18(2) , 157-193.
Papert, S. (1993). The children's machine: Rethinking school in
the age of the computer . New York: Basic Books.
Sheingold, K., & Hadley, M. (1990). Accomplished teachers:
Integrating computers into classroom practice New York: Center
for Technology in Education, Bank Street College.
Strauss, A. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social
scientists . New York: Cambridge University Press.
Strudler, N.B., & Gall, M.D. (1988, April). Overcoming
impediments to microcomputer implementation in the classroom. A
paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational
Research Association, New Orleans, LA (Eric No. ED 298 938).
U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment. (1988, September).
Power on! New tools for teaching and learning , OTA-SET
379. Washington D.C: U.S. Government Printing Office.
U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment. (1995, April).
Teachers and Technology: Making the Connections ,
OTA-EHR-616. Washington D.C: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Yin, R.K (1989). Case study research: Design and methods. Newbury
Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.