The human element may be one of the most significant factors in affecting the change that is necessary among educators to promote the integration of technology into instruction. I begin this paper defining change and follow with a discussion of the influences of the human element on change as it applies to teacher education and instructional support. Personal experience and perspectives from expert instructors are integrated with current literature on change and the use of technology in education.
"A companion's words of persuasion are effective."
-- The Iliad, Homer, c. 700 BC
"Instruction is not a naturally occurring phenomenon in the physical world, not something that has always been out there waiting for an auspicious moment of discovery. Instruction is a human creation and the addition of technology to instruction is also a human activity" (Johnsen & Taylor, p. 94). In the late 1980's, Reiser & Salisbury commented on the Office of Technology Assessment's (OTA) concern that after a decade of having computers in education, there was very little difference in our instructional procedures. If we look at our instructional procedures after over twenty years of computer availability, do we still notice very little effect? I think, "Yes." As schools acquire more and more hardware, the necessity for teachers to understand the use of computers for instructional purposes becomes increasingly critical. It is critical for schools to recognize the need begin this process of change. While research studies, such as those analyzed by Rogers in Diffusion of Innovation, present a variety of approaches for initiating change, it is my desire to showcase and validate the power behind the human element.
PURPOSE OF THIS ARTICLE
The human element is described in many ways; from staff selection and professional development, to cultural communities, as well as "change agents and opinion leaders" (Rogers, 1983). I think the key to understanding the human element lies in a mix of all of the above. In order to showcase, validate, and attempt to explain the human element, I will combine descriptions of personal experiences with research findings and personal stories told by professional teachers. Through these different approaches, it is my hope that you, the reader, will also come to recognize the human element as the most significant factor in affecting change with regard to the instructional integration of technology.
PERSONAL EXPERIENCE
As an instructional technology specialist for a local school system, I became aware of the power and potential in the human element of instructional support. Unfortunately, I also became acutely aware of an administration's ability to terminate change in an instant. Because of this personal experience, my professional calling became amazingly focused.
Throughout my three years as an Instructional Technology Specialist, I watched educators progressively become more excited about the possibilities of technology. Their excitement resulted in an increase in their attempts at incorporating such technology into instruction. I then witnessed the removal of their human support system and a virtual stagnation of instructional technology use. When their instructional technology support system was removed, the teachers' fears and insecurities returned, and they retreated to older and more comfortable methods of instruction. The use of technology to enhance instruction changed from being an exciting possibility to an intimidating nuisance. While in the company of teachers, I heard comments and stories describing a regression in attitudes, an increase in frustration levels, and a decline in overall morale concerning the use of technology. I listened to stories of confusion and frustration regarding the merging of instructional and technical issues. These stories told of new job descriptions which clearly indicated a lack of understanding of the varied skills required to do the expected tasks. Instructional needs were being sacrificed at the altar of efficiency. Realizing this situation could not be an isolated case, I turned to the research and the practitioner's periodicals to look for answers. It did not take long to discover there were many articles that addressed instruction, learning, the human element, and the use of technology. (e.g., Cooley, 1997; Meltzer & Sherman, 1997; Zehr, 1997; Harrington-Lueker, 1996; Harris, 1994; Polin, 1992)
EXAMINING CHANGE
Before delving into the human element behind change, I spent a little time with the idea of change. After reading an article by Judi Harris, "Teaching Teachers to Use Telecomputing Tools", I was led to Everett M. Rogers' book Diffusion of Innovation. According to Rogers (1983), there are four main elements in the diffusion of innovations (change). He defined diffusion "as the process by which (1) an innovation (2) is communicated through certain channels (3) over time (4) among the members of a social system" (p. 10). For the purposes of this paper, I am characterizing innovation to be the use of technology in the classroom and I look at the human element as the key ingredient in Rogers' ideas of communication through channels in a social system. Rogers defined a "communication channel [as] the means by which messages get from one individual to another" (p. 17). He further characterized those channels as either mass media or interpersonal channels.
Rogers (1983) felt the mass media channels were more rapid and efficient, and the interpersonal channels were more effective. He further stated that the "interpersonal channels are even more effective in persuading an individual to adopt a new idea, especially if the interpersonal channel links two or more individuals who were near-peers" (p. 18). Rogers goes on to say that peer validation does more for increasing change than does scientific research results. Basically, what he is saying is that we tend to learn more effectively from our colleagues.
In a recent conversation with a teacher we were discussing how people learn to use technology with their students. In her case she gave credit to two of her colleagues with statements such as: "... last year was my first time using this method. I got the idea from Jack and I really liked it. Pretty much everything that we've done in first grade, Debbie has initiated and given suggestions. There is nothing that I've come up with on my own. I've just been saying, "What a great idea!" and then I started to use it in my classroom." Given Rogers' information and the previously quoted statements, one can only wonder at how pervasive the technology changes would have been if the teachers' support systems had not been removed.
Harris' (1994) assessment seems to corroborate Rogers' opinion, "Whether teachers will choose to use telecomputing innovations for professional development and/or instructional purposes depends more upon other teachers' use of the tools than upon the characteristics of the innovations themselves" (p. 61). As I trained teachers to use technology in their instruction, there were many instances when I would have to conduct repeat lessons for different teachers. Teachers would see their colleagues engaging in a successful lesson using technology and would desire the same experience for their students. I remember one specific situation when the lesson a first grade teacher and I had created became so popular, that she and I presented the lesson at the state's technology conference! The excitement from the success she experienced incorporating the lesson spread like wildfire.
The Human Element. From my perspective, when considering the human element in instructional technology, one is really looking at two components: (1) teacher education and (2) instructional support. Many will try to address one without the other, but these two conceptual components must go hand-in-hand in order to be effective. Educating teachers in the use of technology and having instructional support staff to assist them in their integrative measures is not a luxury, it is a necessity. According to Harrington-Lueker (1996), schools spend an average of "15 percent of their technology budgets on staff development and training - half of what technology experts recommend they spend" (p.33). She went on to quote the 1995 OTA report by saying, "There is little point in acquiring hardware but making no provision for teacher development and support" (p.33). Professional development for teachers is only half the battle.
The School Culture. One very salient component in validating the human element is the role of administration. "Unless school systems offer similar [professional development and support] opportunities to their principals, they might as well leave the Macs and PCs in their boxes ..." (Harrington-Lueker, 1996, p. 43.) Administrators typically take a very different perspective with regard to technology. Their normal frame of reference is one where the primary goal of technology is to increase efficiency with regard to record keeping and data collection. They need to learn efficiency is not the only goal of technology. A first step toward change would be to increase their understanding of the instructional value of technology. Affecting change at the administration level is a crucial step toward affecting change at the instructional level. It is only through an administration's confirmation that the human element can truly be addressed. Administrators need to see that success doesn't does not come in equipment but rather in the empowerment of their people.
One misconception regarding technology is that installing technology will reduce faculty and staff needs. ... when technology is installed, additional personnel must be hired. Staffing needs are often proportional to the sophistication of the system. The message is that if district officials do not provide appropriate levels of support, teachers and administrators are unlikely to use technology. (Cooley, 1997, p.57)
Computers will continue to fall short of their potential until we make a significant investment in showing teachers how to integrate this technology into instruction. "One major theme is that the human infrastructure is more important than the technological infrastructure" (Cooley, 1997, p.57). In essence, what is being said is unless we look at the whole, it is futile to support just one part. In other words, purchasing hardware is useless without funding human support and training. Furthermore, funding human support and training for the teachers is useless unless you include the administration.
Discovered Strategies. In terms of technology, it seems obvious there is no one right way to address staff development or staffing needs. I have discovered an amazing variety of methods that have successfully been used in schools across the country. The apparent key to success is to look at a school's or district's culture and create an approach that reflects that culture. Culture, as defined in Merriam-Webster's dictionary, is "c: the set of shared attitudes, values, goals, and practices that characterizes a company or corporation." Technology cannot simply be added on to the already full plate of curriculum required in most schools. It has to become an integral part of the culture in order to truly affect change. "The context for human development is always a culture, never an isolated technology. In the presence of computers, cultures might change and with them people's ways of learning and thinking. But if you want to understand (or influence) the change, you have to center your attention on the culture - not the computer" (Papert, 1987, p.23). Some of the most unique and promising methods of addressing staff needs are:
Development sabbaticals and mini-conferences: Sabbaticals are periods of time, frequently ranging from two days to two weeks, when teachers are released from their normal duties to work on technology development. Mini-conferences are an in-depth and intimate (20 minutes, 3 people) way to showcase integration efforts to governing groups like advisory committees, school board members, district staff and parent groups (Yee, 1998; Zehr, 1997; Harrington-Lueker, 1996).
Educational technology teams: These teams are fundamentally a way of empowering teachers to make technology decisions. They are typically composed of teachers, parents, students, administrators, media specialists and other support staff members (Yee, 1998; Cooley, 1997).
Generational model: "In this model, teachers learn technology from an instructionally strong first generation of teachers, practice what they have learned, and pass on their expertise to a second generation of teachers, who pass it on to a third." (Caverly, Peterson and Mandeville, 1997, p. 56),
Restructured staff development: Some specific methods include having on-site curriculum integration, technology specialists; in-house, hands-on staff development days; and provision for time to practice new skills and conduct searches for Internet-based materials. (Truett, 1997; Harrington-Lueker, 1996; Lovely, 1996),
Staff development experts / centers: These practices recognize the need for human support by providing technology specialists who deal with the curricular issues and not technical issues. These people typically have a variety of titles. Some are school-based and some are division-based.. One important consideration is that these experts come from within the culture being serviced. (Zehr, 1997; Harrington-Lueker, 1996; Polin, 1992),
Administrator level technology education: This method addresses the need for administrators to become educated in the integration of technology and includes them in professional development opportunities. (Truett, 1997; Harrington-Lueker, 1996),
Job-sharing: Job-sharing is a way to involve more teachers in technology facilitation while maintaining their classroom connection. It, too, is an empowerment opportunity. (Polin, 1992),
In-house, multiple facilitators: Using in-house, multiple facilitators provides on-the-spot training or assistance with technology integration. It provides teachers with like-minded, human support. These people are frequently colleagues who have volunteered or been chosen to be technology leaders in their schools. (Zehr, 1997; Polin, 1992).
Many of these methods tend to adhere to and support Rogers' and Harris' opinions which were shared earlier. Whatever the method, it is important to keep in mind the culture of the particular school and the idea that "professional development ought to be for teachers what a great learning environment is for students: motivating, appropriate, active, relevant - and yes, even fun!" (Lovely, 1996, p. 51).
The Instructional Support System. As previously noted, staff development is only half the battle. In order for the human element to be fully recognized, one must attend to the need for the on-going human instructional support system. We cannot continue to provide sporadic learning opportunities without continuous, daily support. Integrating technology into classroom instruction is not an easy task. If teachers are to truly learn how to integrate technology into instruction, then they need to have a constantly available support system.. As stated by Zehr (1998), "Teachers need ongoing one-on-one and just-in-time instruction in using technology. Occasional in-service workshops aren't enough" (p. 41). Meltzer & Sherman (1997) spell it out in a bit more detail:
Teachers need both technological and pedagogical support. If they try something in their classroom and are unsuccessful, it is unlikely they will try again. The support and research role played by principals and on-site coordinators who know both educational technology and classroom applications can change a failure into a positive learning experience.
This is not the same role that a technical troubleshooter or computer lab technician would serve. The technology coordinator's primary work ... is ongoing teacher training and support. Research points overwhelmingly to the effectiveness of an onsite support person .... (p. 60)
Statements such as these point to the need for administrators to make an adjustment in their staffing allocations. It is not enough to just have on-the-spot technical support. If we are to truly impact the level of computer use in the classrooms, then we must have the instantaneous instructional support as well. Harrington-Lueker (1996) describes one school system, comprised of four schools, that has invested in three school-based technology coordinators. She also explains that each coordinator has at least one full-time assistant. Because of this type of staffing, that school system is able to make ongoing, classroom-based staff development a given (p. 40). She quotes one coordinator as saying, "maybe 20% of what we do is formal ... the other 80% is informal - teachers helping colleagues, someone with a pilot project sharing his or her findings, or someone booking blocks of time with the coordinator" (p.40). Such sharing and cooperation is the foundation of a culture which is open and amenable to the integration of instructional technology.
I would like to take a more in depth look at some of the different strategies for addressing staff needs which were presented here, but a job worth doing is a job worth doing well, and such a job is beyond the scope of this paper. In the interim, I would like to propose that we all take the time to look at the cultures of which we are a part paying particular attention to the human elements on which we have all, at one time or another, leaned.
CONCLUSION
As stated earlier, "Instruction is not a naturally occurring phenomenon" nor should it be an activity done in isolation. The more we continue to lean on and share with each other, the stronger our cultural communities become. As Zehr (1997) points out, "teachers who are excited about integrating technology into the curriculum say a supportive school culture is essential" (p.28). And the bottom line to any culture is the people. People are and will always be the straw that makes ... or breaks the proverbial camel's back.
In the opening paragraph, I referred to the 1988 OTA report which was concerned with computer integration in the instructional process after one decade of availability. As we end this century, Bailey and Pownell are voicing concern that unless needs similar to those I have discussed are addressed, they are not holding out much hope for the next century! While I think they might be exaggerating their concern a bit, I do agree that we cannot stall any longer. We have to avoid the crisis and begin the process of change. As Rogers so aptly points out, change is a process and not an event. We have to start looking at the whole picture and start planning how to support that whole picture over the long haul. We have to start addressing all the parts. We must hear the needs of our teachers, understand the change process, remain open to a variety of culturally appropriate ways to provide the human support needed to enhance instructional endeavors, include our whole school cultures in the process (including administration), and invest in people who can make a difference. The human element, as a fundamental need, has always been there. It is now time to name it, validate it, and provide for its continuation.
REFERENCES
Bailey, G. D. & Pownell, D. (1998, November). Technology staff-development and support programs: Applying Abraham Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. Learning & Leading with Technology, p. 47-64.
Becker, H. J. (April, 1998). The influence of computer and Internet use on teachers' pedagogical practices and perceptions. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association.
Caverly, D. C., Peterson, C. L., & Mandeville, T. F. (1997, November). A generational model for professional development. Educational Leadership, 56-59.
Cooley, V.E. (1997, September). Empower teachers, power up technology. Education Digest, 54-57.
Dwyer, D. (1994, April). Finding Promise of Educational Technology. Educational Leadership, .
Ham, V. (1997, November). In New Zealand Teachers speak up about managing technology. Educational Leadership, 67-68.
Harris, J. (1994, October). Teaching teachers to use telecomputing tools. The Computing Teacher, 60-63.
Harrington-Lueker, D. (1996, September). Coming to grips with staff development. Electronic Learning, 32-43.
Johnson, J. B., & Taylor, W. D. Instructional technology and unforeseen value conflicts. 94-99. In Instructional technology past, present, and future. Ed. Anglin, G. J. Second edition. 1995. Libraries Unlimited, Inc.
Lovely, G. (1996, October). One size does not fit all: Choose training models to fit your staff's needs and learning styles. Electronic Learning, 51.
Meltzer, J., & Sherman, T. M. (1997, April). 10 commandments to implement technology. Education Digest, 62 (8), 56-61.
Merriam-Webster. (1994). Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary. (10th ed.). Merriam-Webster, Incorporated.
Myhre, O. R. (1998). I think this will keep them busy: Computers in a teacher's thought and practice. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education 6 (2/3), 93-103.
Norum, K. (1997). Lights, camera, action! the trials and triumphs of using technology in the classroom. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education 5 (1), 3-18.
Office of Technology Assessment. (1988). Power on!: New tools for teaching and learning (GPO No. 052-003-01125-5). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Papert, S. (1987). Computer criticism vs. techno-centric thinking. Educational Researcher, 16 (1), 22-30.
Polin, L. (1992, April). Making changes in teachers' understanding and use of technology for instruction. Paper presented at AERA, San Francisco, CA, 20-24.
Reiser, R. A., & Salisbury, D. F. Instructional technology and public education in the United States: The next decade. In Instructional technology past, present, and future. Ed. Anglin, G. J. Second edition. 1995. Libraries Unlimited, Inc. 254-262.
Rogers, E. M. (1983). Diffusion of innovations. 3rd ed. 1983. New York, Free Press.
Sparks, D. (Fall, 1994). A paradigm shift in staff development. Journal of Staff Development, 15(4) 26-29.
Truett, C. (1997, September/October). What every administrator should know about teachers and technology. MultiMedia Schools, 16-20.
Woodrow, J. E. J. (1998). Technology-enhanced instruction: A perspective from experience. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education 6 (1),
3-9.
Yee, D. L. (1998, April). In Saskatchewan Chalk, chips, and children. Educational Leadership, 57-59.
Zehr, M. A. (1997, November 10). Teaching the teachers. Education Week, 24-29.
Zehr, M. A. (1998). Changing the way teachers teach Away from the chalkboard. Education Week 18 (5), 41-43.
Return to Top of Page
Elaine Bartley is currently a graduate student at the University of Virginia's Instructional Technology Program. To contact Elaine, e-mail her at emb3p@virginia.edu
