Zhao+&+Frank+Article

=Key Points=

> School issues for preventing use of technology
 * People feel frustration with the slow adoption of computers & technology in schools even though we use them/it all the time in our lives
 * Seems to be lots of computers in schools but they are underused (or unused)
 * although according to the article the student/computer ratio is very low
 * Schools tend to resist change
 * change means $$$
 * School structure inhibits/prevents use
 * Actual classroom size is too small to have computers in it
 * therefore laptops is the only solution although$$ are involved
 * Having computers in a lab space is inconvenient – have to go there
 * There is a lack of computers @ home, therefore, can’t support school learning
 * Support is critical for technology impementation
 * pressure from society and government are evident
 * need for support:
 * financially
 * technically
 * physically
 * Believe that schools should be teacher driven
 * teachers are the 'Keystone species", whether instructor or facilitators we RULE!
 * Teacher lack of expertise & confidence
 * If teacher doesn’t have positive attitude, computers won’t be used
 * support is essential (whether release time or from other collegues)
 * Computer issues preventing the use of technology
 * What is the value of using technology?...conflicting ideas, therefore different teachers hear diff things, use it diff ways…lack of consistency
 * does a student/hybrid classroom statistically make sense
 * Technology is always changing…hard to stay current ($$$$) and learning curve
 * Technology can be unreliable
 * do teachers have the know with all to put out the fires
 * Ecology metaphor
 * Schools (ecosystems) – complex, having both living & non-living factors with diversity people/knowledge in a hierarchical system
 * Decisions are not always made be the teacher or school, society and government play a very important role
 * pressure to use computers can turn into a benefit because by using computers a teacher conforms and are accepted
 * Computers (living things)- that change based on new & exisiting technologies
 * Some survive (& evolve), others disappear
 * Teachers (a keystone species) – generally want the best for their class (selfish?) but will see the need of the school and work together for the better good of the whole
 * Computer use in the school
 * By TEACHERS may benefit the teacher only (or maybe both T & St)
 * By STUDENTS benefits everyone
 * To increase likelihood of computer use/integration
 * The longer the practice = more likely to keep using
 * Better chance others will also try
 * If promoted through SUSTAINED pro-d (not one-offs)
 * FECUNDITY = ability to spread or multiply
 * If teachers have more opportunity to work together = increased technology use
 * Gov’ts & districts can have an affect on technology use (shocking!)
 * Provide sufficient resources & use will spread
 * Release time
 * Teachers share benefits (exerts pressure on others)
 * T collaboration leads to increased use
 * Improved school layout
 * software, hardware, internet connectivity, course scheduling
 * Computer use dependant on T beliefs that it is compatible/useful
 * Simple technologies that require small changes in how one teaches = most likely to be used
 * Systems considered complementary (not competitive) = more likely to be used
 * T’s increase use of technology when
 * They see a direct benefit for THEM
 * They explored new tech on their own (not forced)
 * For T change…
 * Recruitment/selection – must be considered when hiring
 * Training/socialization – can use training but socialization by other T’s is more powerful
 * Providing opportunities to explore/learn = release time
 * Leveraging change through social context = T’s help each other
 * Limit the number of innovations!
 * District training doesn't have a far reaching impact in classrooms - people attend pro-d but then don't implement it and then loose their understanding.
 * Teachers may be uncertain about the value of the new technology and may reject it. ("I've taught //x// for years without technology... how can using technology make it better?)
 * Teacher perceptions of the value of technology may reflect his/her history, pedagogical practices and may include assessment of the costs associated with use. (ie. we could buy so much more //x// if we didn't spend all this money on technology)
 * Change agents (like me?) can provide training opportunities, but unless there is a **need**, it is ineffective. Providing __time__ for teachers to learn from each other is much more effective.

I do not know what more I can add here ... the above is very well done! I took some time to understand Figure 2 on page 829. I usually just glance over diagrams, but I wanted see what was going on. It summarizes a lot of what has been mentioned.
 * All three phases depict the school with outside influences making an impact (some less than others).
 * District hardware/software does get past the barrier of the school, I think whether we like it or not (ie. bcesis).
 * District in-service does not penetrate very far, not having a significant impact on technology adoption in the school (I totally agree with this ... from experience).
 * Notice the semi-permeable membrane (like the analogy Debbie?) through which new pedagogies may or may not penetrate into the school as it depends on how receptive teachers are.
 * There are also political and social institutions which will influence whether a new technology is adopted (talk of increasing 21st century skills will increase technology use and perhaps government imposed fundamental skills assessments and provincial exams may decrease technology adoption since many teachers feel they cannot afford the time to implement technology with so much curricular content to cover).
 * The lines linking key people in the school represent collegial ties which exist between them. These relationships could provide social pressure (positive or negative) regarding the use of technology or be helpful and supportive in nature. My own introduction to using technology in my teaching was greatly influenced by Mike Cameron's enthusiasm to try new things and willingness to share his ideas and expertise.
 * How the shapes around "tech" and the teacher labeled as having the "perceived advantage" become progressively matched like two puzzle pieces reflects the evolution of the individual and their use of technology. The teacher's role may change to that of facilitator for instance. I thought it odd that the shape around technology does not change as it is implied in the article that co-evolution takes place and technology can me modified by the teacher.
 * There is more going on here but I am tired and I realize I am editing here on the fly and someone may want to get in here.