Educators Resistance to New Technologies



Educators Resistance to New TechnologiesAnthony J GartnerUniversity of Wisconsin StoutContact information: (Anthony Gartner gartnera4705@my.uwstout.edu)Educators Resistance to New TechnologiesUniversity of Wisconsin Stout class for Learning Technologies uses a textbook authored by Reiser & Dempsey with the latest edition of 2018. After having read several chapters of the book, Trends and Issues in Instructional Design and Technology, a concept occurred repeatedly. The concept that many educators are hesitant to make use of new technology that is being provided for their use. The intent is to research potential reasons for educators not embracing new technologies and to determine if there is potential for better adoption by educators. Concepts such as Moore’s law, TPACK, barriers, TAM, and Technology Anxiety will be introduced in the desire to explain why an educator may have a resistance to new technology and further how to potentially move past it.Technology is a constantly evolving organism. It grows, taking on a life of its own, and to keep up with it there is a never-ending learning curve. “Moore's law (2018) states that the number of transistors in a dense integrated circuit doubles approximately every two years”. This observation is not a natural law, but it has been a very accurate indicator of many trends in technology. The advancement of technology has followed in this path as Moore’s Law predicted. As a result, there is a divide of technology and the educators who use it. The divide is one of educators willing to embrace the technology and other instructors who are hesitant to use that same technology. Resistance to new technologies by educators has resulted. In this case, resistance is hopefully not going to be futile! (Bad Star Trek Pun)The term “technology anxiety,” coined by Camillari (2017) is used to describe an educator’s resistance to new technology. This term is a good descriptor for people who are resistant to technology. Camillari (2017) paper attempts to answer: “How do factors such as ‘technology acceptance’ (Davis 1989); ‘pace of technological innovativeness’ (Grewal et al. 2004) and ‘technology anxiety’ (Meuter et al. 2005) affect the educators’ attitudes towards the use of digital learning resources” (Camilleri, 2017)? ‘Technology Anxiety’ is prevalent and goes to show educator apathy may very well be a synonym of TA. Furthermore, Ceyhan and Namlu (2000) have developed a scale to measure technology apathy. “The computer anxiety scale consists of 28 items and 4 factors as affective anxiety toward computers, fear of damaging computers, fear of learning to use computers and sense of confidence toward computers” (Ceilik &Yesilyurt, 2013, p. 152). This leads me to believe that Educator Apathy is a measurable quantity. The measurement system and quantification of Technology Anxiety is intensive and goes beyond the scope of this paper. It is sufficient to know that there is a known measurement.There is a history of this phenomenon as evidenced in a 1995 article written by Glen and Nell Russell (1995) “reported that teacher anxiety or "cyberphobia" was the primary reason why teachers in Australia rarely used computers in their classrooms”. This article was written in 1997, however it shows a prior history; twenty years later it is still relevant. Literature ReviewIn this section, I will examine several concepts that relate to educator apathy or technology anxiety. The TAM model was developed in 1989 and was published in the MIS Quarterly (Davis 1989). The “Technology Acceptance Model” was referenced in “Faculty Perceptions about Teaching Online: Exploring the Literature Using the Technology Acceptance Model as an Organizing Framework” (Wingo, 2017), and in the paper the authors explored Teaching Online specifically with regards to the TAM concept. TAM asks a couple of questions in its premise. It creates a subjective norm by asking if other users in an organization should use technology. It is further quantified by asking if a user has experience with a particular technology and if it is a mandatory or voluntary aspect. According to the (Wingo, 2017, p. 18) article there was not much data in regards to the teacher side of the TAM model. They located only three peer reviewed articles. The rest of the articles they located were concerned with the student side of the model. There was a particular aspect of the Wingo paper that was part of my own personal suspicion. The TAM model was being applied to commercial teaching and marketing and the results were lacking on the educator side of the model. In a paper written by (Shea, 2017, p. 78) volunteerism is a factor when it comes to willingness to repeat an online instruction. Those who were willing to start in the online arena felt more comfortable repeating the process than those that were “required” to teach in this realm. This concept illustrates one of the basic ideas I hold from before this research was performed. A volunteer, using technology, is far more likely to embrace this method of delivery than someone who has a mandate to do so. The above concept is demonstrated very well in how people view the reasons to adapt educational technology in general. “Early adopters were driven to use technology in innovative ways; however, the majority of instructors in that study were not early adopters, and they were hesitant to use new technologies until they understood what benefits they would gain from doing so” (Jacobson, 2000). A person's experience with technology can be either an asset or a barrier to instruction through technology. If an educators personal experience with technology is lacking, that same educator is going to be less likely to use a higher technology while instructing. I know I personally will have an issue learning from a shop teacher trying to explain how a combustion engine works that has never had experience as a mechanic. “A teacher who has enough getting through a normal day’s work, with the challenges continually coming up, will feel an antipathy towards trying something new - at any rate something requiring one’s own learning before being put into practice" (Tove Johannesen & Else Margrethe Eide, 1999). While Johannensen and Eilde (1999), make a valid point, advanced technology has become simplified, I do not believe it is enough to overcome the inertia generated by the lack of knowledge. There are many barriers to the use of technology by educators. In the book by Wang Ng (2015), he identified several barriers, including: “Barriers that have been identified include (1) lack of resources, (2) lack of institutional leadership and technical support, (3) educators’ lack of confidence and skills in using technology, (4) educators’ lack of knowledge of pedagogically sound methods to incorporate technology into the curriculum, (5) insufficient time to prepare technology-integrated lessons, (6) educators’ lack of belief in and negative attitudes towards using technology in teaching” (p, 18). These barriers have been significant and not simple to overcome. Any single barrier may cause resistance using technology in the educational system, having several elements compounds the issue to an almost nonstarter. When the educator feels they are behind the curve, they will feel the need to bypass the use of the technology being implemented. I believe this knowledge level is one of the largest impediments to the process.Another point relates to age. Those who have not grown up on the fountain of technology have had a tendency to not incorporate technology as vigorously as those who have. “Since most business faculty are not from the generation that grew up with personal computers and other hi-tech products, newly hired junior professors tend to incorporate IT to complement their teaching more frequently than senior professors” ((Bilmoria, 1999; McCorkle et al., 2001) (Nolan & Bailey, 2006)). I have seen this personally in my son’s school. He is a middle schooler in a semi small school that is a district school. I have seen several of the more established educators who do not use specific technologies such as smart boards or other advanced tools. The educators who are newer to the school system or those who teach a technical class such as programming will indeed use the technologies available to them. They many times are far faster to incorporate their data into their Infinite Campus Portal which is the easiest methods to inform parents of a student’s progress.Technology is evolving at an exceptional pace, causing schools to lag behind at the best of times. There is simply no way to have schools keep up with all the technologies that are available to them. “In the past, adoption of technology into the daily practices of teaching and learning has been relatively slow; in contrast, information technologies are being adopted and actively embraced at an unprecedented rate by teachers and students, causing quite a revolution in the field of K-12 education” (Roberts, 2000). This lag is exacerbated by several things from budgets, access to the technology, and the implementation of the products into the school system. These elements all take time and resources to implement including the technology staff to be brought up to speed on the tech they are going to be tasked with supporting. While there will always be a lag time between implementation and the technology being released, those that enjoy teaching with the technology will find a way.Rob Graham (2015) writes in his book that there is a technological resiliency in some schools. There are not many schools that have reached this level but the ones that have, he has studied at length to understand why these few have succeeded where so many others have barely gotten started. A question is asked by Dian Schaffhauser (2009) asks “Why is a generation of teachers more knowledgeable about technology than any before arriving in classrooms with little understanding of how to teach with it” (Schaffhauser, 2009), it boils down to a lot of finger pointing and accusations. If the colleges would teach with better tools and teach the educators how to use them the educators would be better prepared for teaching with technology. The colleges counter with the teachers are not using the technology and that other instructors are seen not using it so it is a waste to prep with the technology. Graham (2015) cites many of the same issues as what has been discussed to this point. “The use of barriers as a construct for understanding TETL, although generally accepted and regularly cited, largely assumes educators simply don’t want to hurdle the barriers that impede them” (Graham, 2015, p. 4).Graham (2015) proposes to turn this concept on its side. He proposes that if one actually spend time in examining the barriers as others call it, one can instead change them into inequalities and get past them. He states that “A key premise of my work is that change can happen when a context is created for it” (Graham, 2015, p. 4). I believe he is correct in this regard. If the people who desire to truly change will back the ability to change, it is possible to make it happen. It will never happen if there is not a suitable desire and climate to change. Adoption of technology is one of the biggest changes most educators will face. A person gets used to a process, a method, even muscle memory, only to have it ranked and changed when the next release of the software or hardware is purchased. That same educator must then relearn a new process, and in creeps the reluctance. Don’t make changes that will rock the boat.Hew and Bush (2006) discovered “a total of 123 barriers were found from the review of past empirical studies” That number is a staggeringly large number. That they were able to glean that many specific and separate issues from past studies is impressive. Hew & Bush (2006) broke the barriers into 6 main groups: (a) resources, (b) knowledge and skills, (c) institution, (d) attitudes and beliefs, (e) assessment, and (f) subject culture. It is of little surprise to me that educators have a reluctance to adopting technology. DiscussionThere is hope. I believe that educators can use the technology to benefit themselves and those they serve. “In addition to teacher training in the use of technology, authors reported that teachers should become an integral part of the technology development processes” (Czubaj, 2004). I feel that this combination will give the educator confidence with the technology they will be using and then the added benefit that an educator who is giving input into the technology will have a far greater sense of ownership. This ownership will allow the educator to feel more confident with the technology because they helped choose it. This means they will be more likely to work with it. An educator has to be of the mindset to help. When it comes to a fellow instructor, mentoring can make all the difference. I do suspect that many times the older educator might be the one being mentored and that could lead to a conflict of emotions. “The formal expression of this is 'technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK),'" Bull says. "TPACK says that you have to know three things to use technology well. You first have to know the content. It's going to be hard to teach calculus if you don't know calculus yourself. You also need to know the pedagogy associated with that content--the instructional strategies that will be effective. Finally, you need to know the innovation or technology that you're going to then use” (Schaffhauser, 2009). The concept of TPACK gives a mental roadmap to teaching and implementing technology. When you break it down, knowledge of a subject matter is not something that technology can cover up. The use of technology will actually be more likely to expose the fundamental lack of knowledge in the concept. It is very easy for most students to pick up on the difference between an educator fumbling with technology and an educator that is scrambling for the answer while using the technology. The following step of knowing the path that the course needs to take to work is invaluable. The use of the technology will typically enhance the ideas behind the course. Knowing how to use the technology will enhance the prior steps. The understanding and preparation of the educator will show the students that the grasp of the material is seamless. An educator who can visualize this result can reproduce it. TPACK goes so far as to expect the teacher to create a new style of literacy. “The TPACK framework suggests that the kinds of knowledge teachers need to develop can almost be seen as a new form of literacy - as a development of skills, competencies and knowledge in practice that goes beyond specific knowledge of particular disciplines, technologies and pedagogical techniques” (Koehler & Nishra, 2013). The optimum element of TPACK is where the three element overlap. -18097419050Figure 1. The TPCK framework and its knowledge components (Koehler & Mishra, 2008)Funding is a huge issue and barrier to technology acceptance. Teachers faced an extreme challenge when asking administrators for money. The school administrators stated there was simply not any extra to be had. Two educators, Gayle Davis and Margaret Metzger, wanted to create a mentoring program because another barrier to technology adoption is the experienced educators were leaving faster than the new educators could be trained up. The two teachers approached community leaders and asked for help and a 21st century fund was created. As a result of this community investment and the addition of many new programs, “Students value the access to additional academic support, and they praise the 21st Century Fund for increasing classroom engagement” (Green, 2012).Conclusion Technology has generated a reluctance by educators to use the very technology that would be an advantage. The aspects of technology implementation that can be overcome are training, confidence, and mentoring. As technology improves, ease of use will result. This combined with assistance in other areas will overcome the reluctance of the educator to use the technology. According to Mahboob (2016), educators need to do away with the “one way success approach” and by doing so will open the doors to technology being useful in their teaching efforts. In my opinion, attitude of the educator makes a huge difference in using technology in the instruction process. If you do not want to use the tech that is being put in your arena, you will do your best to not use it or to explore the capabilities to the extent the software / hardware has as a potential. I am not saying that you have to have every instructor be able to take every piece of technology and maximize its capabilities. Instead I would like to see that instructor use the technology as an aid to education that it was built for. Barriers are going to exist, budgets will always be tight in the world of education, and adoption of technology will always require a personal investment in time by the educator. The money is being spent, and maybe not as much as many would like or as fast, but it is eventually going to be there. Training and personal investment in technology is one of the largest inhibitors to the process. Spending the money to train staff, educators, and students eventually will pay dividends. When the instructors feel comfortable because they have the technology level well in hand, their teaching will not be overshadowed by their lack of confidence. They can find new and interesting ways to have the tech not be the star of the show but instead the content will shine through. Personal investment in technology goes a long way towards overcoming many of the barriers. When you invest your time and understanding in what the technology can do, and what the intent of it is, then you have overcome the fear of why it can never work. Attitude goes a long way for this. In my own case, I have had a long road of being personally involved with technology. It is a passion of mine and it shows when I speak to others about it. I know I personally perform at a different level with regards to most technology and that this field is one I have chosen to follow. This passion translates into knowledge, experience, and an understanding of the methodologies. I have often explained to people that I speak two languages, Tech and English, and I am fluent in both. One of the issues discussed in this paper is the idea that more established educators will have a tendency to desire rewards that are different in mindset from those younger and more technologically secure. The established educators feel it is a burden to learn the new technology being placed on them. The secure educators find that the technology should be present and used, but the content takes the stage and the technology is the vehicle to get there. “Over time, these technologies achieve a transparency of perception (Bruce & Hogan, 1998); they become commonplace and, in most cases, are not even considered to be technologies. Digital technologies—such as computers, handheld devices, and software applications—by contrast, are protean (usable in many different ways; Papert, 1980); unstable (rapidly changing); and opaque (the inner workings are hidden from users; Turkle, 1995)” (Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2009)) This statement summarizes this paper with thoughts that demonstrate how much technology has changed through the years of instruction. Original technologies have become commonplace with little change. New technology such as computers that singular purpose is no longer so focused. The new technologies are showing how well they can be used as aids. A film strip is media, and yet a movie is a series of strips with sounds and motion. This change has allowed for a better learning through our minds. Computers have taken this to a new level in how simple it is to create that media and then expose the student to it. It is easier to absorb by those instructed and when you combine the ability to respond dynamically to the material it is going to be far more engaging. These steps are just now being realized, some are realizing for the better, others not. Technology is going to continue to evolve and be both challenging and exciting.I believe the next aspect of technology is going to be in the realm of science fiction. The concept of simply plugging in a computer to your brain, and the computer will train the student in very large and complex dumps of data that will be able to always be recalled. That is next gen thinking and I am afraid we might live long enough to see that.ReferencesCamilleri, M. A., & Camilleri, A. C. (2016, 06). Digital Learning Resources and Ubiquitous Technologies in Education. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 22(1), 65-82. doi:10.1007/s10758-016-9287-7Celik, V., & Yesilyurt, E. (2013, 01). Attitudes to technology, perceived computer self-efficacy and computer anxiety as predictors of computer supported education. Computers & Education, 60(1), 148-158. doi:10.1016/pedu.2012.06.008Czubaj, C. A. (2004). Literature Review: Reported Educator Concerns Regarding Cyberspace Curricula. Education, 124(4), 676.Educational Technology Research and Development. (n.d.). doi:10.1007/11423.1556-6501Eide, E. & Johannesen, T. (1999) (n.d.). Retrieved from , D. L., & Kinslow, S. L. (2016, 09). Faculty Talk About Teaching at the Community College. Oxford Handbooks Online. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199935291.013.47Gillard, S., Nolan, E., & Bailey, D. (2006). Ten Reasons for IT Educators to Be Early Adopters of IT Innovations. Proceedings of the 2006 InSITE Conference. doi:10.28945/3004Graham, R. (2015). Techno-Resiliency in Education A New Approach For Understanding Technology In Education. Springer International Publishing.Green, D. G. (2012, 05). Investing in High School. Phi Delta Kappan, 93(8), 28-33. doi:10.1177/003172171209300807Jacobsen, D. M. (2000). Examining technology adoption patterns by faculty in higher education.Proceedings of ACEC2000: Learning technologies, teaching and the future of schools,July 6 to 9, Melbourne, Australia. Retrieved from , K.F. & Brush, T. Education tech research dev (2007) 55: 223. , M., & Mayes, J. (1988). Computer assisted learning: Selected proceedings from the CAL '87 symposium. Pergamon Press.Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge? Contemporary issues in technology and teacher education, 9(1). Retrieved from , T., Irfan, S., & Karamat, A. (2016, 12). A machine learning approach for student assessment in E-learning using Quinlan's C4.5, Naive Bayes and Random Forest algorithms. 2016 19th International Multi-Topic Conference (INMIC). doi:10.1109/inmic.2016.7840094Moore's law. (2018, February 18). Retrieved from 's_lawNg, W. (2015). New digital technology in education conceptualizing professional learning for educators. Springer International Publishing.Reiser, R. A., & Dempsey, J. V. (2018). Trends and issues in instructional design and technology. Pearson.Russell, G., & Russell, N. (1997). Imperatives and dissonances in cyberspace curriculum: An.. Education, 117(4), 584.Shea, P. (2007). Bridges and barriers to teaching online college courses: A study of experienced online faculty at 36 colleges. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 11(2), 73-128.Schaffhauser, D. (2009). Which came first -- the technology or the pedagogy?. T H E Journal, 36(8), 27-32.What is technological pedagogical content knowledge? (n.d.). Retrieved from , N. P., Ivankova, N. V., & Moss, J. A. (2017, 03). Faculty perceptions about teaching online: Exploring the literature using the technology acceptance model as an organizing framework. Online Learning, 21(1). doi:10.24059/olj.v21i1.761 ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download