TECHNOLOGY IN EDUCATION
In classrooms across the country, from small rural schools to those at prestigious universities, teachers use technology. Some have followed the vision of education futurist Dede (1990) that technology empowers an evolutionary educational infrastructure for learning and that advanced information technology is essential to success. But, as indicated in this study’s problem statement, technology has caused a restructuring of some classrooms and has actually changed what and how students learn (Sheingold 1990). Many teachers use traditional text-based technologies such as Xeroxed copies and overhead projectors (Gordon, 1989) on a daily basis. Some may use integrated student learning labs for word-processing, mathematical calculations, scientific experiments or multimedia presentations. Teachers use video clips and audio recordings to supplement curriculum. They may use tutorials, educational games or simulations as student enrichment activities. Others may use technology as a tool for instructional situations as in databases, spreadsheets, graphing packages, calculators, desktop publishing and telecommunication opportunities. Technological access and networking beyond the classroom may be possible with an Internet connection making technology a process, a product and a tool for problem-solving in "real world" issues.
All of these classroom innovations have been examined by researchers attempting to discover if their use is justified and if their diffusion and adoption into the classroom has better prepared students to be competent and competitive in a technological world. Specific types of classrooms have been studied and specific types of students have been observed. Studies in kindergartens (Alfaro, 1999; Ithel, 1998) and colleges (Reinhardt, 1999; Jadali, 1999) have been conducted. Innovations have been examined in isolation and in clusters. Studies have compared two innovations with similar purposes, such as overhead projectors and PowerPoint slide presentations (Ahmed, 1998). Studies have been cross-sectional and longitudinal (Isernhagen, 1999; Parr, 1999); they have been quantitative and qualitative. Researchers have used innovations as independent variables and have realized that once they enter the classroom, they are part of a complex network of social and pedagogical interactions. Studies have examined technology’s effect on the most basic educational objectives, such as writing (Greenleaf, 1994; Mellon, 1999; Garner & Gillingham, 1999). The modes of acquiring technology have been examined, and the attitudes behind the innovators, sometimes the teachers themselves, have been questioned. It seems as if no stone has been left unturned. But research on technology in education is not conclusive (Kent & McNergney, 1999). We have yet to realize the profound influence that the diffusion of technological innovations may have on classroom communication, achievement and behavioral interactions (Sheingold, 1990).
This literature review section will focus on existing research on classroom innovations related to two basic concerns, why is technology used or not used in the schools and what is the teacher’s perspective and attitude toward technology. The review will not be focused on technology’s impact, but more on its existence and the perceptions thereof. The technologies, or innovations reviewed will be those most clearly related to journalism education: computers, in their function as word processors, desktop publishing stations and online accessors of information. These studies that examine will also be reviewed in hopes of leading to some specific research questions pointed at my research goals and objectives.
TEACHING WITH TECHNOLOGY
Computers can be the ideal education tool. Teachers use computers to prepare notes for lecture, create handouts and exams and for grade recording. They may even use computers for research and for professional writing, but do they use the computer in the classroom, with the students? Less than 10 percent of the faculty surveyed at Stanford do (Cuban, 1999). The use of technology in the classroom necessarily depends on the ability of the teacher to integrate it (Kent & McNergney, 1999). One of the reasons why many teachers are not integrating technology is that they lack prior experience using it as a productivity tool (Hope, 1998). Dalton (1989) found this to be true almost a decade earlier. He recognized that when teachers lack confidence to integrate innovation, they ignore it. Teachers, who are poorly informed or not informed at all, become bewildered and overwhelmed by technology. Hardy (1998) reviewed existing studies on teacher attitudes, developed a profile of "technology-using" teachers and summarized that variables such as access to equipment, administrative support and time did not have as strong an effect on the used of technology as did the teacher’s own confidence level. Rosen and Weil (1995) determined that nearly one-third to two-thirds of the teachers they surveyed were not using computer technology personally or with their students because they lacked confidence, felt uncomfortable and were even a bit frightened by technology. Parr (1999) longitudinally studied a school in which all staff members were given a laptop computer. After five years, reported personal use of the computer was extensive. Teacher confidence level and skill improved markedly, but use of computers, in the classroom, with students remained relatively low. Ropp (1999) makes it clear that teacher attitudes matter a great deal. She adds, from her study of pre-service teachers, that even if teachers demonstrate proficiency integrating technology into their teaching but do not believe that technology has a use in the classroom, they will probably not teach with technology despite their proficiency.
These studies though the 90s show a discouraging trend but studies in the early 80s noted a "surprising lack" of research available to determine trends in the use of instructional materials. Elliott, Ingersoll and Smith (1984) studied focus groups of educators and they found evidence of trends and attitudes worth noting. For purposes of their focus groups, "New" technologies were educational television, videotapes, microcomputers and photocopying, just to name a few. The researchers found that there was a "real interest" in these "new" technologies, but there is also "at least a mild paranoia among teachers about their roles relative to new technologies." In general, there was a positive acceptance of the "new" technologies, but generally, there was no overwhelming eagerness to it.
Ten years later, the "new" technologies were abundant in the classroom, but were not used effectively either. Chin and Hortin (1993), for example, surveyed elementary teachers on their perceptions of technology and used the information to make recommendations for inservice. They found that more than 50 percent of elementary teachers in a Kansas urban school district used technology less than 30 minutes in a school day with their students. Wigmore (1988) studied high school science classrooms and determined that of the teachers, who did use a computer in the classroom, the computer was used at an average of 2.6 hours a month. Wigmore also found that teachers with a master’s degree spent less time with technology than teachers with a bachelor’s degree.
Since it is clear that individual teachers are a key factor in the success or failure of curricular technological innovations (Fougere & Olinsky, 1990), it is important to explore their feelings or concerns about innovations. Koohang (1989) studied computer attitudes, anxieties and confidence levels among students in college classrooms and found that subjects with more computer experience expressed more positive attitudes toward technology in general. This supports previous findings that experience promotes positive attitudes among teachers (Wang & Holthaus, 1999). Not only prior experience, but also positive role modeling makes a difference in attitudes. It has been shown that teachers teach how they were taught. (Norton & Gonzales, 1998). So, for beginning teachers, the teacher education faculty members must model effective use of technologies in their own classrooms (Cooper & Bull, 1997). Ropp (1999) conducted a longitudinal study during a preservice teacher education course that included hands-on technology training and classroom discussion of technology and found that students made significant improvements in technology proficiency, computer self-efficacy and computer coping strategies from the beginning to the end of the course. When Topp (1996) studied recent teacher graduates, he found that a computer-specific course was essential, especially one on computer integration, but that the technology education pre-service teachers felt they received was inadequate.
In fact, according to the U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics 1999Teacher Quality: A Report on the Preparation and Qualifications of Public School Teachers, only 20 percent of full-time public school teachers report feeling very well prepared to integrate educational technology into their classroom curriculum. This may account for why, according to the same report, nearly 78 percent of public school teachers, from all grade levels indicated that they had participated in professional development activities focused on the integration of educational technology in the last 12 months. This compares to 57 percent who did the same in 1994. Of those who attended professional development activities in 1998, 93 percent said they felt it improved their classroom teaching at least somewhat. So, as Moursund (1999) explains, teachers must take it upon themselves; they must take personal responsibility for professional development, especially in relation to technological innovations.
EDUCATIONAL CHANGE AGENTS
Teachers, as leaders, do function as change agents in the school environment. Teachers are generally regarded as independently practicing professionals (Dexter, Anderson & Becker, 1999) who make decisions about specific instruction and assessments to use in their classrooms. Teachers should be framed as agents of change but they need a supportive context to draw upon their own knowledge and expertise of what works in the classroom. Bowman (1999) adds that if teachers are to function as change agents they will need to commit themselves to the big-picture mentality of systemic reform.
Others think that the school principal is also an important change agent (Conte & Weber, 1999). Wetzel (1999) would agree and add that school districts need visionary technology administrators. Vojtek and Vojtek (1999) explain that effective change in a school comes from three different types of leaders: executives (the superintendent or administrative authority in a school), internal network leaders (peers such as department chairs) and local line leaders (the teachers within a building). For technology to be truly integrated throughout a system and to become a tool that increases the ability of students to achieve, leadership must come from all three types. Kearsley and Lynch (1992) advocate a critical need for formal training in educational technology leadership.
