The influence of organizational culture on technology integration in teacher education.

This study examines the technology integration practices of post-secondary math teacher educators. Four math teacher educators in the Commonwealth of Virginia were interviewed and observed teaching to form a picture of how they have developed as technology users, and identify the factors that have promoted or inhibited their adoption of technological innovations. Organizational culture theory and symbolic interactionism make up the conceptual framework used to identify the participants as individual members of a larger organization who interact to define the technological cultures at their institutions. Analytic induction is used to generate and support a main empirical assertion about the technology adoption practices of these math teacher educators. Results of the study suggest that technology integration by math teacher educators in a school of education is a social process that must have administrative and institutional support to succeed.

**********

There is an oft-repeated expression in education that people tend to teach the way they were taught (Bull & Cooper, 1997; Handler, 1993). Professors who work in teacher education prepare those who will be responsible for the education of future generations. Handler (1993) emphasized this point: "Consider that the students who are graduating from teacher training programs throughout the United States will be in classrooms, impacting on students, for the next 30 years" (p. 147). If students emulate the practice of their teachers, then preservice teachers' use of technology in education will be based, in large part, on the examples set for them in university teacher education programs.

This means that the role of the teacher educator in technology integration in schools is vital. The impact they can have on preservice teachers is significant, and maximizing that impact can help improve the integration of technology in K-12 classrooms. The technology integration model that classroom teachers follow in their own practice directly affects how they use technology with their elementary and secondary students. Thus, focusing on teacher educators and models of technology integration is important for understanding and shaping what happens in the classroom.

The purpose of this study was to investigate the beliefs and practices of math teacher educators in the area of technology integration. An examination of the factors that have promoted or inhibited the use of technology in teacher educators' careers adds to the understanding of how they decide to adopt or reject technological innovations, how they use technology in teacher education programs, and how to best structure attempts to change their practice by promoting the integration of technology in their teaching.

While the unit of analysis for the study is the individual math teacher educator at each of four universities, the conceptual framework emphasizes the need to look beyond the individual educator to their larger organizations, and to examine how their interaction with other members affects their technology integration practices. The literature on innovation diffusion in organizations points to a difference between adoption by organizations and by individuals, because often it is not possible for an individual to adopt an innovation until it has first been adopted by the larger organization (Rogers, 1995). As with individuals, however, the innovation-decision process in organizations tends to occur in a series of stages. The initiation phase, leading up to the decision to adopt or reject an innovation, consists of identifying organizational problems that can be addressed through adoption, and then matching those problems up with potential innovations. Once the adoption decision is made, implementation occurs. During this phase, the innovation is modified to fit the organizational structure and procedures, and is gradually incorporated until it is no longer innovative (Gross, Giacquinta, & Bernstein, 1971; Huff & Dickson, 1991; Rogers, 1995).

There is a complexity involved in the definition of an organization, such as a school of education, which goes beyond its existence as a single entity. In such an organization, the professional practices of teacher educators are influenced by the beliefs, practices, and attitudes of the larger organization. Sanderlands & Stablein (1987) stated that an organization is neither the individuals that it is comprised of, nor an entity by itself. It is defined not by individual action within the organization, but according to the interaction of its members. When the definition of an organization is expanded to include the concept of "mind" (Sanderlands & Stablein, 1987), it encompasses the creation and exchange of shared ideas as well. Cook and Yanow (1993) used the example of a symphony orchestra to illustrate this complexity: no single musician can perform an entire symphony. At the same time, while an orchestra can perform the symphony in its entirety, it depends on the performance of its individual members to do so.

The organizational context in which faculty technology innovation takes place is significant. Cook and Yanow (1993) stated that organizational culture arises out of the intersubjective actions and meanings that members create as they function and interact in the organization. Eventually, these meanings and actions come to define the culture of the organization, and learning is said to take place as the organization strives to modify or maintain its cultural identity in the form of those actions and meanings. An organization learns when it successfully changes its behavior to either modify or preserve the beliefs, values, and artifacts that are shared by its members.

While much has been written about preservice teachers' need for effective models of technology integration (Barker, Helm, & Taylor, 1995; Brown & Henscheid, 1997; Brunner, 1992; Bull & Cooper, 1997; Handler, 1993; President's Panel on Educational Technology; 1997; Wetzel, 1993; Willis & Mehlinger, 1996), and about effective ways to ensure integration by teacher educators (Barker et al.; Brunner; Bull & Cooper; Duffield, 1997; Falba, 1997; Thompson, Schmidt, & Hadjiyianni, 1995; Topp, Mortenson, & Grandgenett, 1995; Zachariades & Killingsworth Roberts, 1995), there has been little research about organizational culture in technology integration in teacher education. Discussions of the influence of organizational culture on technology integration have been limited to analyses of institutional factors that should be considered when implementing technological change. There has been no direct attempt to investigate the role of organizational culture in technology integration and change in teacher education.

The purpose of this article is to examine the role of organizational culture theory in technology integration in teacher education. More specifically, the major assertion of this study is that there are three main organizational factors that affect how math teacher educators integrate technology: (a) how the organization allocates and uses its technology resources, (b) how the teacher educators interact with the key technology players in their organization, and (c) the influence of organizational culture on technological innovation. Each of these organizational factors is examined from the perspectives of the four math teacher educators who participated in the study, and how they have attempted to integrate technology into their practice. As stated previously, this examination is framed by organizational culture theory (Cook & Yanow, 1993) due to the fact that each participant is a member of a school of education, and their professional practices are influenced by the beliefs, practices, and attitudes of the larger organization.

METHODS

Conceptual Framework

Bolster (1983) stated that the traditional, experimental design approach to research in education produces results that are framed in a theoretical perspective. He argued that this makes the results of little or no use to classroom teachers, who are less interested in propositional knowledge that generalizes across contexts than in an understanding of how the teaching and learning processes work in their classrooms. Bolster's conclusion is that academic research on teaching, research that actually influences teaching practices, can benefit from a symbolic interactionist perspective (Blumer, 1969), wherein individual classrooms contain unique cultures in which individuals interact, make sense of interaction, and act according to shared meanings of their environment. He argued that this approach is more consistent with teachers' views of their own work. The goal is "to provide an indepth understanding of the complexity of a particular classroom rather than the experimental derivation of a selected number of elements whose relationship can be replicated elsewhere" (p. 305).

This study is grounded in the symbolic interactionist perspective, and proceeds under the assumption that any context contains multiple realities that are subject to reconstruction at any time by the individuals interacting in that context (Blumer, 1969). The creation of meaning through social interaction is a complex and dynamic process that takes a new form in each instantiation, regardless of the variables involved. The search for meaning and understanding of the complex nature of reality are hallmarks of the qualitative approach to research (Glesne & Peshkin, 1992; Patton, 2002). Accordingly, this is an interpretive study conducted using Erickson's (1986) model of analytic induction.

Methodology

The unit of analysis for this study is the individual math teacher educator at each of four schools of education in the Commonwealth of Virginia. Purposive sampling was used to select a group of four math educators from those currently teaching at seven doctoral granting universities in the state. Snowball sampling (Patton, 2002) was also used to select the initial participant for this study, and was based on his efforts to integrate technology into his math methods courses. After an in-depth discussion in which the purposes for the study were analyzed, he was able to suggest three other post-secondary math teacher educators from the pool of all possible participants at the seven universities based on what he believed their experience could bring to the study. He felt that their history of technology use was long and varied enough to provide a diverse picture of technology-using math teacher educators. The three remaining schools of education were not considered due to the status of their math education programs, which were either undergoing changes in personnel or adjusting to recent personnel changes.

To compensate for the fallibility of research methods, Erickson (1986) called for the use of multiple methods in the research process. For this study, interviews, observations, and document collection were used to gather data in the field. To provide further triangulation of data, interview and observation data were collected from multiple sources. In-depth interviews were conducted with participants based on the general interview guide approach (Patton, 2002). Initial interviews of approximately 60 minutes were conducted with each participant. Further interviews, of approximately the same duration, occurred as data collection and analysis proceeded in order to follow up on questions and provide clarification when necessary.

Multiple observations were conducted in the math methods classes taught by the four participants over two semesters. These were classes in which the participants worked with preservice teachers on ways to teach various mathematical concepts in K-12 classrooms. The initial observations were unstructured in an effort to get a general picture of what was happening in these classes. Further observations were structured according to themes and categories that arose from initial data analysis.

Documents were collected from each site and analyzed to enrich the researchers' understanding of the context in which each participant makes adoption decisions. These were documents that provided contextual and administrative information, such as course schedules, informational brochures, lesson plans, mission statements, and institutional web sites.

In Erickson's (1986) model of analytic induction, data analysis is a two-step process. The first step is the generation of empirical assertions about what is happening in the environment. These were inductively generated during the course of fieldwork as data were examined in the form of field notes, interview notes and transcripts, observation notes and write-ups, and site documents as previously described. The second step is to establish evidentiary warrants for these assertions. This was done through repeated, systematic searches of the data, to look for evidence that supported or refuted the assertions.

Context--Participants and Sites

Dr. Walters has a joint appointment in the math and teacher education departments at University One. He has a history of technology use throughout his career. He believes that he is generally on the leading edge of technology users in terms of when he adopts new technological tools, but not in terms of his ability to use them. He admits to an enthusiasm for new technologies and a drive to acquire them.

As a math teacher educator, Dr. Shaw has access to the numerous technology resources available at University Two. However, he admits that he has traditionally been skeptical about the practicality of most technological tools. Throughout his career, he has worked with several esteemed educational technology researchers. He has adopted many different technological tools as they became available, and eventually given up on most of them. Until recently, he has felt that the technologies that were promoted for educational use were impractical for large-scale implementation; they were either too complex or too costly. This attitude changed with the advent of the Internet. Soon after its appearance and growth in popularity, Dr. Shaw realized that it could allow open, inexpensive access to large amounts of mathematically relevant materials and information, and it could potentially change the way math is taught.

Dr. Hendricks is a math teacher educator at University Three. His use of technology began when he was a graduate student. He conducted research using the statistical software SPSS on a mainframe computer, and he used four-function calculators in an introductory statistics course that he taught. Like Dr. Walters, he bought one of the first graphing calculators on the market, and quickly began to use it in his teaching.

    I taught a class like an introduction to graphing calculators before
    they were popular ... Very few people were actually used it in their
    teaching. When I did this class with them no one had ever touched
    them before. Everybody showed up ... I mean, they were all wrapped
    up, nobody had played with them.

He was unable to find any quality teaching materials for graphing calculators at the time, so he developed his own. Even though he had used main-frame computers as a graduate student, Dr. Hendricks did not seek out a personal computer when they became available. However, when a colleague gave him one, he began to use it regularly for personal productivity, and eventually in his math methods classes. He is currently codirecting a grant project for which he is developing materials for math teacher educators that integrate technology into the teaching and learning of mathematical concepts.

Dr. Simpson has only been at University Four for two years, and is one of a small group of faculty members in the school of education who regularly use technology in their classes. His history of technology use in math education extends back to the late 1960s, when he pursued the use of computers in math education even though computer technology was not readily available to most educators. He has championed and demonstrated the use of technology in math education throughout his career. In his public school classrooms, he managed to use computers before the advent of personal computers by borrowing equipment, forming relationships with people at local universities, and competing for grant money. He has written grants for bringing computer technology into rural school districts and for using computers with handicapped students. His use of computers in instruction continued when he went into higher education, where he has worked on projects at both University Three and University Four to integrate technology into local schools. He is currently working to help increase the technological capabilities of the school of education to make his own integration efforts more successful.

Universities One, Two, and Three are medium to large public universities, with strong emphases on graduate and undergraduate education. All three have developed a strong reputation for the use of technology in teacher education, and faculty members have been successful in generating funding for projects involving technology integration in teacher education. University Four, is a small, public university that has a tradition of focusing on undergraduate education. The school of education has only recently begun to work on developing a reputation for the use of technology in their teacher education program.

RESULTS

Organizations serve as significant contexts for the integration of technology by individual faculty members in colleges of education. Organizations are social in nature; individual members make meaning through interaction with others in their environment. The organization is neither an entity in itself nor simply a collection of individuals. Action within an organization defines how it operates, but that action is, in turn, affected by the daily operations of the organization. The educators in this study have all been affected, either positively or negatively, by the individual and organizational attitudes about, and uses of, technology in their schools of education. The influences of the organizational context on technology integration can be classified under three main categories: (a) allocation and use of technology resources, (b) interaction with key technology players, and (c) the influence of organizational culture on technological innovation and integration.

Allocation and Use of Technology Resources

The technology resources and support available to faculty members directly affects the extent to which technology is integrated into daily practice. Regardless of an educator's level of interest in technology, limited technological resources directly impact the ability of faculty to use technology in their practice. For all four participants, discussions about the amount of technology resources at their institution centered on issues of support, space and money.

Universities One, Two, and Three. When asked to describe any barriers to technology integration that he has encountered in his school of education, Dr. Hendricks, at University Three, replied,

    The usual two: space and money. But, I don't view the barriers we
    have had in space and money as sort of unreasonable. I realize that
    almost every faculty member, certainly every department, and maybe
    every program area has been asking for more space and money. I'm not
    going to say that they haven't given me what I've asked for, I'm
    reasonable about that. I know that the demands for space and
    equipment and money are much more than can be handled.

Dr. Walters and Dr. Shaw expressed similar opinions, and all three were generally satisfied with the amount and type of technology resources and support available to them. While they agree that there is never enough space or money, all three feel their organizations provide a reasonable amount of resources for the work that is expected of them. Instructional technology faculty, key technology players, and technology support personnel at the same three institutions expressed satisfaction with the availability of hardware and software resources. This is not unexpected, since all three are large, relatively resource-rich universities. However, they all felt that their organizations were lacking adequate technology support personnel. The problem, as explained by the head of technology support in the school of education at University Three is that there are just not enough people hired to work specifically with the technological infrastructure:

    We have more than enough equipment, software, repair, consulting,
    etc. The biggest downfall we have is we don't have enough qualified
    support personnel dedicated to technology. That's what we're limited
    in. That's where we're suffering.

While this lack of human resources is real, it is of more concern to those in the schools of education whose work is technology-focused. The participants at Universities One, Two, and Three all expressed satisfaction with the level and quality of technical support that they have received. This may be due to the fact that as math educators, they are concerned with their own technology use, and are not necessarily aware of all the technology needs that exist in their organizations. More technologically oriented faculty and staff, however, are acutely aware of the range of technology needs, because they are the ones to whom problems are reported, and from whom solutions are expected.

University Four. Dr. Simpson's experience at university four has not been as positive as those at the other universities. He is appreciative of his Dean's willingness to support technology integration, but frustrated by the reality of what has happened as he has tried to do what he wants with technology. More than once he has asked for equipment, received the dean's approval, and been given less than he requested by technology support personnel. On one occasion, he received funding from the dean for hardware, but had difficulty getting the business personnel to make the purchase:

    We had written a mini-grant to the Provost's office, and I don't
    know exactly how it came about and such, whether the money actually
    came from the Provost, or [the dean] dug deep into his pockets, but
    he came up with about $10,000 for us to buy graphing calculators,
    sensors, [calculator-based laboratories], [CD-ROM's], and all this
    stuff. Unfortunately, to the best we can tell, the purchase order
    has not gone out of the college yet. Apparently no purchase orders
    have gone out that are over $1,000 since mid-January [2 months prior
    to this interview]. If it's under $1,000 you can just send them out.
    So the kids are gone, and we still don't have the equipment.

Because of his extensive background in the use of technology in math education, he has a clear idea of how he would like to integrate it into his teaching, and what he would need to do so. When he has been unable to get the equipment he needs, it has made the integration of technology into his teaching more difficult.

He resents the fact that decisions are made about the kind of equipment he needs as a faculty member without consultation, since those decisions have a direct impact on the type of equipment he receives. For example, when he requested a ZIP drive for his own use, the staff member in charge of electronic equipment decided that one ZIP drive would be able to serve the whole faculty. As a result, he had to go out of his way to confirm the dean's approval for the purchase.

The experiences of these educators indicate that access to resources does affect technology integration practices. Dr. Simpson expressed dissatisfaction with the availability of technology resources, and was the only one to state that access to those resources has affected his technology use. The other three participants in this study expressed satisfaction with the technology resources available to them, and did not name access to those resources as an important factor in their integration of technology.

Interaction with Key Players

When technology users ally themselves with the key technology players in an organization it increases their access to technology resources, which directly affects how they use technology in their career. At each of the four universities, there is a network of key personnel that supports the administration and maintenance of hardware/software, infrastructure, and technology use in the school of education. In most cases, this network includes the dean, one or more members of his or his staff, faculty members who have been appointed to specially created technology-related positions, faculty members from the instructional technology program, technological support staff, and interested faculty members from other programs in the school of education.

University One. As a joint appointee, Dr. Walters splits his instructional, research, and service time between the math department and the school of education. He has purposely chosen not to ally himself directly with any of the key players in the math department or the school of education. He is a member of both faculties, but does not identify himself with one more than the other. He has chosen to be housed in the math department, but is not currently involved with their activities; he is not teaching any mathematics courses. At the same time, he is not directly linked to the school of education on a daily basis. He attends faculty meetings and interacts with other teacher education faculty, but he primarily uses the math department's resources, including their hardware, software, and technological support.

While he has equal access to the resources of the school of education, he chooses not to use them. This is, in part, a matter of convenience. The math department is very technologically oriented. Faculty members throughout the building use technology in their teaching and for personal productivity. There are computer labs available for math department students and classes, as well as hardware and software for faculty use. There is enough hardware, software, and support to allow him to integrate technology as he chooses.

His choice is also a matter of autonomy. As a result of his joint appointee status Dr. Walters feels that there is not a single authority to whom he is responsible: "We are kind of a narrow group and there is no one really looking down from above." This has allowed him a certain level of independence in how he uses technology, and he appreciates this freedom. He is able to integrate technology, while still getting support from the math department.

University Two. Dr. Shaw also chooses to isolate himself, to a certain extent, within his sphere of the university. He differs from Dr. Walters, however, in that he works exclusively in the school of education, and carefully limits his contact with other users of technology. He works on a regular basis with member of the instructional technology faculty, but purposely limits his technological involvement in order to focus specifically on math:

    I'm very careful, because I want to be cautious. Because at the end
    of 35 years in higher education, I don't want to be caught in a
    career shift. I'm not interested in becoming an instructional
    technology faculty member. If I can find ways to use instructional
    technology and its principals, and improving math education using
    physical manipulative materials, let's go for it. I'm walking a very
    strange line here. Everybody's got their own pathway as they move
    through the profession. I'd love to get three of [the instructional
    technology faculty members] to work on my stuff, and of course,
    three of them would love to get me to work on their stuff. So
    there's always, in higher education, this delicate negotiation. And
    I'm walking a very careful line to make sure I'm not sucked in to
    being another instructional technology faculty member working on
    project Q, rather than a math educator working on project A.

While he understands the value of using technology in his instruction, he is hesitant to get too involved with key technology players for fear that the technological aspects of any joint project will overshadow the mathematics. He feels that this gives him a certain amount of autonomy to pursue technology integration in his own fashion.

University Three. During his time at university three, Dr. Hendricks has collaborated on projects with Dr. Smith, one of the biggest technology players in the school of education. Dr. Smith has promoted Dr. Hendricks' use of technology during their partnership, and is responsible for giving him his first personal computer at a time when they were not widely used, and before he had asked for one:

    I knew it was [Dr. Smith]. I knew he had something to do with it. He
    figured I should have one. It was a time when literally ... I don't
    know how many people had computers but they were starting to get
    them and we had this IBM grant and all these computers. That was a
    major turning point.

Currently, they are working together on a grant focused on the use of technology in teacher education. As part of the grant, Dr. Hendricks heads a team that is developing materials that use technology in teaching math. A large percentage of his academic duties are currently centered on this grant. His office has been moved to a building outside of the school of education that has been reserved for grant activities, and the majority of his recent publications and conference presentations have been focused on his work for the project. Much of his work in his math methods classes is based on the technology-infused materials his team is developing. So the way in which he is currently using technology in his teaching is a result of his partnership with Dr. Smith.

University Four. Dr. Simpson's interaction with key technology players has been affected by the fact that he previously worked with Dr. Hendricks at University Three. While he was there, he also worked extensively with Dr. Smith, and is thus aware of the possibilities that exist for beneficial collaboration with the key players in a school of education; possibilities he feels are lacking in his current organization. In particular, he is aware of the lack of a technology committee at University Four. He served as his department's representative on the technology committee at University Three, and feels that his current efforts to use technology have been more difficult because he lacks the opportunity for collaboration and input provided by such a committee:

    The other thing that I particularly liked was the committee, the way
    it was set up, the technology committee at [University Three], that
    anybody who was interested could attend. Anybody could come that was
    interested in technology. Everybody knew exactly what was going on,
    it was sort of group decision making, in that the chairs had their
    part of the decision making and the dean's office had their part in
    the decision making. So I think we all felt that we had real input
    in to what was going on, and that they were very receptive to our
    needs. If I came up with an idea of "hey I want to try something,"
    there were people there that would either tell me I was crazy or
    point me in the right direction and give me some feedback, which was
    absolutely fantastic. When I came here, it was like okay, where is
    the technology committee? What do we do? Nothing. I have nothing,
    there is none, there is no way to express my concerns or interests
    or anything like that.

Dr. Simpson is currently the only math educator in the teacher education department, and must go outside of his content area to collaborate with colleagues. He is also one of a small group of faculty members that use technology extensively in their teaching. This means that any collaboration with other teacher educators in his organization is necessarily limited by a small pool of potential collaborators. He is affected as well by the fact that he previously worked in the school of education at University Three, which employs more than a single math educator, and thus gave him a larger group of colleagues with whom to collaborate.

Dr. Simpson's inability to collaborate at a level he finds satisfactory, and the impact that has on his use of technology, demonstrates how interaction between members of an organization affects technology integration. Dr. Hendricks believes he has been able to integrate technology to a greater extent because of his partnership with Dr. Smith, and this relationship is currently shaping what he does as a professional.

At the same time, choosing to limit interaction with these key players can free up an individual user to determine their own path of integration outside the influence of technology leaders in the organization. While Dr. Walters and Dr. Shaw have limited collaboration to a certain extent, this has been a conscious choice that has served their technology integration purposes. Also, the potential does exist for collaboration because they are both in schools of education that have more than one math educator on their faculty, and there are some readily identifiable key technology players. Dr. Simpson, however, has no choice. He currently lacks the ability to form the type of partnerships that he feels could most benefit his integration efforts. Whether he chooses to collaborate or not, the potential does not exist in his organization to a satisfactory extent; lack of opportunities for collaboration has negatively impacted his ability to integrate technology into practice.

Organizational Culture and Technology

The ways in which members of an organization view technology and its use, especially those members who control the organization's technology resources, impact the use of technology in that organization. The experiences of these four math educators illustrate the fact that technology integration involves more than the individual. In their efforts to integrate technology into their practice, they have all been supported or hindered by what is happening technologically in their larger organizations. All four of these universities promote the use of technology in education. The four schools of education have all become partners in the Virginia Educational Technology Alliance, which demonstrates their dedication to integrating technology into their teacher education programs. However, there are some significant differences in how technology is used and supported at each institution.

University One. Even though he has chosen not to ally himself directly with any of the key technology players in his environment, Dr. Walters feels supported in his efforts to integrate technology. The math department at university one favors the use of technology in mathematics instruction. This attitude is reflected in the creation of the Math Center, which is a state of the art computer lab housed in a former warehouse next to campus. The lab houses 500 high-end, Windows-compatible Macintosh computers and contains facilities for conducting distance education with video and telephone technology, and the department has begun the process of putting courses online.

Dr. Walters is not atypical in the math department. Like University Two, the math department at university one periodically offers technology training for faculty that provides a free computer as an incentive for participation. He has many colleagues who use technology in their instruction and for personal productivity, and works in an environment that supports and encourages the integration of technology into math education. While he has managed to create his own niche that is neither completely in the math department nor the school of education, the support he receives from both departments enables him to pursue his own methods for integrating technology into his practice without someone "looking over his shoulder."

University Two. Dr. Shaw characterized university two as "A technology university." Technology use is promoted campus-wide and the administration has been very supportive of faculty use of technology. A three-step plan that includes access, training, and integration has been implemented to increase faculty use of technology in their work:

    The way we've developed it here at [university two], it's a
    collective vision of the faculty. We've had a creative
    administration that has used some pretty good tools and techniques
    for, over a period of several years, having the faculty develop a
    plan for where it wanted to go. From my experience, it's one of the
    most open-ended approaches, i.e., the administration didn't lay very
    much on the faculty at all. They basically said, what are your
    goals? Where do you want to go, and how do you think you want to get
    there? It took several years to come up with a plan, and technology
    is one of the 5 or 6 major thrusts the school has.

He believes that this concrete institutional plan for integration has created an environment that is very conducive to technology use. He especially praised the administration's collaborative approach to developing a long-term technology plan. He thinks that the inclusion of faculty in the planning process has given them an incentive to participate. Their use of technology is reflected in the vision and goals of the university, because they helped create that vision.

In the school of education, several incentives have been offered to faculty for using technology. Dr. Shaw believes that the most important of these is administrative support for faculty initiative: "I think the best incentive we've got is this attitude in our administration that says, 'be creative. Come to us with some proposals, and we'll do what we can to help you.' I think that's a brilliant strategy."

He characterizes this support in terms of how it provides freedom for creativity, and praises it as an effective strategy for motivating faculty to work with innovative ideas and technologies. While this attitude is not restricted to ideas about using technology, he has been able to get some funding for technology-based projects because of it.

Dr. Shaw also cited training opportunities and the level of technology support as important factors for getting faculty members to use technology in the school of education. He believes that the type of training that has been offered, in which participants were given a state-of-the-art laptop computer upon successful completion of the course, has been effective in promoting technology use. He feels that the competence of the support staff in the school of education makes it easy for faculty members like him, who don't care about the "nuts and bolts" of the technology, to use it in their teaching and research.

University Three. Dr. Hendricks works in a school of education that is nationally recognized for technology integration in teacher education. The school recently won a national award for the use of technology by faculty and staff throughout the building. The administration has placed a priority on technology use, and has created a special faculty position to study the use of technology by faculty and staff, and suggest means for increasing and improving technology integration school wide. Roughly 80% of faculty members in the school of education use technology regularly in some capacity. If they choose, they can attend meetings of the technology committee and voice their opinions in a forum dedicated to technology use in the school of education.

Dr. Hendricks believes that all of these factors have contributed to the creation of an environment in which technology is available, and its use is promoted. He has been able to focus his recent work on a technology-based grant because he gets the support he needs to do what he wants. Although the grant provides money for the necessary hardware and software, he believes that their project would not have been successful if the administration had not dedicated space specifically for their team, as well as access to the technology support staff when necessary. The technology friendly environment that has been created at this school of education has made it possible for him to successfully integrate technology into his current practice.

University Four. Dr. Simpson has a unique basis for comparison of his current situation to what he has done in the past. As previously mentioned, he was a faculty member at University Three where he experienced a high level of technology support and usage by other faculty members. He feels that there is a desire in the school of education to advance technologically, but technology has not yet become part of the institutional culture:

    Everybody else is groping. It's not just me trying to come up with a
    better way to do something. There is the desire, there is the
    commitment, but they've got a long way to go to catch up to where
    [university three] is. I guess I was just spoiled by being up there,
    because it was just part of the culture up there. It's not yet here.
    There is a desire for it to become such, but it's not there. We are
    getting there but I kind of felt when I came here that I went
    backwards.

As stated, Dr. Simpson perceives the lack of a technology committee at University Four as an important institutional weakness. He misses the opportunity such a committee provides for voicing his needs and opinions, and for staying in touch with what is happening with technology throughout the school of education. He feels that the lack of such a committee is symptomatic of the need for a clear vision of how the school should move forward with technology. While a technology implementation plan has been constructed for the school of education, he finds it difficult to identify the driving force behind efforts to move forward with technology integration:

    I guess, theoretically there is a plan on paper, but it probably is
    at least four or five years old. It sounds terrible to say I have no
    idea how the plan is actually.... or if there even is one. That is
    one of the big weaknesses that I see here. There is this lack of
    structure and ways for people's voices to be heard ... The larger
    faculty has no voice and no stake. I don't see people taking a lot
    of ownership. I don't see people dreaming.

Dr. Simpson finds it difficult to integrate technology in this environment because there seem to be no clear leaders or users who can set an example for those who are interested in using technology. He also feels that some of the administration and support personnel lack confidence in the faculty's ability to use technology. The faculty in the school of education does not have a history of significant technology use in their practice, and this has created a general assumption in the school of education that they are unable or unwilling to use technology. The dean is making a concerted effort to increase technology use in the school of education, but this assumption about faculty members' technological capabilities has created an environment in which faculty efforts to integrate technology are not always taken seriously:

    I feel very frustrated because I feel that I'm not consulted about
    anything that has to do within my own courses, and that every time I
    say I want or need something there is this kind of like, "well, why
    would anybody in their right mind ever ..." There is not a
    thoughtful response.

Being one of those who integrates more technology in his teaching than most, he resents the assumption that he is incompetent, or simply not interested in using it.

The support of technology use by faculty in the school of education at university four is qualitatively different than at the other three universities. While the dean of the school of education supports Dr. Simpson in his efforts to integrate technology, the longstanding assumption that faculty members are unable or unwilling to use technology makes it difficult for him to integrate technology, the way he would like:

    Just the frustration of there not being clear who is responsible for
    what and everybody giving you the run around making you go to so and
    so, and so and so doesn't do that. It's been extremely frustrating.
    Nobody really knowing who has the responsibility or how it even
    works. So there is really no chance of expanding into new areas,
    hardly, when it is such a battle to get the existing.... I don't
    know, I just find it very frustrating.

At the other three universities, the administrations are fully supportive of technology use by faculty members, and no apparent assumptions are made about their technological ability or interest; support and adequate resources are provided so that they will be able to use technology in ways that suit their interests, abilities, and needs.

DISCUSSION

As members of an organization interact and function within their organizational context, they develop a shared set of meanings, beliefs, and values that define their organizational culture (Cook & Yanow, 1993; Smircich, 1983). While each of the participants in this study is an individual user of technology, their efforts to integrate technology into their practice are embedded within organizations. Each participant has been affected, either positively or negatively, by the organizational culture in which they work. In higher education, this culture tends to be influenced by the tenure process; individuals are focused on performing in a way that will best lead to promotion. Currently, innovative practice such as the integration of technology into instruction is not normally linked to traditional tenure and promotion activity.

The literature on technology integration in teacher education highlights the importance of such organizational factors as administrative support for technology integration (Brunner, 1992; Bull & Cooper, 1997; Falba, 1997; Parker, 1996; Thompson et al., 1995; Topp et al., 1995; Wetzel, 1993; Zachariades & Killingsworth Roberts, 1995) and administrative expectations of, and incentives for, technology use (Barker et al., 1995; Brunner; Bull & Cooper; Topp et al.). However, it does not specifically address the relationship between organizational culture and the technology integration process. The results of this study indicate that any effort to understand the integration of technology into teacher education should take organizational influences on faculty practice into account.

Rogers (1995) maintained that it is often not possible for individuals to adopt innovations until they are first adopted by their organizations. Organizational context plays a significant role in the diffusion of technology in teacher education. This means that forward movement in the adoption process may not be possible in isolation; potential adopters are constrained to the extent that their organizations are engaged in the adoption process. While individual adopters make use of innovations in their own way, that use is shaped in part by the extent to which organizational attitudes and resources support individual efforts. Certainly, organizational context acts as a significant condition of technology integration by individual faculty members, either promoting or constraining such practice.

The results of this study support this idea. All four of the participants have histories as technology users, and their technology integration practices define their classification as either early majority adopters or early adopters (Rogers, 1995). While they have pursued technology integration based on intrinsic motivations, they have not adopted it in isolation. The three participants who reported positive integration experiences in their organizations felt that the administration's attitude towards, and level of support for, technology use by faculty in their schools of education have facilitated their individual integration efforts. The fourth participant, who has had more difficulty realizing his vision of technology integration, has experienced setbacks due to a mistaken assumption by administrators that he, as a member of a faculty that has historically not used technology, is unable or unwilling to integrate technology into his practice. In all four organizations in this study, members' attitudes towards technology integration have influenced the individual adopters' efforts. The examination of the organizational culture at each institution fostered a fuller understanding of individual technology integration practices.

While it is important to consider the individual adopter as a member of a larger organization, it is also useful to examine organizational adoption practices in order to understand how they support or inhibit individual adoption practices. According to much of the literature on innovation diffusion in organizations, the adoption process takes place in a series of stages (e.g., Gross et al., 1971; Huff & Dickenson, 1991; Rogers, 1995). The results of the present study support this idea. University Four could currently be classified in the initiation phase, in which organizational problems that can be addressed through adoption are identified and matched with potential innovations. Members of the organization are still in the process of negotiating how technology integration should proceed. While Dr. Simpson has a clear idea of how he would like to use technology in his teaching, his efforts have been hindered at times, because his vision is not always in synch with that of the school of education. He often feels frustrated in his efforts because the administration and faculty have not reached the same point as he has in the adoption process; technology use that he considers routine is still seen by the organization as innovative.

The three other universities in this study appear to be in the advanced stage of the implementation phase, during which an innovation is modified to fit the structure and procedures of the organization. In this phase, the innovation is modified until it is no longer seen as innovative. In the schools of education at universities one, two, and three, the use of technology in teacher education is becoming part of regular practice, which has made it easier for the participants to integrate technology into their teaching.

When using organizational culture theory to frame the study of technology integration in teacher education, it is also important to consider the concept of organizational learning. Cook and Yanow (1993) stated that an organization learns when, in the process of adopting an innovation, it successfully changes its behavior to either modify or preserve the beliefs and values shared by its members. The schools of education at universities one, two, and three have successfully learned as organizations, because the use of technology in teacher education has been adopted to the extent that it is now part of the organizational culture. Use of technology by Dr. Walters, Dr. Shaw, and Dr. Hendricks is supported because it is not outside the realm of normal organizational practices.

In Dr. Simpson's case, however, some of his attempts to integrate technology have met resistance because they are not part of the organizational culture. Cook and Yanow (1993) suggested that initial innovation adoption efforts by organizations are marked by an attempt to incorporate the innovation in a way that does not significantly alter the existing system. The adoption is successful when the innovation becomes part of the regular organizational operating routine. While some of the ways in which Dr. Simpson wants to use technology would not be considered innovative at the other three universities, he has met some resistance at University Four because these uses represent change in the regular organizational routine of the school of education.

IMPLICATIONS FOR POLICY

The results of this study indicate that the organizational context in which teacher educators work plays a vital role in the integration of technology into their practice. Specifically, there are three major organizational factors that need to be addressed. The first factor is the availability and use of technology resources in a school of education, including the hardware, software, and technological support available to the teacher educators. To increase the chances that math teacher educators will use technology in their practice, organizations should maximize access to technology and technological support, so that educators are not required to spend extra time and energy obtaining the tools they need. To achieve maximum access, organizational leaders need to gather realistic and valid data about the availability of hardware, software, training, and support for university faculty members.

The second organizational factor involves teacher educators' relationships with the key technology players in their schools of education. These key players are people who take a larger, more active role in the development and implementation of an organization's technological vision. Part of this role is increased access to, and use of, the organization's technology resources. This access can make these players beneficial partners for teacher educators attempting to integrate technology into their practice.

The participants in this study have all developed different working relationships with the key technology players in their schools of education, ranging from close partnerships to complete avoidance. In the case of one participant, it is not clear who the key technology players in the organization are. In this situation it is difficult to establish this type of partnership with someone who has increased access to technology resources. As a result of this range of relationships between teacher educators and key technology personnel, administrators should foster a working environment that facilitates, but does not require, working relationships between faculty members.

The third organizational factor that should be addressed is the organizational attitude towards technology use, especially the attitudes held by teacher educators reflected in the organization's culture. In all four of the schools of education examined for this study, there is a positive attitude towards technology use in education. In three of the organizations, teacher educators are supported in their efforts to integrate technology into their teaching. In the fourth case, while the attitude towards technology is positive, there is a lingering opinion that faculty members are technologically incapable or uninterested. Spending extra time and energy fighting this image in order to get support has made it more difficult to integrate technology in that school of education. When thinking about technology diffusion and instructional change, resources should be set aside to examine the role of organizational leadership in the change process.

When efforts are made to integrate technology into teacher education, it is important to note the interplay between individual members in an organization. As the present study suggests, individual educators are members of organizations, and it is imperative to be aware of organizational operating procedures concerning technology integration. These include the assumptions, practices, and beliefs regarding technology within the organization. These factors should be used to inform how individual members can best achieve technology integration in their present environment. Individual innovative behavior is certainly a condition for technology diffusion in teacher education, but this behavior does not exist in a vacuum.

References

Barker, B.O., Helm, V., & Taylor, D.R. (1995). Reforming teacher education through the integration of advanced technologies: Case study report of a college model. Paper presented at the 47th annual meeting of the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, Washington, DC.

Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic interaction: Perspective and method. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Bolster, A.S., Jr. (1983). Toward a more effective model of research on teaching. Harvard Educational Review, 53(3), 294-308.

Brown, G., & Henscheid, J. (1997, September). The toe dip or the big plunge: Providing teachers effective strategies for using technology. TechTrends, 17-21.

Brunner, C. (1992). Integrating technology into the curriculum: Teaching the teachers (Tech. Rep. No. 25). New York: Bank Street College of Education.

Bull, G.L., & Cooper, J.M. (1997). Technology and teacher education: Past practice and recommended directions. Action in Teacher Education, 19(2), 97-106.

Cook, S.D.N., & Yanow, D. (1993). Culture and organizational learning. Journal of Management Inquiry, 2(4), 373-390.

Duffield, J.A. (1997, September). Trials, tribulations, and minor successes: Integrating technology into a preservice teacher preparation program. Tech Trends, 22-26.

Erickson, F. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In M.C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 119-161). New York: MacMillan.

Falba, C. J. (1997). Choreographing change one step at a time: Integrating technology in teacher education. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.

Glesne, C., & Peshkin, A. (1992). Becoming qualitative researchers. White Plains, NY: Longman.

Gross, N., Giacquinta, J.B., & Bernstein, M. (1971). Implementing organizational innovations: A sociological analysis of planned educational change. New York: Basic Books.

Handler, M.G. (1993). Preparing new teachers to use computer technology: Perceptions and suggestions for teacher educators. Computers in Education, 20(2), 147-156.

Huff, C. W., & Dickson, J.F., Jr. (1991). Finding stable support for computing in psychology: Lessons from innovation diffusion in organizations. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 23(2), 130-133.

Parker, R.D. (1996). Integration of and roadblocks to the use of technology in teaching and teacher education. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Southwest Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.

Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

President's Panel on Educational Technology (1997). Report to the president on the use of technology to strengthen K-12 education in the United States. Washington, DC: President's Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology.

Rogers, E.M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations (4th ed.). New York: The Free Press.

Sanderlands, L.E., & Stablein, R.E. (1987). The concept of organizational mind. In N. DiTomaso & S.B. Bacharach (Eds.), Research in the sociology of organizations (Vol. 5, pp. 135-162). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Smircich, L. (1983). Concepts of culture and organizational analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28(3), 339-358.

Thompson, A., Schmidt, D., & Hadjiyianni, E. (1995). A three-year program to infuse technology throughout a teacher education program. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 3(1), 13-24.

Topp, N.W., Mortenson, R., & Grandgenett, N. (1995). Goal: Technology-using teachers; Key: Technology-using faculty. Technology and Teacher Education Annual, 840-843.

Wetzel, K. (1993) Teacher educators' uses of computers in teaching. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 1(4), 335-352.

Willis, J.W., & Mehlinger, H.D. (1996). Information technology and teacher education. In John Sikula (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 978-1029). New York: Macmillan Library Reference.

Zachariades, I., & Killingsworth Roberts, S. (1995). A collaborative approach to helping teacher education faculty model technology integration in their courses: An informal case. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 3(4), 351-357.

PETER ADAMY

University of Rhode Island

Kingston, RI USA

[e-mail]

WALTER HEINECKE

University of Virginia

Charlottesville, VA USA

[e-mail]