Computer Innovation in Schools: a review of selected research literature.

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.