Drape's Takes

1. Technology

1. Personal technology (computer, mobile phone, iPad, etc.) in the hand of every student, teacher, administrator, support staff
2. Ubiquitous access to the Internet for every student at school and at home
3. A robust network infrastructure at school that permits real-time access for all students simultaneously
4. Excellent real-time support
5. Responsible Use Policies that encourage technology use

2. Curriculum and Instruction

1. A deep understanding on the part of every staff member of how to use technology, and specifically the Web, to learn
2. Sustained, continuous professional development
3. Performance-based assessments
4. Teachers fluent in how to translate their personal understanding of technology into the classroom
5. Personalized learning opportunities for students
6. Student centered pedagogy
7. Inquiry-based curriculum
8. A balance between meeting the requirements of state testing and reshaping learning to teach students the skills they need
9. Instruction for teachers and students about web-safety

3. Change Management

1. A shared vision for modern learning in the school
2. A shared vocabulary to facilitate conversations around change
3. Support for trying (and failing) when implementing changes in the classroom
4. Teachers working with each other across disciplines
5. Common planning and discussion time for staff
6. Community education around the new vision and how change will take place
7. Measurement of progress and adjustment along the way

4. Leadership

1. Making a strong case for change with every constituency including students, parents, teachers, staff, administration, board of education and community
2. Leadership that encourages modern learning among teachers and students
3. Teacher leaders that embrace and extend the vision
4. A innovative budgetary approach

Seriously.

Reading this list alone, is it any wonder we've had such a struggle?!? Truthfully, isn't it actually more of a miracle that we've experienced the kind of success that we have?  Sometimes I think so.

To continue, nevertheless, other scholars have identified a wide array of specific obstacles to making appropriate technology integration* a far more widespread reality than current practice. In 2006, for example, Hew and Brush researched this topic heavily, identifying 123 different barriers in a review of past empirical studies. Their classification consisted of six main categories: resources, knowledge and skills, institution, attitudes and beliefs, assessment, and subject culture. Similarly, Ertmer (1999) presents these barriers in two distinct categories: external (first-order) and internal (second-order). I think that delineating the list of obstacles following Ertmer's approach should make pinpointing potential solutions a little easier.

External Obstacles to Technology Integration. First order (external) obstacles are generally described in terms of the types of resources (i.e., equipment, time, training, support) that are either missing or inadequately provided in teachers' implementation environments. Ofttimes, first order barriers are resolved by simply throwing more money into the equation. Nevertheless, when these barriers are present, it can be nearly impossible to even talk about technology integration. Interestingly, the absence of many of the items in Will's list - in traditional educational environments - constitute external (rather than internal) obstacles to technology integration for teachers in those environments.

Potential External Barriers From Will's List (Why Some Teacher's Can't/Won't Use Technology To Teach):

• Not every student, teacher, administrator, support staff has personal technology.
• There is not ubiquitous access to the Internet for every student at school and at home.
• There is not a robust network infrastructure at school that permits simultaneous, real-time access for all students.
• Excellent real-time support is nonexistent.
• "Responsible Use Policies" are nonexistent, overly restrictive, or fail to encourage technology use.
• The quantity of professional development is inadequate.
• Instruction for teachers and students about web-safety is nonexistent or inadequate.
• Support for trying (and failing) when implementing changes in the classroom is lacking.
• Teachers do not work with each other across disciplines.
• There is no common planning and discussion time for staff.
• Community members are not educated around the new vision and how change will take place.
• Progress is not measured or data about progress is not shared and does not influence direction.
• A strong case for change is not made with every constituency (including students, parents, staff, administration, board of education and community).
• Leadership doesn't encourage modern learning among teachers and students.
• There is no innovate budgetary approach; therefore, funds remain tight.

Adding to Will's list of potential external reasons that teachers may not be able to use technology to teach:

• Teachers lack effective technology-related professional development.
• The design of PD programs doesn't identify teachers' beliefs about effective teaching and strategies for using technology within the context of those beliefs (Windschitl and Sahl, 2002).
• The proper amount and right types of technology are not found in locations where teachers and students can use them (Fabry and Higgs, 1997).
• Teachers lack technology-supported pedagogy knowledge and the related skills base (Hughes, 2005).
• Teachers lack technology-related classroom management skills (Lim et al., 2003; Newhouse, 2001).
• School policy does not promote technology as a viable tool for learning (Tondeur et al., 2008).
• Teacher needs in anticipation of the instructional use of technology, aren't always met.
• Formal training isn't provided at an early stage of new classroom experiences with technology (Levin and Wadmany, 2008).
• Educational opportunities that facilitate collaboration with colleagues on authentic routine classroom issues are inadequate in subsequent stages of professional growth. Moreover, collaborative opportunities devoted to personally-directed inquiry aren't available (Levin and Wadmany, 2008).
• Feedback on instructional technology use isn't customized for individual circumstances (Levin and Wadmany, 2008).
• Mentorship isn't adequately or appropriately provided, particularly in later stages of professional growth (Sahin and Thompson, 2007; Di Benedetto, 2005; Sherry, Billig, Tavalin, and Gibson, 2000).
• Teachers lack adequate time to acquire and transfer to practice the knowledge and skills necessary to effectively and completely infuse technology into their curricular areas (Brand, 1998).
• Teachers lack time to prepare technology-facilitated resources for lessons, experiment with technology as a learning tool, and create technology-related assessments (Preston, Cox, and Cox, 2000; Butzin, 2001; Karagiorgi, 2005).
• The focus of technology use in K-12 education has been on computer-based testing instead of teaching and learning (Bichelmeyer and Molenda, 2006; Education Week, 2003).
• Feasible examples of effective technology integration aren't readily available to teachers (Bitner and Bitner, 2002).

Internal Obstacles to Technology Integration. Typically rooted in teachers' underlying beliefs about teaching and learning, second-order (internal) barriers can be far more difficult to overcome. Ertmer (1999) and others have illustrated that even when first-order (external) barriers are addressed, teachers do not automatically use technology to achieve advocated meaningful outcomes. Using Will Richardson's list again as a starting point, there is a wide range of internal barriers that keep teachers from integrating technology throughout their curriculum.

Potential Internal Barriers From Will's List (Why Some Teacher's Can't/Won't Use Technology To Teach):

• A deep understanding has not yet been acquired by every staff member regarding how to use technology, and specifically the Web, to learn.
• Teachers are not fluent in how to translate their personal understanding of technology into the classroom.
• A shared vision does not exist for modern learning in the school.
• A shared vocabulary does not exist to facilitate conversations around change.
• Teacher leaders do not embrace and extend the vision.
• [Teacher beliefs regarding curriculum and instruction do not allow for technology integration.]
• Teachers do not feel the need to create personalized learning opportunities for students.
• Student centered pedagogy has yet to be adopted.
• Inquiry-based curriculum is not the norm.
• Assessments stress fact memorization, rather than performance.
• There is no balance between meeting the requirements of state testing and reshaping learning to teach students other skills they might need.

Again, adding to Will's list of potential internal reasons that teachers might not be able to use technology to teach:

• Teachers lack “an attitude that is fearless in the use of technology, encourages them to take risks, and inspires them to become lifelong learners” (Task Force on Technology and Teacher Education, 1997, p. 11).
• Help for teachers is inadequate in overcoming feelings of anxiety on the part of teachers and a genuine fear of technology (Li, 2007).
• Teachers lack confidence in the use of technology and in incorporating new innovation (Hardy, 1998; Dawson and Rakes, 2003).
• There is no adequate mechanism for overcoming feelings of intimidation, in light of the possibility that students might know more than them (Fryer, 2003).
• The pressures of high-stakes testing inhibits technology integration (CEO Forum on Education and Technology, 2001; Fox and Henri, 2005).
• Some teachers have little ability in dealing with the changing nature of technology itself (Zhao and Frank, 2003).
• Teachers are hesitant to adopt technologies that seem incompatible with the norms of a subject culture (Hennessy, Ruthven, and Brindley, 2005).
• Teachers lack an adequate understanding of the advantages that technology integration can provide (Hermans et al., 2008; Scrimshaw, 2004).
• Some teachers believe that technology integration will not lead to better understanding or faster learning (Newhouse, 2001; Karagiorgi, 2005).
• Teachers lack a deep understanding of the purpose of technology before being required to make more substantial changes in their practices (Park and Ertmer, 2008).

Finally, I often think that teachers simply need a better reason to change:

Simply imposing reform-based ideas on schools and teachers will not result in substantial change in instruction. Educational reform may encourage teachers to integrate technology to engage students in activities of problem solving, critical thinking, and collaborative learning, but a culture emphasizing competition and a high-stakes assessment system can strongly discourage teachers from undertaking such innovative initiatives. (Chen, 2008, p. 73)

Upon obtaining an overall view of the obstacles we're dealing with, I'm hopeful that solutions will further present themselves (see, for example, the list compiled by Hew and Brush, 2006) as we continue to mull these things over. To that end:

• What solutions can you recommend?
• What obstacles are there that I may have missed?
• Is all of this really worth the effort?

As I consider solutions to our problems here, I am cognizant of one fact: The David Jakes of the world are extremely important. It seems to me that they can play an integral role in helping us overcome those difficult second order barriers.

For what it's worth, I'd love your feedback on this.

---

* For the purpose of this post, I have defined technology integration as the process of "enabling the kinds of learning experiences that even Will Richardson would be proud of." No ponytails were injured in the creation of this post.

Scott,

Like Steve, I appreciate your passion and greatly value your ability and willingness to share pieces of this puzzle with so many, on these tremendously important issues (always have, always will!). However, I also think you may have missed my point.

Like you and Steve (and most folks participating in these online conversations), I feel strongly about technology and its positive pedagogical potential. (Say that three times). Several years ago, I created Pay Attention and still feel strongly about its message. Teachers and administrators alike are often missing the boat when they fail to use technology for collaboration, instruction, and learning. Sheesh, along these lines, I even still think that every teacher should blog. (Think of how incredibly eye-opening it would be for all involved if every educator would only participate in these very important conversations!)

Nevertheless, just because a person should do something doesn't mean they can - and there are many reasons why teachers and administrators still. just. can’t. Or yes: maybe "won't" is the right word there. Do they need a push? Absolutely. But the point of my previous post was that they need to be pushed with love, with patience, and with understanding.

To be clear, I think the polarity of this conversation is very telling. Even the comments in your post's thread reflect both extremes. Rattling off just a few from your thread:

Yes, yes, yes! I get so frustrated when a teacher tells me s/he can’t use technology (of any kind) because “I’m not a techie”.

I’m torn between both sentiments and need more time to ruminate on this. While how “distorted the view is as seen through the eyes of a typical EduBlogger” is so true, so too is the idea that we simply can’t accept teachers who aren’t willing to try and succeed.

Hugh McNally:

Steve Dembo’s right that ed tech people are way ahead of the curve, but maybe that’s not because they’re driving a race car: a lot of educators may, in fact, have a flat tire.

Colin Matheson:

When Alan November taught his ISTE audience about empathy, making a strong case for its placement at the top of the list of critical 21st Century skills, he helped me understand why it's still still difficult to persuade so many in education that the global, technologically-driven approach to learning really can be the better way. At this moment in time, I'm no longer convinced that it’s the technology alone that so many fear. Sure, technology can be intimidating in and of itself; but quite often, I think that it's what people might find on the other side of that technology that likely seems so scary. When technology means communication and collaboration with others outside of our comfortable sphere, then barriers of security quite naturally arise.

Nevertheless, these aren't new fears, far from it. In fact, these are the same feelings of fright and apprehension we've been fighting as a planet for millennia.

With the push in recent decades toward an increased use of technology in education, scholars have been busy researching and documenting its successes and failures, as well as the factors inhibiting technology’s use as a pedagogical tool. Peggy A. Ertmer, for example, has done substantial work in this area. Following Brickner’s (1995) lead, Ertmer has described barriers to technology integration in schools as being either first- or second-order. This is important.

Thus, first-order barriers to technology integration are described as being extrinsic to teachers and include lack of access to computers and software, insufficient time to plan instruction, and inadequate technical and administrative support. In contrast, second-order barriers are intrinsic to teachers and include beliefs about teaching, beliefs about computers, established classroom practices, and unwillingness to change. While many first-order barriers may be eliminated by securing additional resources and providing computer-skills training, confronting second-order barriers requires challenging one's belief systems and the institutionalized routines of one's practice. Thus, in terms of technology integration, this may require reformulating basic school culture notions regarding what constitutes content and content coverage, what comprises learning and engaged time, and even, what behaviors define “teaching”. (Ertmer, 1999, p. 48; see also Ertmer, 2005)

At this point in the evolution of our field, I think there are many teachers for which technology has become integral to nearly every aspect of their job. However, for those still striving to integrate – or worse, for those still hesitant resistant to integrate – I think that an additional second-order barrier lies in the cultural differences that exist between teachers on opposite ends of any collaboration that might take place.

"What will I find on the other side? What if they're different? Can they be trusted? I think I'm scared. Why should I care?"

Furthermore, until collaboration is a behavior naturally included in every educator’s definition of teaching, then many of the contemporary promotions of technology in education will continue to be little more than spit in the wind.

To illustrate, take Vicki Davis and Julie Lindsay as perfect examples. I remember reading about their first Flat Classroom Project together back in 2006. In that and subsequent Flat Classroom Projects, students from different countries and backgrounds work together to research, discuss, and envision the education and society of the future, basing hypotheses on trends outlined in each year’s Horizon Report (click here to see K12 edition of the report for this year). Because the students and teachers that participate in these projects come from different countries – Bangladesh, Australia, Austria, China, and the United States in 2006 – strong cultural differences become evident as they learn to collaborate and work together to create successful products. As a result, these projects can be exhilarating, to be sure; nevertheless, they can also be challenging as the meshing of cultures is rarely easily accomplished.

In surveying the sessions that were offered at this year’s ISTE conference, it becomes clear that collaboration and global participation has been a common theme. Every ISTE keynote focused on the importance of global collaboration and working together as equal partners to solve the problems that plague our world. As teachers from the East collaborate with students from the West, each brings to the table the sum of their life experiences – culminating in an exciting cornucopia of religious, ethnic, and lifestyle differences.


My experiences at ISTE this year taught me that technology now serves as a critical thread that ties many of us together in learning. That, to me, is exciting, fascinating, and scary: all at the same time. I’m happy to see so many embrace the diversity that can and will exist in our field – and hopeful that others more apprehensive will learn to overcome their fears in realization that the global, technologically-driven approach to learning really can be the better way.

---

Original image source: Flickr user bench_30.

References:

• Brickner, D. (1995). The effects of first and second order barriers to change on the degree and nature of computer usage of secondary mathematics teachers: A case study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN.
• Ertmer, P. (1999). Addressing first- and second-order barriers to change: strategies for technology integration. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(4), 47-61.
• Ertmer, P. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: the final frontier in our quest for technology integration. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4), 25-39.