The development of information technology (IT) use in education can be
seen as part of the broader field of educational change. According to Cox &Rhodes (1989): "It has been recognized that many of the barriers to ... the
adoption of microcomputers [in schools] are specific examples of the
barriers to ... change in general". This suggests that a broad approach to the
study of issues involved in using computers in schools is warranted. Such an
approach would consider the use of computers as a specific case of school
innovation in general, and therefore benefit from the considerable corpus of
research existing in that area. This could also be beneficial in helping
researchers avoid the not uncommon external pressures (perhaps from
politicians, parents, governors or computer companies) to focus on
technological factors of high visibility, e.g. the number and type of machines.
A broader approach might also generate more positive attitudes amongst
those involved in change, since it draws upon literature, case studies and
terminology which may be more familiar.
This literature review is presented in chronological order and
concentrates first on general factors affecting innovation in educational
organisations. It then proceeds to review studies specifically concerned with
computer uptake by teachers. A concluding section briefly summarises the
review, identifying in particular its relevance to in-service teacher education
and the professional development of all those concerned with innovation
and the management of change in schools.
Factors Affecting the Implementation of Educational Innovations:
Since the 1970s there has been a growing interest in the implementation of
innovations in schools (Berman, 1981). The impetus for this interest was
research that showed that many change efforts failed to have an impact on
classroom practice (Gross et al, 1971; Charter & Pellegrin, 1973).
"Implementation", according to Fullan (1985), is "the process of
altering existing practice in order to achieve more effectively certain desired
learning outcomes". One of the major early contributions to the study of the
implementation of innovations in schools was published by Gross et al in 1971.
They conducted a case study of the introduction of an educational
innovation in an elementary school (Cambire Elementary) with the objective
of "increasing our knowledge of conditions ... that may serve to block or
facilitate the implementation of organisational innovations" (p. 42). The
authors distinguished three major stages in the innovation process:
initiation, attempted implementation and incorporation.
Their study contended that most of the research on organisational
innovations to that date "had been based on a truncated version of the
process [of innovation]" (p. 42) and described the existing theories as
placing "primary emphasis on the ability of a change agent to overcome the
initial resistance of organisational members" (p. 1). They argued that those
formulations disregarded other major issues: (a) organisational members
who are not resisting change may encounter obstacles preventing
implementation, (b) many of these obstacles can only be removed by the
organisation leaders, who may not even be aware of them, and (c)
organisational members who did not resist the innovation at the beginning
may change their attitudes and start opposing change efforts in a later stage
as a result of the presence of unsolved problems.
Gross et al found that the majority of the teachers at Cambire
Elementary had failed to implement the innovation six months after its
announcement They attributed this outcome to the presence of five barriers:
(1) the teachers' lack of clarity about the innovation, (2) their lack of the
skills needed for implementation, (3) the unavailability of required
instructional materials, (4) the incompatibility of organisational
arrangements and (5) lack of staff motivation. The authors concluded that
the school principal's strategy for change was inadequate for two main
reasons: (1) it was based on the assumption that teachers would be able to
'figure out' the procedures given the goals and therefore failed to create the
mechanisms to cope with the anticipated needs, and (2) it did not create
information systems to identify unexpected problems.
