Blood, Sweat, and TEARS: 50 Years of Technology

Implementation Obstacles

By Wesley R Leggett and Kay A. Persichitte

Teachers today face significant obstacles in their attempts to implement and integrate technology in their classroom. Unfortunately, there is historical evi- dence that these obstacles have re- mained virtually unchanged over the last 50 years. During the post-World War If era, a prominent new technology in the classroom was film. Cuban (1986) identified four obstacles which stifled increased fgm usage in the classroom:

• finding and fitting the right fllm to the cur- riculum,

• inaccessibility of equipment when it was needed,

• cost of films, equipment, and upkeep, and

• teachers' lack of skills in using equipment and film.

Fifty years later, in the classroom of the mid- 1990s, Schrum (I 995) identified four barriers to increased telecommunication usage:

• time,

• access,

• resources, and

• expertise.

It is interesting to note how closely the two lists match. These barriers have been identified by many other researchers and for other technologies in the post-World War If era (e.g., Loehr, 1996; Ritchie, 1996-. Shelton & Jones, 1996; Topp, Mortenson, & Grandgenett, 1995; Sudzina, 1993. Cuban, 1986). Consequently, it comes as little surprise to us that these are the same obstacles we have faced in our attempts to implement instructional technologies and with which classroom teachers continue to struggle.

Wesley P Leggett Ls a doctoral candidate in Educational Technology at the University of Northern Colorado.

Kay A. Persichftte is an assistant professor of Educational Technology ui the College of Education at the University of Northern Colorado.

The- Critical Factors

The obstacles identified by Cuban (1986) and Schrum (1995) provided the foundation for four categories of obstacles described in the literature. Nearly four decades of classroom experience (for the two of us combinedl) and some additional re- view of the literature revealed other considerations crucial to successful technology Implementation in the classroom. While the majority of these constd- erations could be included in the original four cat- egories. a fair number remained. We believe that the combination of research, historical documen- tation, and practitioner perspective related to tech- nology implementation clearly suggest these five categories: Time, Expertise, Access, Resources, and Support UEARS). As the complexity of the tech- nologies and contemporary classrooms increases, focused consideration of each of these factors be- comes more important to effectively implementing and sustaining technology.

Of the flve factors, tinw consistently appears at, or near, the top of any list. Clearly, there is a need for the following:

time to plan, collaborate, prepare, and use technology in the classroom (Loehr, 1996;

Shelton & Jones, 1996; Schrum, 1995; Sudzina, 1993),

uninterrupted time during the day to go on- line (Loehr, 1996, Schrum, 1995),

• time during and outside of the school day for the teacher to attend technology training

activities (Shelton &,Jones, 1996; Sudzina, 1993). and

• time to personally explore, digest, and experi-

ment with technology as well as time to maintain skills (Schrum, 1995).

We have been in situations and observed other

teachers who had the expertise, the access, and the resources, but were not allowed the time to participate in the activities described previously. The end result: Technology implementation did not occur.

room, must understand the capabilities and limi- tations of the technology in order to make informed decisions regarding effective utilization and tnte-

gration. The critical factors of resources and sup- port are clearly important to the implementation process.

At the present time there appear to befew Lnsti- tutional incentives for teacher educators or preservice teachers to be 'up to speed' with new technologies: those having individual expertise

are often undervalued or worse ignored. Lack of time, hands on experience, and avaiLabL- of tsici hardware, softwear [sic] and technological sup- port often daunt the most enthusiastic of teacher educators. (Sudzina, p. 8)

Additionally. we believe that enthusiastic teachers who possess the critical factors of time, expertise, and access will provide the catalyst for innovation and change in the classroom.

Perhaps it is time that we stop expecting teach- ers to make the improvements on their own, and instead expect school districts, state, provirww or federal departments of education. and uni- versities to provide ongoing and collaborative assistance. (Schx-um, p. 14)

If classroom teachers are to successfully implement technology, each of the critical factors (Time, Ex- pertise, Access, Resources, and Support) described here must be seriously considered and actively ad- dressed. Together, these critical factors form the acronym TEARS. From our perspective, whether large or small scale, most technology implementa- tion efforts require substantial amounts of 'blood, sweat. and TEARS.'WE suggest that a comniitment must be made to current and future teachers in order to assure them that all of the sacrifice and effort associated with classroom implementation of technology will not come from their TEARS alone.

It is unfortunate that in spite of all the research and the repeated recognition that these critical fac- tors affect technology implementation, successful implementation of technology in the classroom re- mains an uphill battle for teachers as we approach the twenty-first century. We must work collaboratively and diligently to develop technol- ogy implementation plans which address each of the five critical factors over an extended period (see Table 1). Otherwise, we must be willing to accept the ramifications of continuing to Ignore the his- tory of technological implementation in our classrooms. 0

References

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

Loehr. M. (1996). Top ten media competency recommenda- tions by teachers for teacher training. In M. Handler (Ed.). Graduate & inservice [On-line]. Available: http: / / www.coe.uh.edu/insite/elec_pub/htniII996/08gradua.htm

Ritchie, D. (1996). The adrri"strative role in the integration of technology. NAASP Bulletin, 80(582). 42-52.

Schrum, L. M. (1995, Aprll). TeL-cornmurticatiorts for personal and professional uses: A case study. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research As-

sociation, San Francisco, CA. (ERIC Da rt Reproduc- tion Service No. ED 385 230)

Shelton. M., & Jones, M. (1996). Staff development that workal A tale of four Vs. NAASP BuUetin. 80(582). 99- 105.

Sudzina. M. R. (1993, February). Technology, teachers. educa- ticrud reform Impkattans for teacher preparation. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association of Teacher Educators, Los Angeles, CA. (ERIC Document Re- production Service No. ED 355 207)

Topp. N. W., Mortenson, R., & Grandgenett, N. (1995). Goal: Technology-using teachers; Key: Techn,)Iogy-using educa- tion faculty. Technology and Teacher Education Annual - 1995@ 804-843. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.

ED 385 240)