Printer Friendly

Institutional change and resistance: teacher preparatory faculty and technology integration.

 This piece discusses issues of vision, skills and knowledge, and
 departmental culture as barriers to the integration of technology
 into teacher education courses. After a review of literature in
 these three areas, themes found from interviews with innovators at
 Western Michigan University are presented and discussed. Also
 included are recommendations for institutions seeking to integrate
 technology into their teacher preparatory curriculums.

"There is nothing more difficult to plan, more doubtful of success, nor more dangerous to manage than the creation of a new order or things ..."

Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince

This article describes a qualitative case study regarding potential barriers to the integration of technology into teacher-preparatory courses, as perceived by teacher-educators at one university. It includes major themes gleaned from interviews with change agents, framed by their visions for appropriate technology usage, their skills and knowledge, and their perceptions of departmental culture. Also included is a brief review of literature in each of these areas, as well as conclusions and recommendations made regarding institutional change and the integration of technology.

Preparing Tomorrow's Teachers To Use Technology (PT3) is a U.S. Department of Education grant awarded to over 400 universities. Western Michigan University accepted a grant in 1999. The primary focus of PT3 at WMU is to enable all WMU preservice graduates to proficiently use technology in order to engage students in 21st century collaborative, learner-centered environments (PT3 Grant Objectives, 2000). Thus teacher-preparatory faculty are being asked to model collaborative and learner-centered uses of technology for students, who will then integrate these ideas into their future classrooms. Identified in the first year of the grant was an implementation strategy. In essence, the implementation of the grant is about institutional change. While multi-faceted, one key component of WMU's institutional change strategy will be described in this article; the diffusion of grant objectives and integration of technology standards by faculty instructing teacher-preparatory courses. Specifically, perceptions of barriers to technology integration are addressed.

Technology standards that have guided and will continue to guide grant goals and objectives are provided by the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE). There are six broad areas identified by ISTE as critical to using technology in education: (a) Technology Operations and Concepts; (b) Planning and Designing Learning Environments; (c) Teaching, Learning and the Curriculum; (d) Assessment and Evaluation; (e) Productivity and Professional Practice; and (f) Social, Ethical, Legal, and Human Issues. One diffusion approach has been to encourage College of Education and Arts and Sciences faculty, through discussion, marketing, technological assistance, and professional development opportunities, to address the ISTE standards in their teacher-preparatory courses. These would then reinforce what elementary students learn in a specialized technology course, as well as reach those students seeking to become secondary educators or educators in other specialty areas, such as physical education, music, and art.

As this approach to the integration of technology in teaching is central to the institutional change the grant is intended to effect, it was important that grant evaluators understand the perceptions of the major players. One way to assess whether the grant initiatives to date are working, specifically, whether teacher-preparatory faculty are indeed changing, is to assess the roadblocks or barriers, as perceived by the participants themselves, in regards to the integration of technology into their classes or courses. Research methods used to do so are described next.

Research Methods

Collection of data on faculty perceptions came from many sources. One of these was through brief interviews, which were scheduled with key change agents, as identified by the PT3 project manager. Five faculty members from five different departments were interviewed in fall, 2001. The interview data is the basis of this article, serving as a qualitative case study. While generalizations cannot be made from these data with any sort of statistical certainty, the primary themes that came out of the interviews are provided as a way to begin a dialogue about the diffusion of technological change among teacher preparatory faculty. These themes were integral in the evaluation of the grant and prompted several recommendations that were made to grant staff, as well as the creation of a survey instrument to further assess the perceptions of teacher-preparatory faculty.

The interviews were intended to assess respondents' perceptions of barriers to the integration of technology across three different dimensions: (a) discussions or visions of appropriate use and pedagogical issues; (b) knowledge and skills; and (c) departmental culture and leadership. What follows is a brief review of the literature in each of the previously mentioned areas. This is followed by a discussion of major themes from the interviews with teacher-preparatory faculty, as well as conclusions that can be drawn from the findings regarding barriers to technology integration and the institutional change model being used at Western Michigan University. Recommendations are also included in the final section of the article. The survey derived from these data appears as Appendix A.

Review of Literature

Vision/pedagogy. According to Fuller (2000), teachers often wonder whether and how computer-based activities address educational objectives, suggesting that there is a lack of a clearly articulated vision for appropriate technology use. For instance, Doty and Hillman (2000) identified this lack of a clearly articulated vision and objectives as a significant barrier in the adoption of a technology portfolio program at Elmhurst College. They stated that some faculty, "Have expressed the desire to have clearer directions on the specific competencies and activities expected to be included in their courses" (p. 17). What needed to occur was more and higher quality discussions that included the faculty who were being asked to implement the program. Absent this type of discussion, "Innovation is often described as a bandwagon" (Hannan, English, & Silver, 1999, p. 279).

According to Ziscow (2000), "The goal of quality education should be the matching of learning styles with teaching style" (p. 38). To do so, schools and universities need to be able to (a) assess various learning styles; and (b) teach using various teaching styles. Zisow (2000) also states, "I am convinced that the greatest factor affecting whether a teacher does or does not use technology in the classroom, is teaching style. Technology is merely a tool. Whether it is used or not depends on a teacher's motivation and desire to use new tools" (p. 36). All of this, then, requires a concentration on the pedagogical purposes of technology, which should be incorporated into a department's vision for technology usage.

Gallant (2000) stated that an important element of technological innovation and adoption is the "operational support infrastructure," which can "communicate a vision of how and why changes are being planned and implemented, as well as ensure that changes are being driven by learning and teaching issues rather than by 'the imperatives of economic rationalism or the silicon veneer of technological determinism'" (p. 73).

WMU College of Education staff generally use a constructivist teaching approach, and in working with local schools, emphasize that they do the same. Constructivism is a teaching method that supports learning through "active construction of knowledge from the learner's experiences" (Kitsantas, Baylor, & Hu, 2001, p. 39). These approaches assume that knowledge should be personally constructed by the student, with support from the teacher, rather than received as a direct transmission from teacher to student. Constructivist teachers pose problems which address primary concepts and challenge students' suppositions (Brooks & Brooks, 1999). According to Gallant (2000), "The constructivist approach and all its methods can be used well with various technologies when each technology--be it print, audio, or computer conferencing--supports active learning and enables the teacher to act as a guiding partner" (p. 74). In her work at Louisiana State University, Stuhlman (1998) found this to be the case; students who had more contact with technology were also more supportive of student-centered environments.

Equity concerns, often referred to as the "digital divide," also serve as a barrier for some educators. For example, some educators are unlikely to integrate technology into their course(s) if they feel that doing so will in any way be unfair to certain students. Further, teacher-preparatory faculty may be hesitant to integrate technology into their courses, and to push their future teachers into doing the same once they are employed, if they think that this will encourage or facilitate inequality.

Statistics support the fact that, at least in some areas and districts, such a divide does indeed exist. Revenaugh (2000) stated that the number of computers in high poverty districts is 24% less than the national average. Further, a white, two-parent family earning less than $35,000 is still three times as likely to have Internet access as an African-American family in the same circumstances, and nearly four times as likely as a similarly situated Hispanic family. Revenaugh (2000) also stated that rural black and innercity Hispanic families are the least likely of any Americans to own a home PC, 17% and 21%, respectively, compared to 47% in white households. According to Attewell (2001), public schools serving poor populations average 16 children per computer, while the average in more affluent schools is seven students per computer. Equally disturbing is the fact that, between 1994 and 2000, the technology gap between blacks and whites widened (Attewell, 2001). In addition to disparity in access, sociologists and educators are also looking at the "second digital divide," or disparity in the rate and type of computer use (Attewell, 2001). Thus one part of having a vision for technology use appears to be feeling as though asking students to use technology is a fair and just expectation.

Some educators are skeptical about using technology in the classroom because of philosophical oppositions. Postman (1992) referred to this as "information glut." Some teachers see a variety of negative implications of the emphasis on technology in schools and other institutions and want no part of it. According to Fuller (2000), "teachers [may] refuse to incorporate computer use into their practice because they feel threatened by the values it embodies" (p.512). Postman (1992) contended that we have started to lose, and will continue to lose, the ability to think for ourselves because of our reliance on technology. He also argued that some technology, specifically computers, is inherently individualistic. This individualistic focus is clearly in opposition to the PT3 grant objectives, which focus on student collaboration. It is also not consistent with constructivist pedagogy and thus may prompt teacher preparatory faculty to resist integrating technology into their course(s).

Skills and knowledge. To adopt any innovation, people need to feel comfortable that they either have or will be able to quickly attain the required skills and knowledge. Lack of training then, has been found to a be key source of "cyber-anxiety." For instance, the National Center for Education Statistics found in 1999 that only 10% of teachers using computers in the classroom felt "very well prepared" to use them ( Nisan-Nelson (2001) found a relationship between the level of confidence a teacher has in his or her technology abilities and the likelihood that he or she will integrate technology into their course. Fuller (2000) put it nicely when she said, "Information is the tonic for uncertainty" (p. 514). In explaining their evaluation of the teacher technology portfolio program that Elmhurst College recently adopted, Doty and Hillman (2000) stated, "Despite the fact that faculty members in the department have indicated the importance of this initiative through their support, many still believe they have inadequate preparation to actually implement technology in their courses" (p. 18). Guhlin (2002) stated, "For technology to impact student achievement, teachers must be empowered. To empower teachers, administrators must provide extensive staff development and training" (p. 40).

Many times, unfortunately, universities and schools use one-shot training sessions. These, according to Gallant (2000), are not the most effective. She says, "Professional development, especially that which is squeezed into already busy schedules, will work best if it is designed as an ongoing, incremental, and cumulative process, a continual cycle of renewal and growth" (p. 76). Likewise, Willis, Thompson, and Sadera (1999) noted that a single course is typically inadequate preparation for preservice teachers to feel comfortable integrating technology into their classrooms.

Teacher power or control is also of concern in regards to the use of technology in the classroom. Many educators dislike the fact that a lot of our students, having grown up as part of the digital generation, know considerably more and feel more comfortable about computers than they do. They see using computers in the classroom as a form of giving up control. As Nisan-Nelson (2001) suggested, the amount of control a teacher feels is necessary for instruction may impact the degree to which he or she will integrate technology. She stated, "To move beyond the integration level in the technology integration hierarchy, the teacher must be able to relinquish that control to the students" (p. 91). In addition, because they cannot answer all of the students' questions or appear as an omniscient figure, they feel incompetent (George, 1996). The perception of inadequacy or incompetence, then, may be a significant barrier to the integration of technology.

Culture. According to Hage (1999), a problem with the literature on institutional change to date has been the failure to analyze the role of institutional culture. As Silver (1998) noted, "If the institution itself is not prepared as a whole to look at its curricula, teaching methods and innovations in the allocation of resources, you are putting the 'innovators' in an absolutely impossible position vis a vis the rest of the institution" (p. 1). Of interest here are the institutional norms that support or constrain change.

Hoffman and Klepper (2000) argued that institutional culture is overlooked because it is messy, imprecise, and difficult to measure and change. Goffee and Jones, as cited in Hoffman and Klepper (2000), provided a framework by which we can understand organizational culture and it's influence on organizational change. They argued that two types of human relations are important in understanding organizational culture; sociability and solidarity. Sociability refers to the friendliness of relations in an organization. The greater degree of friendliness there is, the greater morale and creativity an organization typically has. Solidarity refers to the ability to pursue shared goals efficiently. Solidarity generates dedication, as well as relatively swift organizational change. In essence, it is clear that change agents must consider both the importance of individuals and institutional culture (Willis et al., 1999).

Lester and Onore (1990) discussed several factors associated with public school teacher resistance to change that occur at the cultural or institutional level. Many of these are applicable to the university level. First, a lack of opportunities to collaborate impacts the desire and ability to learn about and experiment with innovations. Second, a lack of support, either administratively or collegially, constrains change. Gallant (2000) echoed the importance of support when she stated, "Rewards and incentives for adult educators making significant changes in their teaching styles are important" (p. 74). Due to these constraints and others, Lester and Onore (1990) argued that teachers often internalize the status quo of the institution, accepting that things simply are the way that they should be, thus no change or innovation is needed.

Silver (1998) identified some institutional concerns specific to universities. He argues that the large, decentralized organizations provide "an opportunity for random innovations that are not generalized because academic administrators do not have the power to insist that faculties adopt new techniques, new courses, or new curricula" (p. 4).

Themes from Faculty Interviews

Vision/pedagogy. One theme gleaned from the interviews was the importance of tying any use of technology to specific content objectives. Interestingly, the one person who did not bring this up is the most enthusiastic supporter of technology in the classroom. It is likely that he, too, feels this to be essential in the efforts at wider adoption of technology and feels it is simply assumed. However, his failure to question this assumption, coupled with comments made by other respondents, suggest that there is indeed a concern about the "bells and whistles" approach to technology integration. For instance, one respondent noted the propensity for people to constantly search for bigger and better technology, while not always looking for ways to better address pedagogical concerns. He also noted that some of the technology being used does not seem to be what students are most likely to need in the field, suggesting that faculty use what is "cool," not necessarily what is most functional. To date, PT3 staff has generally tried to market their efforts by highlighting some of the more visually appealing and sexy elements of technology, including streaming video and student web-sites. It is possible that faculty see this as neat, but not an improvement on other methods of addressing the same content, thus prompting some hesitation at the "bandwagon" effect (Hannan et al., 1999).

Another related theme is the notion that both faculty and students need to be somewhat critical of technology. Two respondents noted the importance of understanding the ways that technology changes users, a "medium is the message" understanding. These concerns echo those proposed by Postman (1992), whose concern was that technology uses us, we do not always use the technology. While the ISTE standards do indeed include an understanding of the implications of technology use, this has not been stressed by grant staff nor have professional development opportunities been offered that would help faculty think about these implications.

An additional theme reflecting that found in the literature is the need for consistency between teaching style and the forms and uses of technology. One of the interviewees mentioned that she has experimented with many technological tools and found that they were simply not consistent with her constructivist approach. Another stressed that when teacher-preparatory students are asked to create content-specific unit plans, they are required to integrate technology in ways that are student-centered, such as web-quests. In sum, it appears as though these respondents do feel as though technology use can be consistent with constructivist pedagogy, yet they are concerned that faculty either do not know how to or are simply not interested in using it.

Surprisingly, only one respondent expressed concern about equity issues such as those found in the literature. Her concern was rooted in her experience supervising interns at a high school where there is great socioeconomic disparity and in school resources. Her concern is that poorer students face a double-edged sword; they are disadvantaged if they are not exposed to technology, yet gaps in their access and exposure may serve to further disadvantage them. The others did not mention equity concerns. In fact, one respondent specifically mentioned that access is no longer an issue, although he was referring to the access of university students. Perhaps it is simply because they do not have similar experiences. It may also be that there is an unfair assumption that the technology playing field has been leveled. This discord between what is happening in teacher preparatory institutions and in secondary schools has been documented by O'Hair and Odell (1995).

A final theme that appeared and reflects what was found in the literature, is the need for direction and/or guidance from departmental leaders. Although clearly an issue of departmental culture, this can also be viewed as an issue of vision that must, at minimum, be supported by the department. While none of these respondents wanted nor seemed to need any formulaic description of what should occur in their course(s), several mentioned the need to feel that their efforts to innovate with technology will be supported and perhaps even rewarded. One respondent specifically mentioned how important it was that his departmental leader was very knowledgeable and interested in using and encouraging the use of new technologies.

Skills/knowledge. As these respondents were all considered change agents of sorts, their skills and knowledge are probably more developed than many of their colleagues. All of the respondents had received small PT3-sponsored mini-grants to support their innovations.

A theme that did arise in this area is the importance of offering professional development opportunities to faculty in new ways. One respondent noted that, while he was aware of a number of professional development workshops on campus, his colleagues generally did not make use of them. Perhaps this is due to the one-shot nature of most of the workshops. Grant staff and others interested in encouraging university faculty to integrate technology into their courses may do well to offer more one-on-one and ongoing forms of professional development.

Only one of the respondents mentioned a concern about power issues. He stated that departmental leadership pushes technology integration, and that it is his opinion that this is due, in part, to a desire to "stay ahead of the students." Most of these people seem willing to use a constructivist approach and allow students to explore areas of technology that they are unfamiliar with themselves, thus allowing themselves to give up a degree of power in the classroom. It seems as though they have accepted the need to, at least minimally, prepare their students to use technology.

Culture. As previously noted, a theme found from these interviews was the importance of a culture that supports innovation. All of the respondents are part of departments which have segmented into fairly small divisions based on those who prepare teachers and those who do not. This seems to allow for the sociability and solidarity necessary for an innovation-supportive culture.

While not specifically stated, it was implied by all of the respondents that they spend a great deal of time collaborating with other faculty members about the use of technology. The definition of what it means to collaborate, however, must be expanded; these respondents were using collaboration broadly to refer to many things, including the most casual discussion of an idea while standing in a colleague's office doorway. All of the respondents expressed the notion that, given release time and some small amount of funding, most faculty members would be willing to experiment with technology.


There are several conclusions that can be drawn from these data regarding barriers to technology use among university teacher-preparatory faculty, as well as the institutional change model WMU is employing. The work of Rogers (1995) provided a backdrop for assessing institutional change. According to Rogers, there were five important attributes that explain the variance in adoption rates of any innovation. The first is relative advantage, or the degree to which an innovation is viewed as being better than the idea or process that preceded it. Clearly these early adopters see technology as critical, although to varying degrees. It is unclear, however, whether their colleagues all recognize the potential of technology integration. The experience and recommendation of the early adopters seems to be crucial for the successful marketing of the grant.

The second attribute is compatibility of the innovation with existing values. While these change agents generally felt supported, this may not be the case for all faculty. Of special concern are part-time faculty members, who may not be very integrated into departmental activities in general. This may make respondents less likely to do so, or to do so in "safe" ways, such as using word processing or Internet research, rather than in innovative, exploratory ways. Implied is the notion that, since part-time faculty may not frequently interact with others in the department, the ownership lies with departmental leadership to help create and communicate a vision for technology use.

The three other attributes Rogers (1995) identified regarding innovation adoption rates are the complexity of the innovation, the ability to try it out, as well as the ability to observe it prior to adoption. It can be inferred from these interviews that teacher-preparatory faculty need to have a great deal of latitude in their ability to experiment with new technology without penalty. They also need to be able to learn from one another and see what others are doing.

In sum, it appears clear from these data that faculty will experiment with technology integration if they feel it is consistent with their teaching style, if they feel they are knowledgeable and competently skilled, if they are supported and rewarded for doing so, and if they can see how it is pedagogically useful.


These data were used to create a survey that was distributed to all teacher-preparatory faculty in the College of Education at WMU. The survey also assessed respondent's personal vision and degree of involvement in departmental discussions of visions of appropriate technology usage, perceived skill and knowledge level, perceptions of barriers, and assessment of departmental culture. The results of the survey, still being analyzed at the time of this writing, will provide a more detailed understanding of the perceptions of teacher preparatory faculty and will serve as a means of both evaluation and suggestion to grant staff regarding future funding activities. Further, the survey will highlight whether the themes found with "leaders" are also true of and important to other faculty. A sample of this survey is included as Appendix A.

Further, these data drove several recommendations that were given to grant staff at WMU and that may serve as suggestions for other universities engaged in similar processes of institutional change. First, it was suggested that grant staff present the case for technology integration in ways that emphasize its use for content-specific purposes. Building on that, it was suggested that grant staff present workshops or some other type of training sessions or discussion sessions that stress the ways that integration of the ISTE standards is consistent with constructivist pedagogy. Likewise, it is recommended that grant staff, in their discussions with departmental leadership, also push for discussions of vision. This would not only address the vision question but also meet the needs of faculty who desire guidance or direction related to technology integration.

In regards to the need to maintain a healthy skepticism about technology usage, one recommendation given to grant staff was that they compile an annotated bibliography, referred to in the literature as a webliography, that they could distribute to teacher-preparatory faculty. This document would then include a variety of pieces, including those that address philosophical issues. Another suggestion was that, rather than distribute a physical document, grant staff could provide links or scan into the existing PT3 website the same material.

Ongoing professional development opportunities clearly are central in preparing teacher preparatory faculty to integrate technology into their courses. Rather than the standard one shot sessions, however, these data suggest a need for more thorough and ongoing forms of professional development. Perhaps teacher preparatory faculty can be provided with some type of incentive to attend more in-depth training sessions during the summer semesters. WMU attempted this with future and existing English teachers and found great success. Another program, already in place as a grant activity, is to provide faculty who are interested in integrating technology into their courses with some form of one-on-one assistance. It was recommended that grant staff continue and expand this program, which used "tech-savvy" students.

Opportunities, support, and perhaps even incentives for collaboration should also be included in the diffusion of innovation process. This might include release time, co-taught courses, mini-grants for collaborative projects, and maybe even small department-level accolades. It makes sense that the faculty choosing to integrate technology in collaborative ways be recognized in public ways, as this may allow students to understand and model the collaborative uses of technology, a key grant objective. Gallant (2000) maintained that rewards and incentives are especially important for the early adopters, as they can serve as a model for others. Hannan et al. (1999) argued in a similar vein when they stated, "It seems that obtaining promotion or seniority may make it easier for staff to introduce new methods" (p. 286).

Finally, these data reveal the need for change agents to have a deeper understanding of institutional culture. Rogers (1995) has noted that the change process is typically smoother when the relationship between change agents and change adopters is relatively homophilous. While this is clearly difficult to control, if departments have a common vision regarding to technology the likelihood of change appears much greater. Clearly these respondents want to maintain a degree of academic freedom and autonomy, yet are also seeking departmental leadership in regards to a vision for technology use. As Clemens and Cook (1999) noted, "Institutions may also provide positive models for how to do something. Approaches that predominate in sociology conceive of institutions as models, schemas, or scripts for behavior" (p. 446). The survey included here provides an example of one way to assess perceptions of departmental culture. Additional interview or focus group data would likely be useful as well.



Demographic Information:


Current Department:--

Specialty/Area of degree:--Year of terminal degree completion:--

Employment Status (Check which applies):

--Full time--Part time

Do you teach Western Michigan University courses primarily (Check only one):

--At the Kalamazoo campus--At Regional centers

In the past three years, have you had any training in the use and support of technology in the classroom? Please check the year(s) the training took place and fill in the approximate number of hours the training entailed.




The following questions ask about your vision for the use of technology in the classroom and your teaching style.

1. Please rank the importance of having the following elements in a vision for appropriate technology use in the classroom (1-8, with 8 being the most important).

--Student learning needs

--Specific instructional strategies (e.g., ways to teach content)

--Target levels of technology (e.g., number of computers per student, number of labs)

--Student proficiencies in teaming, collaboration, or communication

--Student proficiencies in data analysis

--Student learning skills (e.g., ability to use technology in research)

--Social, legal, ethical and human issues associated with the use of technology

--Other (please add)--

2. Have you integrated technology into your courses(s) based on the vision you currently hold?



--Does not apply (Please explain)--

3. Which best reflects your overall teaching style? (Select only one)

--I use direct instruction almost exclusively

--I often use direct instruction, but sometimes design lessons that allow students to construct their own knowledge and understanding of course content

--I often design lessons that allow students to construct their own knowledge and understanding of course content, but sometimes use direct instruction

--I almost exclusively design lessons that allow students to construct their own knowledge and understanding of course content

4. Which best describes your teaching style when using technology? (Select only one)

--I use direct instruction almost exclusively

--I often use direct instruction, but sometimes design lessons that allow students to construct their own knowledge and understanding of course content

--I often design lessons that allow students to construct their own knowledge and understanding of course content, but sometimes use direct instruction

--I almost exclusively design lessons that allow students to construct their own knowledge and understanding of course content

--I don't use technology for teaching

The following questions ask about your skill level and usage of technology in the classroom.

5. Are students in your course(s) regularly asked to use technology to (Check all that apply):

--Consult with experts

--Consult with students in other schools

--Produce projects of their own design

--Collaborate with community organizations or businesses on class projects

--Participate in online projects

--Publish their work on the World Wide Web

--Produce work intended for audiences beyond the classroom

--Other (please add)--

--Does not apply

6. Do you have strategies for developing students' technology skills regarding (Check all that apply):

--Planning and designing learning environments (e.g., identify and allocate appropriate resources)

--E-Communication (e.g., e-mail, online discussion groups)

--Ability to work in teams/collaborate using technology

--Assessment and Evaluation (e.g., collect and analyze data, assign grades)

--Personal Professional Development

--Information literacy (e.g., understand the broader societal effects of media usage)

--Higher order thinking skills (e.g., problem solving, synthesis)

--Ability to evaluate legal, ethical, human and social implications of technology use (e.g., apply technology to empower users from diverse backgrounds, facilitate equitable access)

--Not applicable (Please explain)--

7. Provide the best example of a technology-related project or lesson you have used in your classes. Please indicate the course number and name as well as the degree to which you feel each project is generalizable to other courses/disciplines (Where "1" represents "very generalizable, "2" represents somewhat generalizable, and "3" represents not generalizable).

Course Number--Course Name--Generalizability


Project Description:

8. What types of professional growth opportunities related to technology are available for faculty within your department or college? (Check all that apply)

--Workshops and seminars

--Information about conferences

--Information about web resources

--On-demand, online, or web-delivered professional development

--One-on-one or group training with technology coordinators or aides

--Assigned time for departmental planning and collaboration

--Assigned time for individual professional development

--Financial support, i.e., grant opportunities or other incentives

--Research in my discipline that relates to the use of technology in the classroom

--Review of professional journals or articles related to educational technology

--Opportunities to use lesson plans and curricular materials that involve technology

--Webcasts, video feeds, interactive video conferencing about using technology

--Other(Please add)--

--None are available

9. Check all of the following that you believe would be important in preparing you to integrate appropriate technology into your course(s).

--Assigned time for research and education about this

--More leadership from administrators

--More training from the University

--Some type of aide or assistant to help me do this

--Internal (university/departmental) funding

--Funding from outside WMU

--Availability of technical support

--Better Internet access

--Computers or software that can support most of these types of activities

--Information about opportunities to participate

--More departmental openness to innovation or support of technology

--Other(please add)--

--I am not interested in any of these

The following questions ask for your perceptions of departmental Culture/Climate:

10. In my department, individual innovation regarding teaching and research is

(Select only one):

--Discouraged by departmental leadership

--Tolerated but not really supported by departmental leadership

--Supported by departmental leadership

--Rewarded by departmental leadership

--Not sure

11. Characterize the role of faculty as leaders and decision-makers in your department

(Select only one):

--Faculty and administration are equal

--Faculty members provide most of the leadership and decision-making

--Administrators provide most of the leadership and decision-making

--Administrators provide all of the leadership and decision-making.

--Not sure

12. How frequently have conversations within your department or college included discussion of appropriate use of technology in the classroom?

(Select only one)

--Very frequently

--Somewhat frequently


--To my knowledge, conversations of this nature have not occurred

13. Which of the following elements have been addressed in these conversations about appropriate use of technology in the classroom? (Check all that apply)

--Specific instructional strategies (e.g., ways to teach content)

--Target levels of technology (e.g., number of computers per student, number of labs)

--Student proficiencies in teaming, collaboration, or communication

--Student proficiencies in data analysis

--Student learning skills (e.g., ability to use technology for research)

--Social, legal, ethical and human issues associated with the use of technology

--Other (please add)--

--Does not apply

14. Check all those that generally apply to your department:

--Faculty here express their feelings openly and enthusiastically

--All faculty has a strong sense of being a member of the team

--Administrative policies, goals, and objectives are carefully explained to everyone

--When faculty disagree with an administrative decision, they work to get it changed

--Social events get a lot of enthusiasm and support

--The ability to plan ahead is highly valued here

--Personality and pull are more important than competence in getting ahead in this department

--There are no favorites in this department; everyone is treated alike

--The departmental atmosphere emphasizes efficiency and usefulness

--Faculty spend a great deal of time together socially

--There is a recognized group of leaders who receive special privileges

--Other(please add)--

Would you be willing to be interviewed regarding use of technology in the classroom?

If so, please provide your name and contact information.




Attewell, P. (2001). Comment: The first and second digital divides. Sociology of Education, 74(3), 252-259.

Brooks, J., & Brooks, M., (1999). In search of understanding: The case for constructivist classrooms. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Clemens, E. & Cook, J. (1999). Politics and institutionalism: Explaining durability and change. Annual Review of Sociology, 441-464.

Doty, L., & Hillman, C. (2000). Training preservice teachers in technology: A portfolio approach. International Journal of Social Education, 15(1), 13-18.

Fuller, H. (2000). First teach their teachers: Technology support and computer use in academic subjects. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 32(4), 511-537.

Gallant, G. (2000). Professional development for web-based teaching: Overcoming innocence and resistance. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 88, 69-78.

George, G. (1996). Managing instructor cyber-anxiety: The role of self efficacy in decreasing resistance to change. Educational Technology, 36(4), 49-54.

Guhlin, M. (2002). Teachers must push technology's tidal wave. Journal of Staff Development, 23(1), 40-41.

Hage, J. (1999). Organizational innovation and organization change. Annual Review of Sociology, 597-622.

Hannan, A., English, S., & Silver, H. (1999). Why innovate? Some preliminary findings From a research project on "innovations in teaching and learning in higher Education." Studies in Higher Education, 24(3), 279-289.

Hoffman, N., & Klepper, R. (2000). Assimilation of new information technology and Organizational culture: A case study. Wirtschaftsinformatik, 42(4), 339-346.

Kitsantas, A., Baylor, A., & Hu, H. (2001, November/December). The constructivist planning self-reflective Tool (CPSRT): Facilitating a constructivist instructional planning approach. Educational Technology, (pp. 39-43).

Lester, N., & Onore, C. (1990). Learning change. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook.

Nisan-Nelson, P. (2001). Technology integration: A case of professional development. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 83-103.

O'Hair, M., & O'Dell, S. (Eds.) (1995). Educating teachers for leadership and change. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Postman, N. (1992). Technopoly. New York: Knopf.

PT3 Grant Objectives (2000). Western Michigan University.

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

Revenaugh, M. (2000). Beyond the digital divide: Pathways to equity. Technology and Learning, 20(10), 38-40, 44, 46, 48, 50.

Silver, H. (1998). Re-inventing innovation. Conference paper given at the Managing Learning Innovation: The Challenges of the Changing Curriculum conference At the University of Lincolnshire and Humberside.

Stuhlman, J. (1998). A model for using technology in teacher training programs. Journalof Technology and Teacher Education, 6(2-3), 125-139.

Willis, J., Thompson, A., & Sadera, W. (1999). Research on technology and teacher education: Current status and future directions. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(4), 29-45.

Zisow, M. (2000). Teaching style and technology. TechTrends, 44(4), 36-38.


University of Northern Colorado



Western Michigan University

COPYRIGHT 2004 Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE)
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2004, Gale Group. All rights reserved. Gale Group is a Thomson Corporation Company.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Hartman, David
Publication:Journal of Technology and Teacher Education
Geographic Code:1USA
Date:Sep 22, 2004
Previous Article:How are we doing? Using self-assessment to measure changing teacher technology literacy within a graduate educational technology program.
Next Article:Perceptions of the teacher's roles by prospective elementary school science teachers in a web-based biology course.

Related Articles
Technology and teacher education for a knowledge era: mentoring for student futures, not our past.
A process model for faculty development: individualizing technology learning.
Infusing technology skills into a teacher education program: change in students' knowledge about and use of technology.
Teachers, technology, and change: English teachers' perspectives.
Developing a new technology infusion program for Preparing Tomorrow's Teachers.
Learning Generation: fostering innovation with tomorrow's teachers and technology.
The influence of organizational culture on technology integration in teacher education.
Preservice teachers self-assessment using technology: determining what is worthwhile and looking for changes in daily teaching and learning practices.
Content area specific technology integration: a model for educating teachers.
Integrating technology to foster inquiry in an elementary science methods course: an action research study of one teacher educator's initiatives in a...

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2021 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters