Shi, M., & Bichelmeyer, B. A. (2007). Teachers’ experiences with computers: A comparative study.

Educational Technology &

Society, 10 (2), 180-190.

Teachers’ experiences with computers: A comparative study

Min Shi
Department of Education, Zhejiang University, 148 Tianmushan Rd., Hangzhou, Zhejiang 310028, China
Tel: (86)132-05815963 // shiminzj@hotmail.com

Barbara A. Bichelmeyer
Department of Instructional Systems Technology, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN 47405-1006, USA
Tel: +1 812-856-8468 // Fax: +1 812-856-8239 // bic@indiana.edu

ABSTRACT
Findings from two ethnographic studies regarding teachers’ uses of computers from 1991 and 2004 are
compared to discover how teachers’ experiences of computer have changed since the proliferation of computers
in schools and how teachers’ experiences of computers have remained the same. Despite the tremendous
increase in availability of computers in schools and modest progress in teachers’ computer use, a comparison of
data demonstrates continuing token integration of computers by teachers. Such factors as lack of effective
training, and need for collaboration and involvement in planning for computer use which inhibited teachers’
computer use in 1991 continued to exist in 2004.

Keywords
Computer use, Comparative study, Case study, Technology integration

The most visible change that has occurred in public schools in the United States over the past two decades has been
the addition of computers in labs and classrooms. According to the National Education Association (2002), one
computer was available for every 4.2 public school students nationally in 2001 – as compared to one computer for
every 125 students nationally in 1981. Similarly, Internet access was available in 77 percent of instructional rooms
by 2000, an increase from roughly 3 percent access in 1994 (Cattagni & Westat, 2001).

One major driving force for this change has been the policy and financial support from the U.S. Government. A
Nation at Risk, a widely read report produced by National Commission on Excellence in Education in 1983, was the
catalyst for developing computer skills among school students, which named computer skills as among the “Five
New Basics” (National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983, p. 24). Eighteen years later, the No Child Left
Behind Act of 2001 repeated this emphasis by including a recommendation that all students should be technologically
literate by the eighth grade. Accompanying these policies was a huge amount of funding from the government and
private sources. The technology-related investment in K-12 education for infrastructure, professional development
and technical support in the ten years from 1993 to 2004 exceeded $40 billion dollars (Dickard, 2003).

However, multiple studies have found unsatisfactory results regarding computer integration in schools (Cuban, 2001;
Cuban, Kirkpatrick, & Peck, 2001; Ertmer, 1999; Peck, 2001; Rogers, 2000). Instead of facilitating teaching and
learning in a significant way, computers are found to be “oversold and underused” (Cuban, 2001). Such findings
draw our attention from the expectations and potentialities of computer use to the realities of computer use, and
prompt us to ask questions such as why are computers underused in schools? Why don’t teachers choose to use
computers?

Among various explanations and analyses provided by researchers, Fullan’s have perhaps been the most systematic
(Fullan, 1991). He posits that multiple factors influence the implementation of any changes in education, including
the use of educational technology. Teachers are one factor effecting technology implementation in education. In
contrast to most studies which treat teachers marginally and simplistically, Fullan suggests that researchers and
policymakers examine the changes that are the result of technology integration from teachers’ perspectives in order
to understand their subjective experiences of the matter in their work context.

The purpose of this research report is to compare the findings from two studies, both of which explored teachers’
experiences with computers through prolonged engagement in the teachers’ native social settings, their schools and
their classrooms (Bichelmeyer, 1991; Shi, 2004, 2005). These two studies were completed 13 years apart (in 1991

ISSN 1436-4522 (online) and 1176-3647 (print). © International Forum of Educational Technology & Society (IFETS). The authors and the forum jointly retain the
180
copyright of the articles. Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies
are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by
others than IFETS must be honoured. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, to republish, to post on servers, or to redistribute to lists, requires prior
specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from the editors at kinshuk@ieee.org.
and 2004); the comparison of findings from the two studies tells us something about the progress of computer
integration in U.S. schools over the past two decades.

Through examination of teachers’ concrete experiences with computers and probing of teachers’ perceptions
regarding these experiences, the researchers shed a unique, interesting and valuable light on the question of computer
use in schools. The historical view provided by this comparison, the striking contrast between ubiquitous presence
and low use of computers in schools, and the general lack of studies on teachers’ experiences with computers in the
context of their daily professional activities make this report an important contribution to discourse in the field of
instructional technology.

Brief Literature Review

“We’re Wired, Webbed, and Windowed, Now What?” is the title of an article by Trilling & Hood (1999) which
captures a fundamental question regarding technology integration in schools. Now that billions of dollars have been
spent on computers and Internet connectivity, it is appropriate and necessary to ask such questions: How are these
computers used? Have teachers and students become experienced users? Have teachers used them to teach in new
ways? Have students been able to achieve at higher levels because of the use of computers in teaching?
It may well be argued that the most successful large-scale technology integration project to date has been the Apple
Computer of Tomorrow (ACOT), a ten-year long project sponsored by the Apple Computer Corporation.
Researchers found that technology impacted teaching and learning and that effective technology integration
facilitated student improvement in a variety of skills identified as essential to prepare today’s students for
tomorrow’s world (Sandholtz, Ringstaff, & Dwyer, 1997).

Unfortunately, the success of the ACOT project has been quite the exception in school technology integration. In
fact, many research studies report that no significant increase in academic achievement has been found on the part of
students as the result of technology integration, though students are reported to show higher interest and motivation
in learning (Bryson & Castell, 1998; Schofield, 1997; Schofield & Davidson, 2002).

Reported use of computers by teachers does not offer much promise for impacting teaching and learning, either.
According to the National Center for Education Statistics (2000), among teachers who use computers or the Internet
at school, 39% of teachers use the computer to create instructional materials, 34% for administrative record keeping,
23% to gather information for planning lessons, and less than 10% of teachers use computers for such activities as
multimedia classroom presentations, accessing research about best practices in teaching, communicating with parents
and students, or accessing model lesson plans.

Cuban (2001) reports low use of computers by teachers in terms of the frequency of computer use: “[L]ess than 10
percent of teachers who used computers in their classrooms were serious users (defined as using computers in class
at least once a week); between 20 and 30 percent were occasional to rare users (once a month); well over half of the
teachers were nonusers” (p.133). Employing a critical perspective, Cuban stresses the fact that for those teachers who
use computers, they use computers mainly for communication, administrative tasks and creating teaching materials
such as student handouts and Internet searches, and “[l]ess than 5 percent of teachers integrated computer technology
into their regular curricular and instructional routines ” (p.133). From these observations Cuban draws the conclusion
that computers in schools are “oversold and underused”.

Due to low use of computers by teachers and consistent reports of no significant increase in academic achievement
as the result of computer integration, many people have begun to ask how to justify the expenditures made for
computers in schools. In an article titled “Our biggest challenge: Proving the power of technologies in educational
settings,” Peck (2001) observes that a backlash against technologies has begun, admitting that “[t]here are many
advocates, but few offer evidence” (p.25). This is echoed by Molenda and Sullivan (2002) when they write that one
of the major issues with regard to educational technology in 2001 was that the new media movement with computers
(as with previous media such as film, radio, and television) has hit the plateau and that schools are cutting back on
high-tech investments as they deal with budget struggles (Molenda & Sullivan, 2002).

In 1985, Bramble and Mason predicted that there would be four phases of integration for educational computing in
schools in the United States (Bramble & Mason, 1985, pp. 295-297). The four phases they identified were:
1. Experimentation, 1960-1976, when “methods and terminology are developed…”
181
2. Popularization, 1977-1985, when “public education enthusiastically adopts computers…”
3. Transition, 1985-2000, when computers “change teaching techniques and redefine the curriculum”
4. Infusion, 2001-?, when computers become “an integral part of the curriculum…”

Obviously, we have experienced the popularization period (at least in terms of the number of computers that are now
available in schools). However, the transition period seems to be much more prolonged than Bramble and Mason had
predicted, and the future of educational computing is unclear.

This research report will add to the knowledge base by casting light on factors that have influenced technology
integration during the transition phase identified by Bramble and Mason. Additionally, this report will provide
evidence for and an explanation as to why this transition has been more difficult and longer than these theorists and
others who are interested in the integration of technology in schools expected it to be.

Method
This study is a cross-case comparison of findings from two ethnographic case studies regarding teachers’ experiences
with computers. The two case studies were completed 13 years apart, in 1991 and 2004.

The 1991 study followed the method of naturalistic inquiry (Lincoln & Guba, 1985), while the 2004 study followed
the method of critical inquiry (Carspecken, 1996). In both case studies, ethnographic methods were selected as the
most appropriate approach for inquiry because they allowed the researchers to become immersed in teachers’ worlds
through prolonged observation, document analysis, and interview in order to identify teachers’ experiences and
views regarding important issues around the integration of technology in classrooms. The open research agenda of
ethnographic inquiry gave educators opportunity to voice their needs, whereas historically, issues around integration
have been defined by administrators and technologists, with little direct input from teachers.

The rich data set that is the result of ethnographic inquiry and prolonged engagement made it possible for the two
researchers to compare data about several key factors impacting teachers’ experiences with computers, even though
neither researcher conducted their original study with the intention of completing this cross-case comparison.

Research Questions

The broad focus for the 1991 study was on educators’ subjective experiences with computers and on their
perspectives of how to best use computers for communication, professional development, teaching and learning.

The focusing questions for the 2004 case study were: How do teachers use computers in the context of their daily
experiences? What do teachers perceive as the important functions of computers in their daily experiences? What
impact do computers have on teachers’ professional lives?

The focus question for the cross-case comparison was, How have teachers’ experiences with computers changed
from 1991 to 2004?

Contexts of the Case Studies

Fictitious names have been assigned to all schools, communities, projects, and persons that are named in case study
reports throughout this paper.

The 1991 case study. The focus of the 1991 case study was the educational community engaged in the
implementation of the IN-CITE computer network. IN-CITE (Information Networks – Computer Integration
Throughout Education) was the first computer network to facilitate communication and sharing of resources among
educators in its State, which is located in the Plains region of the United States. Four constituent groups were served
by the IN-CITE network, including teachers, student teachers, school administrators and librarians. The network
linked 17 computers in 16 schools in 6 school districts to a hub station in the Educational Resource Lab (ERL) at the
Central University (CU) School of Education.

182
The hub station at the ERL was a multimedia local-area network equipped to facilitate the development, compilation,
organization and dissemination of educational information to all schools linked through IN-CITE.

The IN-CITE stations at each of the 16 participating schools were located in the library or in a teacher work area;
each station consisted of a state-of-the-art Macintosh SE with a 20 megabyte hard drive and an Imagewriter II
printer. The stations were connected to the hub by a dedicated phone line and modem.

Schools and districts were selected to participate in the IN-CITE project based on representation from across grade
levels and cultural settings, minority representation and the number of CU student teachers placed in the district each
semester.

The purpose of the IN-CITE project was to facilitate communication among teachers via the network, to familiarize
constituents with emerging technology, and to encourage constituents to integrate computers into educational
environments.

The 2004 case study. The focus of the 2004 case study was Addison County High School which served about 750
students in Addison County in the Midwestern United States. The largest employer in the county was the district
school corporation, which had four elementary schools, one junior high school and one high school. Addison County
High School employed about 60 teachers and staff.

The technology department of the school corporation had a staff of five, including the director, a network
administrator, one website administrator, one school technician, and one lab supervisor for the high school computer
lab.

There were over 200 computers in the high school. Each classroom had a computer station for teachers’
administrative use. In addition, the school had four computer labs including an industrial technology lab (about 20
computers), a computer sciences lab (about 15 computers), a business lab (about 10 computers), and a lab for general
use (about 30 computers). There were a few additional computer clusters in some of the other classrooms, such as the
arts room and the publications room. The computers varied in their configurations, and not all were networked.

Participants

The 1991 case study. Purposive sampling of constituent group members was completed using a serial nomination
process in order to achieve maximum variation in sampling. Sixteen teachers, four student teachers, eight librarians,
two school administrators and one IN-CITE staff member representing every school that participated in the project
were interviewed over a period of nine months. Although the study was primarily concerned with how teachers use
computers, interviews with members of the other constituent groups were included in order to gain additional
perspectives about issues surrounding the educational and computing environments at each school, about what
motivated teachers to use computers, and varying observations and perceptions about how teachers used computers
in their daily context.

The 2004 case study. Observation and interviews with nineteen teachers, administrators and technology support
personnel at Addison County High School were conducted over a period of eight months. As with the 1991 study,
interviews with members of the administrators and support staff were included in order to gain additional
perspectives about issues surrounding the educational environment at each school, about what motivated teachers to
use technology, and varying observations and perceptions about how teachers used computers in their school
environment.

Data Collection Methods

The 1991 case study. This study employed the naturalistic inquiry methodology developed by Lincoln and Guba
(1985) which involved four phases of inquiry. First, an orientation was conducted through participant observation
and interview in order to discover the salient issues and to determine what additional information was needed.
Second, focused exploration was completed using structured protocols in interviews to obtain more in-depth
information about the areas identified as most salient to the study. Member checking was completed in the third

183
phase of the study and the case report was revised as a result of the member check. Fourth, an external audit was
completed by a researcher with expertise in naturalistic inquiry in order to evaluate the trustworthiness
(dependability, confirmability and credibility) of the study.

The 2004 case study. This study employed a critical ethnographic methodology following a five-stage procedure
outlined by Carspecken (1996). The first stage involved the compilation of the primary record for the study through
the collection of documents and observational data. Stage two involved preliminary analysis to reconstruct the
cultural themes and system factors that are often unconscious to the actors by identifying both the routine and
unusual events in teachers’ daily activities. Stage three involved dialogical data generation through interviews with
teachers and other stakeholders of technology integration in the school. The focus of stage four was to develop a
conceptual framework in order to discover specific relationships between teachers’ use of computers and system
factors, and to triangulate this data through member checking and peer debriefing. Finally, the focus of stage five
was to apply the identified system relationships as explanations of findings (p. 43).

Instrumentation for both studies. In both studies, tools for recording data included observation logs, interview notes,
calendars of daily activities, methodological journals, reflective journals, and document/record files.

Data Analysis Methods

Original case studies. Data analysis was completed separately and independently for each case study. However, both
case studies were developed using similar data analysis techniques. For both case studies, data from observation and
interview logs, documents and record files were unitized, coded, categorized and sorted. Data units were compared
using the constant comparative method (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) and analyzed to discover emergent themes. Both
case studies were written using data category structures that evolved through constant comparative analysis into the
emergent themes of the study.

Comparison of case studies. The two researchers reviewed the independent analysis categories that developed from
each case study, and identified common themes between case studies. Similarities and variations of findings between
case studies for each theme were noted. These similar themes, and the similarities and variations of findings within
each theme became the structure for the findings and conclusions of the comparison report.

Limitations of the Study

Because the comparison data are from two case studies that were completed by independent researchers with
different purposes and in different contexts, this comparison should not be viewed as a longitudinal study, nor should
the two data sets be viewed as being related in any way. Because the findings outlined in this research report are not
drawn from direct correlations between the two data sets, the findings and conclusions presented should be viewed as
interpretive in nature.

Findings
Through the comparative data analysis process, six themes were found to have been identified by participants in both
studies as having effects on teachers’ experiences with computers in the school environment. These six common
themes included 1) accessibility of computers, 2) availability of technical support, 3) perceptions regarding
usefulness of computers, 4) appropriate programs for teachers’ use, 5) factors facilitating teachers’ use of computers,
and 6) factors inhibiting teachers’ use of computers.

Accessibility of Computers

1991 study. In 1991 the only teachers who had personal computers in their classrooms were the “innovative”
teachers; those teachers who were using computers due to their own interest and initiative. None of the teachers’
computers were networked to the Internet. The computers that these teachers were using were typically made
available through grants, negotiations with school administrators, or through personal purchases. Additionally, the

184
majority of the 16 schools that were the focus of the 1991 study had only one computer lab in the school, usually
with about 15-20 computers in the lab. In high schools, these labs were used primarily for computer programming,
but in all schools these labs could be scheduled by any teacher who was interested in using them with students for
instructional activities. None of the student computer labs were networked to the Internet. The labs were not often
used by teachers other than the computer programming teacher for instructional purposes; but when they were, they
were generally used by English teachers to allow students to do word processing or by other teachers to administer
instructional software programs or for word processing.

2004 study. In the 2004 study, all teachers had personal computers in their classrooms, regardless of how little or
much the computer was used to support administrative and instructional activities. Some teachers had several student
computers in their classrooms, as well. These student stations were generally found in the classrooms of teachers
who were more active computer users, such as the science teacher who created a class website that includes syllabus,
schedule and other resources for students. Addison County High School had four computer labs, three for specific
courses ranging from 10-20 computers, and one lab for general student use with about 30 computers. Each lab had at
least some portion of the computers networked to the Internet. The general computer lab is reported to be busy, with
many teachers scheduling classes there when they want to use the LCD projector to present information from the
computer to students.

Availability of Technical Support

1991 study. All teachers reported that the technical support provided by school administrator for their computer use
was inadequate. In the majority of schools, there was no funded support at the building level, so whatever support
was available was generally provided by innovative teachers or the computer programming teacher, who would
volunteer time or perhaps receive one course release for their efforts. Funded technical support was generally
provided at the school district level. In a few rare cases technical support was provided by outside consultants, or
provided through awards from grants or other funding agencies.

2004 study. The majority of teachers reported that the technical support available to them for their computer use was
adequate. This perceived adequacy may have been due in part to the fact that there was a number of teachers who
were advanced computer users provided support to other teachers (something akin to a larger group of innovative
teachers at the building level as described in the 1991 study), as well as to the fact that funded support was available
at the school level from the lab supervisor in addition to the district-level support through the technology department
of the school corporation.

An interesting difference between the teacher participants in the 2004 study and the 1991 study was that teachers in
the 2004 study identified students as one source of technical support. Most teachers in the 1991 study would not have
considered the idea of asking for support from students, alternatively, many expressed concern that students would
perceive them as technologically incompetent if the computer had a problem that they couldn’t fix while working
with students. Apparently, teachers in the 2004 study had no such concerns, which would indicate that it has become
more acceptable in the past 13 years for teachers to ask for help from students, at least in the area of computer
support.

Perceptions Regarding Usefulness of Computers

1991 study. Obviously, personal computers were still very new in 1991, and teachers’ perceptions about computers
in the 1991 case study reflected the uncertainties that accompany newness. Most of the teachers in that study
expressed uncertainty about the value of computers in education while they identified many specific concerns, such
as: whether software interfaces could be made more intuitive, whether the speed of Internet connections could be
increased, whether software programs from various vendors could be made compatible with each other so that they
wouldn’t crash so often and so unexpectedly, whether high quality programs could be developed to meet teachers’
needs for administration and instruction, and whether enough computer stations could be purchased with tight school
budgets so as to make it possible for a majority of students and teachers to use them.

185
At the same time, a few teachers could imagine the potential benefits of computer use if the uncertainties listed
above could be overcome (generally, these were the same teachers who were identified as “innovators”). The
perception of potential was based on the possibility of more effective administrative tools for recording data, tracking
students and grading; more effective warehousing of instructional resources that could be easily re-used from one
semester to the next; and the potential of email and networked applications to break through the barrier of the four
walls of the classroom that isolate teachers and students from others in their building as well as the rest of the world.

2004 study. By 2004, the computer had overcome at least a number of the uncertainties that were identified by
teachers in 1991. However, while all teachers used the computer in some ways for their daily work, not all of them
perceived it as an important tool of education. In fact, only a few teachers were enthusiastic about the changes that
computers had brought to their ways of teaching, and most were not that excited. Some felt the ways of teaching
were quite the same, and some expressed the view that, while the computer does allow for easy access to
information, the quality of that information is often questionable and therefore the computer is still an “immature
research tool”.

A lingering uneasiness about computer use in education was expressed by a veteran English teacher who represented
a very small but vocal minority when he said that the most valuable thing in teaching is the human touch, and that it
is important for students to learn to respect others. This teacher said he believes that staring at a computer screen and
typing away on the keyboard take away that human aspect of teaching and learning and that it is pitiful that students
have no way to develop this respect because “you wouldn’t show respect to a screen.” However, despite his doubts
about computers, he takes students to the lab because he feels they are more motivated when working at computers.

Teachers’ Typical Computer Use

1991 study. In 1991, the few teachers who were using computers were using them primarily for administrative
purposes such as word processing to create documents for class including assignments and tests and grade book
programs or simple databases to record and track grades. As described earlier, if computers were used at all by
teachers for instruction, they were used primarily for word processing in English classes. Some of the innovative
teachers may have developed a HyperCard stack or some little program to teach a math concept or a scientific
principle, but that was the very rare exception. Internet research was very difficult in 1991, when “surfing the net”
was still a function of text-based or command line programs because the World Wide Web had not yet been
introduced for general use. Neither was the computer used for presentations because LCD panels were not yet
available on the general market and computer screens were too small for a teacher to display information to a class of
20-30 students.

2004 study. Given the advances in hardware, software and internet speed, one might expect to see a large difference
between teachers in 1991 and 2004 in terms of their typical uses of computers. One with such an expectation would
be disappointed. Teachers who participated in the 2004 study were still using computers for primarily administrative
purposes (though proportionally many more teachers were using computers for these purposes in 2004 than in 1991).
One interesting twist regarding teachers’ computer use in this regard, however, is that a mandate from the
administration at the school corporation level and the school level resulted in teachers’ use of email for internal
communication, a student management package for recording grades and taking attendance, and a database to match
final examinations with state standards. The primary use of computers for instructional purposes by teachers
continues to be for word processing, though the amount of Internet research in class activities is increasing. And
there are a few teachers who could be described as engaging in the intensive integration of computers into their
classrooms, including creating course websites, posting schedules, assignments and resources on the Web, and
having students use computers to complete in-class activities.

Factors Facilitating Teachers’ Use of Computers

1991 study. In 1991, the factors that teachers said would facilitate their use of computers were in actuality a wish list,
because none of the five factors that were identified were available to teachers at that time. In addition to
accessibility, hardware/software stability and technical support, teachers identified the potential for more efficient

186
completion of administrative tasks and potential access to better instructional materials as factors that would
facilitate their integration of computers into their daily professional routines.

2004 study. At Addison County High School in 2004, all teachers had personal computers in their classroom, some
had student computer clusters in their classrooms, there were four computer labs and more than 200 computers
throughout the school – in other words, accessibility was no longer an issue and teachers did not even consider it as a
factor that facilitates their use of computers in daily activities.

In the 2004 study, teachers did identify four of the same factors that teachers in the 1991 study named as facilitators
of technology integration; however, for teachers in 2004, these factors were not a wish list but rather a dream come
true. Teachers reiterated the importance of hardware/software stability and technical support, and they also noted the
increased efficiency of administrative tasks and the ability to develop better instructional materials as factors that
supported their use of computers. Additionally, in the 2004 study, a majority of teachers cited increases in students’
motivation when working with computers as an important reason they use computers.

Factors Inhibiting Teachers’ Use of Computers

1991 study. One reason teachers cited in 1991 for why they did not use computers was that they were simply not in
the habit of doing so. Another factor related to habit that was identified by teachers as inhibiting their use of
computers was intimidation – these machines were unfamiliar, they were not user-friendly, and there was little
support available to teachers who were willing to try. Teachers reported that their over-full schedules left them little
time to become familiar with computers, which might have helped to decrease their intimidation.

Teachers also noted that the time they did have to dedicate to innovation would be during in-service workshops for
professional development activities, but that there was little or no effective training for computer integration offered
at these times. A discussion of the elements that lead to effective professional development for teachers’ computer
use is beyond the scope of this report; suffice it to say that teachers wanted professional development opportunities
in which appropriate uses of computers for administration, teaching and learning were demonstrated; that included
hands-on activities; that extended beyond a single two-hour session, and that were delivered by individuals who had
K-12 teaching experience.

Finally, the participants of the 1991 study noted that teachers spend most of their professional working life isolated
from their peers and from administration, and therefore they lack the opportunities to work with others and to be
involved in planning for the innovations that they are required to implement in their own classrooms. The lack of
collaboration and ownership were identified by teachers as critical factors that inhibited their computer use.

2004 study. Participants in the 2004 study did not name habit, intimidation or lack of time as factors that inhibited
their computer use. They did, however, echo the voices of the 1991 teacher participants when they emphasized that
the lack of effective training, lack of collegiality and lack of involvement in planning for technology integration were
factors that kept them from using computers.

An additional factor cited by teachers in the 2004 study as inhibiting their use of computers was the lack of material
support, meaning that, as one might expect in an always financially burdened public school setting, teachers reported
having to periodically spend their own money for peripheral devices and supplies (such as computer cables), and that
their frustration with this situation was a discouragement from using computers.

In addition, a few teachers identified the standards movement as an inhibitor to their computer use. These teachers
felt that the mandate to teach to standards diverts their energy away from truly improving teaching, with or without
technology integration.

Summary of Comparative Findings

For two studies that were completed 13 years apart, by different researchers, in different contexts and with different
participants, the congruity between themes identified by the teachers who participated in the two studies is striking.

187
This congruity may be considered as evidence that the same issues that were important to teachers 13 years ago
continue to be important to teachers today.

The similarities and variations identified within each theme appear to be the natural result of the now nearly
ubiquitous presence of computers in the daily experiences of teachers. Comparative data analysis indicated that
computers are more accessible today than they were 13 years ago, both in individual classrooms and labs throughout
the school. There is now more formal, funded technical support at the building level for teachers than there was 13
years ago, but there is also more informal support for teachers in the form of their peers, and teachers are now
comfortable taking advantage of help from students who are sophisticated computer users, in contrast to teachers 13
years ago who were reticent about looking inept in front of students. Thirteen years ago, most teachers were
uncertain as to whether computers would one day be useful tools for education; today more teachers perceive
computers as an important tool of the educational process. Most teachers believe that the use of computers increases
students’ motivation to learn.

That’s the good news. There is less positive news, as well. Comparative data analysis also indicated that teachers
continue to use computers primarily for administrative tasks and that intensive technology integration for innovative
and meaningful teaching and learning is a rarity. It appears that there has been little improvement over the past
thirteen years of in-service training or professional development experiences for teachers who want to learn how to
fully integrate computers into their daily activities. Teachers still report that they experience a lack of collegiality and
lack of involvement in planning for the innovations that they are required to implement in their own classrooms.

Finally, the impact of the standards movement on teachers’ use of computers is unknown at this time; however, it
appears that it’s a mixed bag at best, with some teachers viewing it as a positive influence for computer integration
and others viewing it as yet another distraction diverting their energies away from being able to create meaningful
teaching and learning experiences.

Conclusions
In 1991 few teachers achieved technology integration in their classrooms due to such fundamental issues as lack of
accessibility and technical support. In comparison, the majority of teachers in 2004 appear to have achieved basic
levels of computer integration into their daily professional activities. So, the difference between teachers’
experiences with computers from 1991 and 2004 is that the majority of teachers have moved from no integration to
basic integration of computers into their everyday activities.

However, such basic level of technology integration has been far from changing most teachers’ teaching practice and
curriculum. At a fundamental philosophical level, the most important elements of teachers’ experiences with
computers in 2004 appear to be the same as they were in 1991 – and this may well have been expected. In 1986,
Cuban (1986) wrote in “Teachers and Machines” that, unlike instructional technologists who are interested in the
integration of technology into classrooms for technology’s sake, teachers are interested in taking care of their
students and will judge the worth of any technology by the ability of that technology to help meet teachers’ needs as
they attempt to facilitate learning. Like the teachers described by Cuban, the majority of teachers who participated in
the 1991 case study reported that they did not consider their non-use of computers as a problem in and of itself. What
mattered most to those teachers was that they were engaged in effective teaching to support student learning.
Thirteen years later, the majority of teacher participants in the 2004 case study also expressed their ambivalence to
the use of computers for their own sake. These teachers, along with their principal, expressed the belief that, while it
is important for the administration to provide computers for teachers and students, it is up to teachers to decide
whether it is appropriate to use them or not – and that computers are simply tools which do not, in and of themselves,
make a teacher good. During one interview, the principal said, “I can take you to a classroom right now with a
teacher who uses very little technology [and who is] an incredible teacher. Then I could take you to another
classroom to a teacher who uses technology all the time and who is also very good.”

So it appears that teachers’ ambivalence toward computers and their commitment to meeting the needs of their
students reported by Cuban in 1986 and replicated in the 1991 case study continues to be the same in 2004. The wise
instructional designer would do well to note this sameness, even as they note the progress that has been made in
computer integration. It is very possible that the message represented by this sameness is the key to achieving the
188
highest levels of technology integration as labeled on the hierarchy of teachers’ technology needs. If, instead of
marketing technology to teachers as an end in itself, instructional technologists were to collaborate with teachers to
identify their real problems and authentic needs, then together teachers and instructional technologists may be able to
integrate computers into schools and classrooms in ways that will allow teachers to foster learning and achievement
for every student.

References
Bichelmeyer, B. A. (1991). The pilot implementation of an educational computer resource network: A naturalistic
study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS.

Bramble, W. J., & Mason, E. J. (1985). Computers in schools, New York: McGraw-Hill Inc.

Bryson, M., & Castell, S. D. (1998). New technologies and the cultural ecology of primary schooling: Imagining
teachers as Luddites in/deed. Educational Policy, 12 (5), 542-567.

Carspecken, P. F. (1996). Critical ethnography in educational research, New York and London: Routledge.

Cattagni, A., & Westat, F. E. (2001). Internet access in U.S. public schools and classrooms: 1994-2000. Retrieved
May 5, 2007, from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2001/2001071.pdf.

Cuban, L. (1986). Teachers and machines: The classroom use of technology since 1920, New York: Teachers
College Press.

Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Cuban, L., Kirkpatrick, H., & Peck, C. (2001). High access and low use of technologies in high school classrooms:
Explaining an apparent paradox. American Educational Research Journal, 38 (4), 813-834.

Dickard, N. (Ed.). (2003). The sustainability challenge: Taking ed-tech to the next level, Washington, DC: The
Benton Foundation Communications Program and EDC Center for Children and Technology.

Ertmer, P. A. (1999). Addressing first- and second-order barriers to change: Strategies for technology integration.
Educational Technology Research and Development, 47 (4), 47-61.

Fullan, M. G. (1991). The new meaning of educational change (2nd Ed.), New York: Teachers College Press.

Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research, New York:
Aldine.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry, Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Molenda, M., & Sullivan, M. (2002). Issues and trends in instructional technology: Hitting the plateau. In R. M.
Branch & M. A. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Educational media and technology yearbook 2002 (3-18). Englewood, CO:
Libraries Unlimited.

National Center for Education Statistics (2000). Teacher use of computers and the Internet in public schools,
Department of Education.

National Commission on Excellence in Education (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform,
Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

National Education Association (2002). Good news about public schools in Indiana, Retrieved May 8, 2007, from
http://www.gcsc.k12.in.us/~Maxwell/good_news.htm.

189
Peck, K. L. (2001). Our biggest challenge: Proving the power of technologies in educational settings. In R. M.
Branch & M. A. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Educational media and technology yearbook 2001 (24-30). Englewood, CO:
Libraries Unlimited.

Rogers, P. L. (2000). Barriers to adopting emerging technologies in education. Journal of Educational Computing
Research, 22 (4), 455-472.

Sandholtz, J. H., Ringstaff, C., & Dwyer, D. C. (1997). Teaching with technology: Creating student centered
classrooms, New York: Teachers College Press.

Schofield, J. W. (1997). Computers and classroom social processes: A review of the literature. Social Science
Computer Review, 15 (1), 27-39.

Schofield, J. W., & Davidson, A. L. (2002). Bringing Internet to school: Lessons from an urban district, San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Shi, M. (2004). The dinosaur and the computer lab hog: An ethnography of teachers' work in the computer age,
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN.

Shi, M. (2005, March-April). The dinosaur and the computer lab hog: Eight teachers' experiences with computers.
Educational Technology, 56-63.

Trilling, B., & Hood, P. (1999, May-June). Learning, technology, and education reform in the Knowledge Age or
"we're wired, webbed, and Windowed, now what?" Educational Technology, 5-18.

190