Using the theory of habitus to move beyond the study of barriers to technology integration

Computers & Education 52 (2009) 353–364

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers & Education journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compedu

Using the theory of habitus to move beyond the study of barriers to technology integration Brian R. Belland * Department of Instructional Technology and Learning Sciences, Utah State University, 2830 Old Main Hill, Logan, UT 84322, USA

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 23 March 2008 Received in revised form 9 September 2008 Accepted 11 September 2008

Keywords: Technology integration Barriers Dispositions Teacher education Teacher education reform Constructivism

a b s t r a c t The integration of technology by K-12 teachers was promoted to aid the shift to a more student-centered classroom (e.g., Roblyer, M. D., & Edwards, J. (2000). Integrating educational technology into teaching (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill). However, growth in the power of and access to technology in schools has not been accompanied by an equal growth in technology integration. Research into reasons for minimal technology integration has traditionally focused on post-teacher-education barriers to technology integration (e.g., Ertmer, P. A. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for technology integration? Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4), 25–39; Ertmer, P. A., Gopalakrishnan, S., & Ross, E. M. (2001). Technology-using teachers: Comparing perceptions of exemplary use to best practice [Electronic copy]. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 33(3) 1–2; Hew, K. F., & Brush, T. (2007). Integrating technology into K-12 teaching and learning: Current knowledge gaps and recommendations for future research. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 55(3), 223– 252). In this paper, I first clarify the definition of technology integration and question the contention that barriers, particularly those related to teacher beliefs, are behind the lack of technology integration. Using the sociological concept of habitus, or set of dispositions, I then explore preservice teachers’ past experiences as a possible explanation for minimal technology integration and discuss implications for future research and teacher education. Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction It is unwise to consider the diffusion of innovations without simultaneously considering the social structure of the potential adopter (Rogers, 1983). One innovation government officials (Culp, Honey, & Mandinach, 2005) and scholars in the field of educational technology (Roblyer & Edwards, 2000) have long sought to diffuse in schools is the integration of technology. While there are multiple technologies appropriate for education (e.g., video and audio conferencing), computer technology is so dominant and widespread that I use ‘‘technology” to refer to the computer. In this paper, I propose a new theoretical framework, habitus, based on the writings of the prominent French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu to examine how the integration of technology in education by K-12 teachers (technology integration) can be encouraged. To accomplish this task, I review the research on technology integration and what is thought to drive or impede it (Section 3). Then, I present a review of the research on prediction of behavior by beliefs (Section 4). Subsequently, I present and discuss theory that leads one to consider Bourdieu’s work related to habitus and pedagogic action (Section 5). Last, I discuss how teacher education can be transformed to encourage technology integration, including making pedagogic action about technology integration be of longer duration, and incorporate modeling and practical experience (Section 6). I also provide an example of how this can be done and provide suggestions for future research. 2. Method To be included in this review, empirical studies or reviews of research needed to examine (a) the extent of technology integration in K12 schools, (b) transfer of teacher education programs promoting technology integration, or (c) predictors or influencers of technology inte-

* Tel.: +1 435 797 2535; fax: +1 435 797 2693. E-mail address: [email protected] 0360-1315/$ - see front matter Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2008.09.004

354

B.R. Belland / Computers & Education 52 (2009) 353–364

gration or other pedagogical behavior. I used differing combinations of the search terms (a) technology integration, K-12, constructivist, extent, lack, (b) PT3, teacher education, diffusion of innovation, preservice, model, technology integration, transfer, (c) beliefs, dispositions, barriers, habitus, technology integration, constructivist, pedagogy, prediction, intention, and behavior in my library catalog and the databases PsychInfo, Education Full Text, Educational Resources Information Center, Google Scholar, and Academic Search Premier to identify studies or reviews of research. I used examined references cited in each study to identify additional studies. Figures from the National Center of Educational Statistics were also used to document the extent of technology integration. Common preservice and inservice educational technology textbooks used at major universities were used for definitions of technology integration. I follow major claims in this paper (e.g., teachers profess constructivism but teach in a directed manner) with supporting cases that are representative of what I found in my literature review. For illustration purposes, if I had found five articles that discuss teachers who say they believe in constructivism and reported how they actually taught, and the majority of studies indicated that the teachers taught in a directed manner, then I would illustrate my claim with one of the latter studies. 3. Technology integration Just what does technology integration mean? One of the most frustrating things when writing about technology integration is the lack of a common definition of the term. Perry and Areglado (2001) advanced an 8-step plan for technology integration without defining this term. Different meanings have been assigned to the term technology integration, ranging from using technology to make learning more efficient or effective (Newby, Stepich, Lehman, & Russell, 2006; Roblyer & Edwards, 2000) to the use of technology to help students solve problems (Ertmer, 2005; Jonassen, Howland, Moore, & Marra, 2003; Jonassen & Reeves, 1996). Given the lack of a consistent definition, I will attempt to provide one. An innovation is not adopted until the social system’s functioning and structure is changed in a sustainable way (Rogers, 1983). While the use of technology in teacher-directed ways could produce a structural change in K-12 schools’ functioning, this may not always happen. For the purpose of this paper, I define technology integration as the sustainable and persistent change in the social system of K-12 schools caused by the adoption of technology to help students construct knowledge (e.g., research and analyze information to solve problems) (Jonassen et al., 2003). Most authors agree that technology integration either has not been achieved (Albion & Ertmer, 2002; Barron, Kemker, Harmes, & Kalaydjian, 2003; Bauer & Kenton, 2005; Bolick, Berson, Friedman, & Porfeli, 2007; Ertmer, 2005; Franklin & Molebash, 2007; Hernandez-Ramos, 2005; Hew & Brush, 2007; Lawless & Pellegrino, 2007; Niederhauser, Salem, & Fields, 1999; Thompson, Schmidt, & Davis, 2003) or has been achieved more in some segments of society than in others (Damarin, 2000; Drucker, 2006; Garland & Wotton, 2001–2002; Hughes & Ooms, 2004; Judge, Puckett, & Cabuk, 2004; Swain & Pearson, 2003; Wenglinsky, 1998). This is a problem that has existed for some time. 53% of public school teachers who had computers with Internet access in their classrooms (teachers with computers access) reported using the computers for instruction (National Center for Educational Statistics, 2000). Few teachers with computer access reported using computers to a moderate or great extent for low-level tasks such as word processing or using spreadsheets (41%) and completing drills (27%) (NCES). However, the percentages were on average lower for high-level tasks such as solving problems (27%), corresponding with experts (7%), and multimedia projects (23%) (NCES). In a more recent study, the highest percentage among teacher categories (e.g., elementary teachers) in a large Florida school district to report using the computer to facilitate problem solving was 29% (Barron et al., 2003). Because teachers often exaggerate their use of technology when completing surveys (Kopcha & Sullivan, 2007), the actual level of technology integration may be lower. Many authors attribute the lack of technology integration to post-teacher education barriers to technology integration (e.g., Albion & Ertmer, 2002; Bauer & Kenton, 2005; Brinkerhoff, 2006; Ertmer, 2005; Hew & Brush, 2007; Redmann & Kotrlik, 2004; Rice, Wilson, & Bagley, 2001; Shamburg, 2004). Such authors contend that barriers in the form of lack of resources (knowledge and skills, available technology, time, technical and administrative support) and lack of will due to incompatible beliefs about technology and teaching prevent the integration of technology by inservice teachers (Ertmer, 1999; Hew & Brush, 2007). Lack of resources is less of a problem today: 97% of schools and 94% of instructional rooms had computers with broadband Internet access in 2005 (NCES, 2006). The ratio of students to computers with Internet access was 3.8:1 across public schools, and significant differences in ratios occurred only according to school size, with schools of less than 300 students enjoying a 2.4:1 student: computer ratio (NCES). In addition, 83% of public schools offered professional development to support technology integration, and this percentage did not vary widely by school SES or percentage minority enrollment (NCES). Given greater training in technology skills and availability of technology in schools, several authors contended that the final barrier to successful technology integration is teacher beliefs about the role of technology in education and their ability to integrate it successfully (Anderson & Maninger, 2007; Brinkerhoff, 2006; Ertmer, 2005; Park & Ertmer, 2007). According to this reasoning, if teachers believe that technology should be integrated and that they can integrate technology, then technology integration will happen (Anderson & Maninger, 2007; Germann & Sasse, 1997; Isabelle, Desjardins, & Desjardins, 2001; Lumpe & Chambers, 2001; Park & Ertmer, 2007). The premise underlying this argument is that technology integration is behavior planned according to intentions, which are informed by professed beliefs. However, often either no evidence of the supposed link between professed beliefs and technology integration is given or the evidence consists exclusively of professed beliefs and intentions as expressed on self-report instruments (Judson, 2006). Unfortunately, reliance on self-report data is very widespread in research on instruction to promote technology integration (Lawless & Pellegrino, 2007). Are beliefs the same as intentions? Are intentions the same as actions? In the next section I examine the appropriateness of the premise that behavior is planned according to intentions, which are in turn informed by beliefs. 4. Prediction of behavior by beliefs Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) proposed that salient beliefs about a practice or thing (e.g., belief that working on a project consistently over the time span before the due date leads to better outcomes) informed attitudes about the practice or thing (e.g., it is valuable to work consistently on projects during the entire project development time). However, attitudes were only slightly related to behaviors (e.g., actually working consistently on projects during the entire project development time) (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975). After reviewing dozens of studies as

B.R. Belland / Computers & Education 52 (2009) 353–364

355

well as several reviews of studies on the correlation between attitudes and behavior, Fishbein and Ajzen noted that correlations between attitudes and behaviors were rarely high. For example, the correlations (a) between aircraft manufacturer employees’ attitudes toward their jobs and job absences was 0.01, and (b) between college students’ attitudes towards participating as subjects in psychological studies (e.g., that it is important to participate in psychological studies to benefit to humankind) and their ultimate participation in a study was 0.17. Squaring the correlation coefficient between variables x (e.g., attitude towards participating in psychological studies) and y (e.g., actual participation in psychological studies) produces the proportion of variance in variable y that can be explained by variance in variable x. Thus, attitudes towards participating in psychological studies only explained 2.89% of the variance in study participation among college students. This seems to imply that salient beliefs do not always inform practice. Is the adequacy of prediction of behavior by beliefs any different among teachers? Ravitz, Becker, and Wong (2000) found statistically significant correlations between teacher beliefs about pedagogy and extent of usage of constructivist strategies (e.g., group work, active learning) across different subjects (e.g., English) and grade levels (high school, middle school, and elementary school). However, the median correlation ranged from .32 to .49, meaning that teacher beliefs about pedagogy only accounted for 10.24% to 24.01% of the variance in use of constructivist teaching strategies. Teachers’ beliefs about the value technology use in education explained only 13.7% of the variance in their use of technology (Anderson & Maninger, 2007). Most studies on teacher beliefs reviewed by Fang (1996) indicated that teacher beliefs do not always predict instructional practice. Furthermore, many studies that indicated a correspondence between teacher beliefs and practices suffered from methodological shortcomings (Fang). In a critical review of research on university teachers’ pedagogical beliefs, Kane, Sandretto, and Heath (2002) did not find evidence of a link between university teachers’ professed beliefs and practice. In a case study of a representative sample of four preservice mathematics education instructors, Andrew (2007) found that the instructors all agreed with six out of nine core constructivist beliefs about teaching. Though Andrew claimed that they taught in a constructivist manner, class observations reported in the article contradicted this contention. Such observations indicated that the teachers taught in an objectivist manner: three teachers primarily had students work in groups on textbook problems for which there was only one right answer, while the other instructor primarily read word for word from transparencies to students and had them fill out worksheets in which the problems had one correct answer. Students whose professed pedagogical beliefs became more constructivist during teacher education often still used directed instruction when student teaching or returning to the classroom (Brown & Warschauer, 2006; Ensor, 2001; Frederick, Schweizer, & Lowe, 2006; Windschitl, 2002). Other authors found that inservice teachers’ professed beliefs about instructional strategies and pedagogies (Marsh, 2006; Simmons et al., 1999; Windschitl, 2002) or about the value of educational technology (Ertmer, Gopalakrishnan, & Ross, 2001; Judson, 2006) were not good predictors of their teaching practice. Ertmer (2005) noted that beliefs do not always inform practice, but she attributed this to difficulty measuring teacher beliefs. 5. What else could be driving behavior? If instructional and technology beliefs explain little variation in the use of constructivist activities or technology to support constructivist learning by teachers, how can the lack of technology integration be explained? As Gibbs (2001) noted, not all human behavior is planned, and not all actions ‘‘are performed in accordance with certain rules which are founded in well-defined mental states, such as beliefs, desires, goals, or even intentions” (p. 122). That is, humans do not plan all activities according to their beliefs or desires. To understand this paradox, it may be useful to consider an example of an action that is not planned according to beliefs or desires. Most readers have encountered the case of student procrastination, as procrastination is particularly widespread among college students (Steel, 2007). If a term paper is assigned at the beginning of a course, students often will not start research or writing until the final week or even the night before it is due. Most of these students likely believe that getting a good grade on the paper is important, and that procrastinating leads to poor results (Steel). Yet many still procrastinate and start their paper at the last minute. Given their beliefs, should they not have planned to and actually started their paper at the beginning of the semester, or at least at the middle? Though students assigned term papers may intend to start their papers early, many competing factors play into whether they actually do, including impulsiveness, task aversiveness, desire for good grades, desire to socialize, self efficacy, and their like or dislike of writing (Steel & König, 2006). In other words, their professed beliefs may drive an intention to start the term paper early, but students who form such an intention do not necessarily start their papers early. While not all behavior is intentional or rational, all cognitive behavior (as opposed to involuntary behavior like breathing) requires mental activity. Using technology to facilitate constructivist learning is a particular type of mental activity. Bruner (1996) noted, ‘‘you cannot understand mental activity unless you take into account the cultural setting and its resources, the very things that give mind its shape and scope” (pp. x–xi). Achieving technology integration will likely require changes in teacher education. However, much discussion of teacher education reforms has taken place in a ‘‘social and ideological vacuum” (Apple, 2001, p. 182). In this paper, I use two related frameworks as lenses to examine teacher behavior, and what can be done to change it (Bourdieu, 1977, 1979, 1984, 1990, 2004; Bruner, 1996). 5.1. Folk pedagogies Bruner (1996) coined the term folk pedagogies to refer to what people ‘‘know” about how to teach. Folk pedagogies are informed by folk beliefs about the nature of knowledge (folk epistemologies) and how people learn (folk learning theories). People acquire folk epistemologies and folk learning theories through experience as children, students, and/or parents (Bruner). Contrary to learning theories and epistemologies, folk learning theories and folk epistemologies are not solidly in the conscious of espousers (Bruner). Bruner argued that teachers act based on their folk beliefs, and not their professed beliefs. Research suggests that preservice teachers and teacher educators harbor folk pedagogies. 5.1.1. Preservice teachers Research indicates that preservice teachers enter teacher education programs with folk pedagogies reflecting their own experiences as students (Blanton, Simmons, & Warner, 2001; Bruner, 1996; Buchanan & Smith, 1998; Ensor, 2001; Hollingsworth, 1989; Niederhauser

356

B.R. Belland / Computers & Education 52 (2009) 353–364

et al., 1999; Phelps & Lee, 2003; Shriki & Lavy, 2005; Smith, 2001; Windschitl, 2002). Hollingsworth profiled four preservice teachers preparing to teach various subjects and levels. Two entered the program with folk pedagogies resembling constructivism, while the other two professed folk pedagogies corresponding to directed instruction (the sample was representative in terms of incoming views). Experience as a student led another preservice teacher to enter a teacher education program with teacher-directed folk beliefs (Shriki & Lavy, 2005). Of 243 preservice teachers enrolled in science education methods courses, most entered the class with teacher-directed folk beliefs expressed by such statements as, ‘‘Good teaching involves the transfer of knowledge” (Phelps & Lee, 2003, p. 830). When helping students learn how to teach, teacher educators are confronted with the folk pedagogies that their students already harbor (Bruner, 1996). Bruner argued that such folk beliefs affect both how preservice teachers receive messages about pedagogy and how they ultimately teach. According to this view, constructivist pedagogy is received differently by preservice teachers who have always essentially believed in positivism (i.e., one true reality can be known) and directed instruction, than it is by preservice teachers who have always held a relativist view (i.e., there is no one true reality) and thought that students learn best by exploring. Many authors noted inconsistent results in changing preservice teachers’ professed pedagogical beliefs from directed to constructivist (Hollingsworth, 1989; Windschitl & Sahl, 2002). Out of four students who entered a constructivist-oriented transition to teaching program at the University of California-Berkeley, two entered professing views incorporating many elements of constructivist views, while the other two professed views incorporating many directed instruction views (Hollingsworth, 1989). At the end of the program, the professed views of the two who started out holding many constructivist views stayed constructivist, while the professed views of only one of the other two students became more constructivist. The only student whose views changed exhibited an understanding of constructivism that was ‘‘much less developed” than the other two students who ended the program espousing constructivism, primarily because she imitated modeled behaviors in order to get a good grade (Hollingsworth, 1989, p. 171). One may ask whether the student whose professed views became constructivist really understood constructivism or would teach in a constructivist manner if not for the reward of a good grade. In another example, a preservice teacher who held a teacher-directed folk pedagogy was introduced to technology-enhanced projectbased learning (Shriki & Lavy, 2005). She initially was enthusiastic about project-based learning and stated it would help students. During student teaching (concurrent with the methods course) she had some success implementing the method, but as soon as she encountered difficulty, she reverted to teacher-directed methods, citing ‘‘the fact that [project-based learning] is not the way [she] believes school students should learn,” and ‘‘students should be led on a path that guarantees them success” (Shriki & Lavy, 2005, p. 190). Students with teacher-directed folk pedagogies took science or chemistry method courses emphasizing cooperative and inquiry learning and including a field experience component one year prior to student teaching (Phelps & Lee, 2003). During field experience students used teacher-directed strategies, encountered student problems (e.g., sleeping, passing notes), but continued to use teacher-directed strategies. When pressed for reasons, they expressed their perception that no one uses constructivist strategies. This appears to indicate that preservice and in-service teachers enter such courses with folk pedagogies, and despite extensive messages about the value of constructivism and constructivist strategies, folk pedagogies tend to remain. 5.1.2. Teacher educators Teacher educators and other professors also enter with folk pedagogies that can be traced to their experiences as children (Barrett, 1997; Buchanan & Smith, 1998; Smith, 2001). In a case study of three professors (two female, one male) of diverse subjects (business, engineering, and philosophy) representing each major college of the university, a professor who was brought up to highly value respect had his students refer to him as Dr. and led a highly teacher-centered class, while one who always referred to her teachers by their first names led an informal class in which there was not always one right answer (Barrett). Another professor taught the way she was taught. Though she professed constructivism, Smith used a teacher-directed approach to lead her students to use constructivist strategies to teach English as a new Language. She attributed this contradiction to her experiences as a student in teacher-directed classrooms, which instilled in her an unconscious teacher-directed pedagogy. Why is it so hard to replace folk pedagogies? In the next section, I explore the potential of the concept of habitus to explain the difficulty changing folk pedagogies. 5.2. The theory of habitus According to Bourdieu (1979), the totality of life conditions (e.g., SES as a child, parental occupations, schooling) influence one’s habitus, or set of dispositions to appreciate or do certain things. Each individual has a unique habitus; however, people who share in common many life experiences tend to have similar habitus, and thus similar dispositions to (a) appreciate more or less such things as certain types of music or works of art, (b) participate in particular sports or eat particular types of food (Bourdieu), (c) choose certain career paths (Bourdieu, 1979; Bourdieu, 1984), and (d) use certain career advancement strategies (Bourdieu, 2004). A person’s habitus is formed throughout life beginning in infancy and early childhood (see Fig. 1). The habitus is predominantly influenced by the nuclear family and their habitus (Bourdieu, 1977). People from similar backgrounds tend to have similar habitus. For example,

Fig. 1. Formation of habitus in early childhood.

B.R. Belland / Computers & Education 52 (2009) 353–364

357

children who grow up in middle class households in the rural Midwest will tend to have similar tastes and dispositions as other children who grew up in similar households in a similar area. Through primary and secondary school, the initial habitus affects the assimilation of new experiences and messages that transform the habitus, though to a lesser degree than early childhood home experiences. Throughout life, the assimilation of messages into the habitus is affected by the existing habitus (see Fig. 2). Where messages attempt to instill dispositions not already present in the recipient’s habitus, these messages (e.g., experiences, didactic instruction, modeling, OELEs) are termed pedagogic action (PA) (Bourdieu & Passeron, 1990). All PA is symbolic violence, or ‘‘the imposition of a cultural arbitrary by an arbitrary power” (Bourdieu & Passeron, 1990, p. 5). As such, PA that attempts to instill dispositions that are not already in students’ habitus is often resisted (Bourdieu & Passeron, 1990). While a habitus may predispose one to like or do certain things, it ‘‘is not a destiny” (Bourdieu, 2004, p. 42). Habitus generate schema, which in turn tend to lead to certain actions. The background of secondary students in Norway (Karlsen, 2001) and Germany (Herzberg, 2006) correlated with factors (e.g., desire for safety) influencing their career choice. In other words, their common experiences caused them to develop habitus that in turn generated schema favorable to particular career choices. Secondary students in New Zealand acted in class and thought subjects were applicable to their lives based on their background and corresponding habitus (Nash, 2002). Habitus has also been linked to the style in which students respond to items on standardized tests in mathematics (Cooper & Dunne, 1998). Teachers’ practices have also been explained by their habitus. Teaching-related schema generated from one’s habitus are similar to the concept of folk pedagogies. They represent what preservice and inservice teachers unconsciously ‘‘know” about teaching from years of experience as students and teachers. Marsh (2006) published a four-year case study of three pre-service teachers who took a reading instruction preparation course. One student grew up in a middle class household, while one grew up in a working class family with middle class tastes (e.g., literature, pastimes) and the other grew up in a working class family with working class tastes. The middle class preservice teachers held a folk belief that using popular texts in school might expose students to inappropriate material, while the working class preservice teacher did not. During the course, all three students developed professed attitudes favoring the use of popular culture texts (e.g., comic books) in elementary reading instruction. However, when they began student teaching, only the working-class student with working class tastes incorporated the use of popular culture texts even though her cooperating teacher and the school frowned on the use of popular texts. The other students did not even try to use popular texts due to their folk beliefs. Noyes (2004) conducted a case study of three preservice teachers of mathematics from diverse socioeconomic and career backgrounds in England. They were taught in the program to use whole-class interactive methods. When student teaching, however, they taught in the manner that they recalled having been taught as children. Additionally, their final, permanent teaching placement was either at the school that they had attended, or a school with similar characteristics (SES, location, race). This was attributed to their habitus. A study of an entire cohort of California ENL teachers indicated that new teachers tend to accept teaching positions at schools with similar characteristics to their own (Green, Tran, & Young, 2005). 5.3. Habitus and technology integration Could teachers’ habitus affect their reception of messages about technology integration? Preservice teachers’ extensive prior experience in K-12 schools is one way in which teacher education differs markedly from other forms of education, such as medical or law education. With few exceptions, prospective physicians or lawyers do not spend five days a week 40 weeks per year in physicians’ offices or courtrooms, respectively. In contrast, most teachers attended teacher-directed classrooms where technology was not integrated (Buchanan & Smith, 1998; Windschitl, 2002). Thus, they enter teacher education programs with teacher-directed folk pedagogies and folk beliefs that technology is not needed to help students learn (Buchanan & Smith, 1998; Windschitl, 2002). These folk beliefs are very resistant to change, and may impede the development of dispositions to let students use technology to construct knowledge. After being introduced to constructivism in teacher education, teachers often profess that it is the best way for students to learn, but teach in a directed manner (Shriki & Lavy, 2005; Simmons et al., 1999; Windschitl). This appears to be true for both preservice and inservice teacher education. 5.3.1. Preservice education In another example, a field-based teacher education program developed with a PT3 grant prepared preservice elementary teachers who were deemed enthusiastic about the use of technology in education (Brush et al., 2003). Students agreed that ‘‘Given a learning goal, [they could] develop ideas for integrating technology,” ‘‘For effective technology integration in a lesson, a teacher needs to adapt his or her teaching strategies to become more student-centered,” and that ‘‘[They are] confident about integrating technology into a language arts, social studies, math, science, or other content area lesson” (p. 64). Thus participants professed student-centered beliefs about teaching, and, presumably, confidence in their technology skills and ability to integrate technology into instruction. However, ‘‘Interviewees also tended to have negative views regarding the use of technology in educational settings” (Brush et al., 2003, p. 67). Representative interview comments seemed to indicate that preservice teachers held onto their experiences as K-12 students as a model for teacher practice: ‘‘I think kids – they do not know how to go to the library anymore and look things up with a card catalog. . .the card catalog was always so important. They always taught us that. Now they do not.” (Brush et al., 2003, p. 67) 5.3.2. Inservice education For example, in one study of a laptop initiative school (Windschitl & Sahl, 2002), inservice teachers’ professed beliefs became constructivist and they appeared to believe that the use of technology to facilitate constructivist learning could be helpful. They also had immense

Fig. 2. Modification of habitus.

358

B.R. Belland / Computers & Education 52 (2009) 353–364

latitude to make changes to curriculum (partially because the school was private and affluent), and each student had a laptop. They thus had (a) technology and pedagogical beliefs supporting technology integration, (b) technology skill, (c) confidence, and (d) technology availability. However, only one of the three teachers selected for case studies used technology to support constructivist learning (the authors noted that the teachers in the sample were fairly representative of the entire school). One of the teachers who did not use technology to support constructivist learning represented her school at a national laptop conference. When back, she said ‘‘I realized it would be very fun for the kids if I could create more problem-based learning activities. So they’re going to learn by solving a particular problem which involves finding and constructing information using the laptop” (p. 195). She even then received a grant to support her use of technology in the classroom. However, among her purchases was a portable projector. During the rest of the year she used the computer and projector to present information to her students in a teacher-directed manner. Could resistance to pedagogic action (PA) about technology integration be part of the problem? In the next section I will examine how PA about educational technology may be transformed to more effectively change preservice teacher’s dispositions to integrate technology. 6. What can be done to encourage technology integration? 6.1. Existing models of pedagogic action about educational technology in teacher education Strudler and Wetzel (1999) examined four teacher education programs renowned for their preparation of teachers to integrate technology. Each program had an introductory educational technology course (to learn the basics) and most also had an advanced course (to delve further into technology integration). In addition, methods instructors modeled the integration of technology, and a concerted effort was made to secure field experience placements with cooperating teachers who integrated technology. However, finding enough cooperating teachers who integrate technology was often challenging. Other authors concurred that this model may be the most effective (Schrum, 1999; Strudler, Archambault, Bendixen, Anderson, & Weiss, 2003). Another model involves an introductory educational technology course and methods courses in which technology is integrated (Stetson & Bagwell, 1999). In yet another model, methods courses were taught at schools where preservice teachers completed field experience (Brush et al., 2003). In methods courses technology integration was modeled, and students reflected on the experience (Brush et al., 2003). Other authors have advocated for one of the following: educational technology projects in methods classes (Collier, Weinburgh, & Rivera, 2004; Dexter, Doering, & Riedel, 2006), additional modeling by university professors (Franklin & Molebash, 2007; Grove, Strudler, & Odell, 2004), or technology-based field experiences (Balli & Diggs, 1996; Niederhauser et al., 1999; Thompson et al., 2003). A major problem has been a lack of appropriate research evidence. Many studies relied solely on surveys in which students were asked essentially if they believe they will be able to integrate technology upon graduation (Collier et al., 2004; Niederhauser et al., 1999; Strudler et al., 2003). Sometimes interview data supplemented survey data (Thompson et al., 2003). However, data in most studies on the effectiveness of educational technology PA models spoke to whether students thought they would integrate technology. Self-presentation bias regarding projected instructional use of technology renders the reliance on self-report data problematic (Kopcha & Sullivan, 2007). In one case in which non-self-report data were also used (Brush et al., 2003), results indicated that students did not value the use of technology in the classroom, and often did not use it during field experience. Notwithstanding the lack of conclusive research about them, none of the above models is the norm. As Hargrave and Hsu (2000) noted, ‘‘most teacher education programs offer one course” in educational technology (p. 303). Even after the completion of PT3 projects intended to transform preservice teachers’ preparation to use technology, the predominant model is still a single ‘‘Introduction to educational technology” course that is disconnected from other methods courses (Mims, Polly, Shepherd, & Inan, 2006). Only 27%, 19%, and 44% of teacher preparation programs described in articles reviewed by Kay (2006) employed modeling of technology integration, technology field experience, and technology integration in all methods courses, respectively. In contrast, 29% used a single educational technology course and 18% provided only mini-workshops on technology (Kay). Overall, 57% of the programs used two or fewer of the 10 strategies identified for preparing preservice teachers to use technology (Kay). Few faculty members model technology integration (Bolick et al., 2007; Stetson & Bagwell, 1999; Thompson et al., 2003) and few teacher education programs place students in classrooms for where they can see technology integration and integrate technology themselves (Bolick et al., 2007). Does the lack of use of multiple strategies to encourage technology integration imply that preservice teachers are not getting the technology skills they need to be able to integrate technology? Preservice teachers whose only exposure to educational technology is in an Introduction to Educational Technology course gain the technology skills they need (Wang & Chen, 2006–2007). However, due to the lack of practice in authentic settings, such students may not be able to ultimately integrate technology into their teaching (Wang & Chen, 2006– 2007). 6.2. Transformation of pedagogic action As illustrated earlier, the PA that educational technologists impose on preservice and inservice teachers does not appear to transform teachers’ habitus. If it did, then it would appear that technology integration would be achieved given the wide availability of resources to support technology integration (NCES, 2006). How can PA about technology integration be transformed to effectuate technology integration? As noted earlier, crafting PA that has the potential to transform students’ habitus is a difficult task (Bourdieu & Passeron, 1990). However, Bourdieu and Passeron proposed a few guidelines that, when followed, can lead to the success of PA. First, the habitus that the PA seeks to instill must be ‘‘capable of durably generating practices conforming with the principles of the inculcated arbitrary [technology integration]” (Bourdieu & Passeron, p. 33). In other words, teacher educators must develop in preservice teachers the disposition to use technology to help their students construct knowledge. According to the theory of habitus, then, teaching preservice teachers technology skills and letting them figure out how to integrate those skills into their teaching in innovative ways will not instill the disposition to integrate technology into teaching.

B.R. Belland / Computers & Education 52 (2009) 353–364

359

Second, the PA must be of long duration and involve practical experience (Bourdieu & Passeron, 1990; Perrenoud, 1996). When attempting to transform preservice teachers’ habitus, teacher educators are attempting to instill dispositions to integrate technology. Simply offering one ‘‘Introduction to Educational Technology” course is not effective in promoting technology integration among graduating teachers (Strudler et al., 2003). In brief, to be successful, PA about constructivism and technology integration must (a) be of longer duration and integrated into content methods courses at least (Bourdieu & Passeron, 1990; Li & Guy, 2005–2006; Stetson & Bagwell, 1999; Strudler & Wetzel, 1999; Strudler et al., 2003), (b) incorporate modeling of effective technology integration by teacher education faculty and cooperating teachers (Dexter et al., 2006; Duhaney, 2001; Garcia & Rose, 2007; Grove et al., 2004; Hudson-Ross & Graham, 2000; Stefl-Mabry, Powers, & Doll, 2005– 2006; Thompson et al., 2003), and (c) incorporate practical experience (Brush et al., 2003; Li & Guy, 2005–2006; Niederhauser et al., 1999; Perrenoud, 1996; Stefl-Mabry et al., 2005–2006). 6.2.1. Longer duration PA must last long enough to produce a change in students’ habitus for it to have any effect on their dispositions, and, ultimately, actions (Bourdieu & Passeron, 1990). Introductory educational technology courses may need to span an entire year, or a semester-long introductory course can be followed by a course in which technology integration applications are more closely examined (Strudler & Wetzel, 1999). The effect of year-long educational technology courses on students’ dispositions to use technology to help students construct knowledge would need to be examined to determine whether it is sufficiently great to warrant time taken away from other teacher education content. A longitudinal study employing a control group design, with the experimental group taking a year-long course (e.g., fall and spring semesters) and the control group a semester-long course (e.g., fall semester) may be an appropriate study design. Participants’ dispositions to integrate technology could be examined at the end of both the fall and spring semesters, and also at student teaching. Educational technology applications may also need to be explored in other teacher education courses (e.g., content methods courses). In most teacher education programs today, students learn about educational technology in just one course, often at the beginning of their teacher education program (Kay, 2006; Strudler & Wetzel, 1999; Strudler et al., 2003). Technology integration ideas or further PA about technology integration are usually not offered in other courses (Brown & Warschauer, 2006; Capobianco & Lehman, 2006; Duhaney, 2001; Li & Guy, 2005–2006; Mims et al., 2006; Schwartz, Meyer, & Sharma, 2007). In other words, educational technology theory is presented to students at the beginning of their program, and they are expected to integrate technology 2–3 years later during student teaching, and ultimately, as a teacher. Thus, if their habitus was not changed during the educational technology course, then they will likely not have dispositions to integrate technology. However, when technology integration projects and ideas are included in other methods courses, this can transfer to candidates’ future teaching (Franklin & Molebash, 2007; Strudler & Wetzel, 1999). To examine the impact of coverage of technology integration ideas in other teacher education courses, a longitudinal design in which control students were not exposed to technology integration ideas in other teacher education courses may be a good choice. Students’ dispositions to integrate technology could be assessed (a) at the end of the ‘‘Introduction to Educational Technology” course, (b) at the end of individual content methods courses, and (c) during student teaching. 6.2.2. Incorporate modeling Another reason PA about the value of technology to facilitate constructivist learning does not transform preservice teachers’ habitus is that teacher educators tend to teach in a teacher-directed manner (Buchanan & Smith, 1998; Chicoine, 2004; Garcia & Rose, 2007; Palmer, Rowell, & Brooks, 2005), and not integrate technology (Duhaney, 2001; Finley & Hartman, 2004; Garcia & Rose, 2007; Isabelle et al., 2001; Schwartz et al., 2007; Strudler & Wetzel, 1999; Strudler et al., 2003; Thompson et al., 2003). In a survey of 31,354 higher education faculty, including 554 teacher education faculty, Goubeaud and Yan (2004) did find that more teacher education faculty primarily used constructivist strategies (e.g., group work) than non-education faculty. However, 50.5% of teacher education faculty primarily used lecture, and only 6.1% primarily used group work. In essence, the majority of teacher education faculty tended to lecture, literally, preservice teachers about constructivism (Palmer et al., 2005). As demonstrated earlier, that message does not impact practice. The widespread use of lecture in education methods courses is likely due to (a) the scope of content to be covered in a semester, (b) large class sizes, and (c) lack of coordination between individual teacher education courses (Chicoine, 2004). Large class size and a large amount of content to be covered often indicate that lecture may be a good option for a course (Reigeluth & Curtis, 1987). However, other factors should go into course format adoption, including the type of student learning desired and where the course fits into the overall program of study (Reigeluth & Curtis). Wider content coverage does not necessarily translate into effective learning or transfer. For example, preservice teachers who took a constructivist version of a biology course scored higher on a course content test than students who took the directed version (Willden, Crowther, Gubanich, & Cannon, 2002). In addition, the scope of content coverage in many methods courses may be too broad because they often repeat much of the same information (e.g., philosophical underpinnings of constructivism) without going into more detail (Chicoine). As noted earlier, many life experiences can potentially transform people’s habitus. If preservice teachers spent most of their 13 years as K-12 students in teacher-directed classrooms, and then spend most of their four years as teacher education students in teacher-directed classrooms, the ensemble of their experiences stay teacher-directed, and exposure to several semesters’ worth of PA about constructivism delivered in a teacher-directed manner is unlikely to change their habitus. If, however, their teacher education classes are run in a constructivist manner, then 3.5 years of experience as a student in a constructivist classroom may potentially counteract 13 years in a teacher-directed classroom to push preservice teachers’ habitus to incorporate constructivist dispositions. Clearly, more research is needed to determine if such counteraction is possible, and, if so, how it happens. Research designs that may help answer these questions include longitudinal case studies of cohorts of students, some whose content methods professors use constructivist methods and some whose professors do not. Students could write reflections about their views of the role of the teacher and their visions of a day in the life of a teacher. The reflections could be used as data sources to examine the impact of the additional modeling on dispositions, and could be triangulated with interviews at various stages of the students’ teacher education program and observations of the participants’ student teaching.

360

B.R. Belland / Computers & Education 52 (2009) 353–364

6.2.3. Incorporate practical experience Perhaps the widespread use of lecture in teacher education methods courses has to do with a separation of practice/feedback from methods courses. Teacher education programs tend to be set up to permit students to learn theory (why to teach in a particular way) in methods courses, and put theory into practice (how to teach in a particular way) during student teaching (Lauer, 1999). Only when practice and feedback is not needed should lecture be used (Reigeluth & Curtis, 1987). But it seems reasonable that when learning theory about how to do something, students should be able to practice doing it. Perrenoud (1996) argued that to change preservice teachers’ habitus, internships and simulations should be used. All teacher education programs incorporate student teaching, and many incorporate field-based observations of teachers (field experience). However, field experience is often independent of educational technology courses (Li & Guy, 2005–2006) and teacher education students often think what the cooperating teacher does constitutes the extent of what is accepted in actual schools (Lauer, 1999; Marsh, 2006). Given the lack of technology integration in many classrooms, much of what teacher education candidates see during field experience would not involve the integration of technology. Indeed, many authors who support the idea of technology-based field experience note the difficulty of finding enough accessible cooperating teachers who integrate technology (Strudler & Wetzel, 1999; Thompson et al., 2003). Brush et al. (2003) attempted to have students engage in technology-based field experience, but interview comments indicated that cooperating teachers did not use technology more than having students type papers and play games as a reward. Practical experience, such as field experience, should be incorporated into educational technology courses so preservice teachers can gain more experience that may change their dispositions to integrate technology (Li & Guy, 2005–2006; Perrenoud, 1996; Stefl-Mabry et al., 2005–2006). During such field experience, students should be required to design and implement a technology-enhanced lesson or mini-unit to help K-12 students construct knowledge. This would have the additional benefit of exposing cooperating teachers who do not integrate technology to the possibilities of technology use in the classroom. It is not clear if such exposure would transform cooperating teachers’ practice. This may be determined through a case study approach, with interviews about the role of technology in the classroom and observations conducted before and after the field experience. 6.3. Specific changes 6.3.1. A possible revision to ‘‘Introduction to Educational Technology” courses Stefl-Mabry et al. (2005–2006) described a successful collaboration between the instructor of an undergraduate-level web design course and the instructor of a graduate-level school library media course. The undergraduate students needed to get real-world experience designing web sites according to client specifications, while the graduate students needed to gain skill designing pedagogically appropriate learning media for students. The undergraduate and graduate students worked together on a project to design an instructional web site according to the needs of teachers at a local school. In other words, they were presented with an ill-structured problem, and they needed to come up with an appropriate solution. The graduate students worked on the content and pedagogical design, while the undergraduates created a web design to house the content. Though some students felt overwhelmed, the majority of students liked it. Transforming existing, lecture-based ‘‘Introduction to Educational Technology” courses into problem-based, service learning courses such as that described by Stefl-Mabry et al. (2005–2006) may be a way to incorporate practical experience and modeling in PA about technology integration. Such a course could be a collaboration between inservice teachers at local K-12 schools, students in a Computer Graphics Technology or similar design course, and students in the ‘‘Introduction to Educational Technology” course. Inservice teachers could identify specific content that their students need to learn but which past students have had difficulty learning. The inservice teachers could help the preservice teachers determine appropriate objectives for instructional materials to be developed and pertinent learner and environment characteristics. Supported through teacher and computer-based scaffolding (Hannafin, Land, & Oliver, 1999; Wood, Bruner, & Ross, 1976), preservice teachers could develop an instructional plan (including instructional strategies, text, and visual design) to help students meet the identified objectives. Then, preservice teachers could work with computer graphics students to produce the instructional materials. Finally, preservice teachers could facilitate the use of the materials with their mentor inservice teacher’s students and evaluate how the materials worked. Would such a course be challenging for college freshmen, who are among the most represented in class rosters of Introduction to Educational Technology courses? Undoubtedly, the answer is yes. But my experience teaching undergraduate preservice teachers indicates that it could be done with the appropriate support. Perhaps the predominant sequence of teacher education courses (e.g., with ‘‘Introduction to Educational Technology” as a beginning course) should be reconsidered. Students who have already had content methods courses may be able to apply the knowledge they already gained to their problem-based educational technology project (Ellington, 2007). Also, projects could then be tailored to students’ specific areas of study (e.g., Science Education) and desired teaching placement (e.g., middle school science) (Ellington). The pedagogical benefits of such a course appear to be numerous. Preservice teachers would be required to attempt to integrate technology while learning educational technology theories. They would also be able to observe their professor, who would be helping them use technology to construct knowledge, integrating technology. One reason why what is taught in teacher education does not transfer to practice may be that, in the traditional teacher education model, students are taught theory in the first years of their program, and then are asked to apply it during field experience and student teaching in the later years of the program (Lauer, 1999). Preservice teachers often see what their cooperating teachers do during field experience or student teaching, and imitate (Lauer). Requiring them to engage in technology integration during field experience that happens during the course may help alleviate this tendency. Field experience during educational technology courses has been tried in the past with varying results. At Kent State University, preservice teachers worked in teams of five to create technology-enhanced lesson plans for local teachers (Kovalik, 2003). The resulting lesson plans, on the whole, were teacher-directed and involved low-level uses of technology (e.g., drill and practice) (Kovalik). However, possible difficulties included (a) the distance of the school from campus, and (b) the students were expected to complete the entire project using pedagogy and technology skills they had presumably just learned. Collaborating with computer graphics technology or design students, preservice teachers may be able to focus more on how to integrate technology and less on getting the technology to look and work exactly the way they want.

B.R. Belland / Computers & Education 52 (2009) 353–364

361

Other authors found that field components in educational technology courses impacted students’ perceptions of their ability to integrate technology (Li & Guy, 2005–2006). Unfortunately, research on the transfer of skills gained during field components is limited, and should be expanded, possibly through the use of observation during field experience, and corresponding interviews (Schrum et al., 2005; Willis, Thompson, & Sadera, 1999). 6.3.2. Additional modeling Modeling the use of technology to facilitate the construction of knowledge should be integrated into other teacher education courses. To accomplish this, such courses will need to be taught in a more constructivist manner. For example, multicultural education classes in universities located in communities that are relatively socioeconomically and ethnically homogenous can incorporate the use of technology to allow preservice teachers to be exposed to K-12 classes that serve students of diverse socioeconomic and ethnic backgrounds. At my university, which is located in a relatively ethnically homogenous community, students in multicultural education participate in virtual field experience by observing through videoconference classes in a nearby large city. They can ask questions to students and teachers, and learn what teaching and interacting with an ethnically diverse class may be like. Such experience helps preservice teachers gain the content of the multicultural education course. Other modeling and practical experience may be obtained through the use of technology-based field experiences for preservice teachers. Though valued, technology-based field experiences sometimes cannot be offered to all teacher education students due to a lack of sufficient cooperating teachers who integrate technology and who teach at a reasonable distance of the university (Brush et al., 2003; Grove et al., 2004; Strudler & Wetzel, 1999; Thompson et al., 2003). A possible way around this problem is using a combination of virtual field experience and a lab school. The virtual field experience could be conducted in a similar manner to multicultural education classes at many universities in ethnically homogeneous communities. Specifically, cooperating teachers who integrate technology could be identified without regard for distance from the teacher education institution. PolycomÓ or similar distance education cameras could be mailed to the cooperating teachers, and could be used to allow preservice teachers to observe the classrooms at their own universities. Another important part of field experience is practice teaching lessons. I propose that university lab schools be used to ensure that preservice teachers have the chance to practice implementing technology-enhanced lessons. A valuable addition to virtual field experience may be for students to reflect how in their future classroom they could use such technology (Dawson & Dana, 2007; Meyers, 2006). Video conferencing is becoming much cheaper through the possibilities offered by videoconferencing through computers connected to the Internet (e.g., using Adobe Connect). As 94% of instructional rooms in K-12 schools have at least one computer with broadband Internet access (NCES, 2006), preservice teachers will likely have the technological resources in their classrooms to use Internet-based video-conferencing. Reflecting on possible uses of the technology may help them develop a disposition to use it. A preservice teacher who took an ‘‘Introduction to Educational Technology” course and technology-based field experience did not see value in technology integration until she reflected on the experiences (Dawson & Dana). Additionally, if students’ reflections are written, they could serve as useful data sources to examine the impact of such experiences on students’ dispositions to integrate technology. 6.4. Additional suggestions for future research The body of research on the preparation of preservice teachers to integrate technology lacks good description of strategies that non-educational technology faculty can use to model technology integration. Some faculty teaching such courses as philosophy of education, and individual subject methods courses, model the use of technology to construct knowledge (Brush et al., 2003; Collier et al., 2004; Franklin & Molebash, 2007; Garcia & Rose, 2007; Hudson-Ross & Graham, 2000). However, few articles to my knowledge articulate how such modeling can be accomplished. If a clear, detailed vision backed by empirical evidence is not provided to teacher educators, how can educational technologists expect such modeling to materialize? Clearly there is a need for more research on the effectiveness of the modeling of technology integration on preservice teachers’ technology integration and on how such modeling can be accomplished. There is a clear need for research that does not focus solely on preservice teachers’ perceptions of the value of educational technology or their confidence in using it (Schrum et al., 2005; Willis et al., 1999). There is value in research on perceptions of value and attitudes, but as Kay (2006) noted in her extensive review of research on preservice teacher education about educational technology, the number of studies that examine transfer of different approaches to educational technology instruction is extremely low, while studies that examine beliefs are high in number. While comparatively easy to study, beliefs about and professed confidence in using an instructional approach do not always indicate actual transfer (Kopcha & Sullivan, 2007). In addition, if one accepts that dispositions in a teacher’s habitus, and not professed beliefs, drive technology integration, it makes little sense to ask preservice or inservice teachers if they believe (a) technology helps students learn or (b) they will use technology in the classroom. In addition, if research attempts to measure preservice or inservice teachers’ integration of technology into their teaching, research reports should define the term ‘‘technology integration.” Of the 48 journal articles about technology integration cited in this paper, only four (Barron et al., 2003; Brown & Warschauer, 2006; Ertmer, 1999; Redmann & Kotrlik, 2004) gave a specific enough definition of the term to differentiate between the simple use of technology and its integration. In many papers no attempt was even made to define the term. This is problematic because readers of research reports need to be told the authors’ conception of technology integration in order to be able to adequately interpret the results (American Educational Research Association, 2006). If researchers write that students were able to integrate technology into their teaching after graduation from a teacher preparation program that uses system X to introduce students to educational technology, how can readers assess system X? Maybe system X is really great for getting students to use PowerPoint to present information to students. However, I would argue that using technology exclusively that way is not technology integration, because it just replaces the blackboard of the traditional classroom with a projection screen. Others may choose to disagree. However, few would argue that it is not important to know what authors who write about technology integration think technology integration is. A difficulty in applying this model to research on technology integration is that habitus, and, correspondingly, dispositions are difficult to measure. Preservice teachers’ tendencies to use technology primarily to support existing practices (e.g., drill and practice applications), facilitate students’ construction of knowledge, or to not use technology at all with their students are constructs that cannot be easily measured by surveys, interviews, or other simply-constructed research instruments. No construct can ever be measured perfectly or even directly (Messick, 1989). Just as the extent of students’ content understanding can only be inferred by their behavior (e.g., taking a multiple

362

B.R. Belland / Computers & Education 52 (2009) 353–364

choice test), teachers’ tendencies can only be inferred through assessment of their behavior. Scholars may make inferences about teachers’ dispositions by observing their practice and interviewing them afterward about their perceptions of how they came to engage in that practice or not engage in another practice. One such method is the prompted, retrospective interview, in which participants are videotaped performing an action (e.g., teaching a lesson), and excerpts of the video are used to prompt their recollection of what they were doing and why during the interview. Some questions may focus on the teachers’ K-12 and teacher education experiences. This method may allow researchers to begin to scratch the surface of why teachers either integrate or fail to integrate technology. Before conducting a longitudinal study examining the impact of different teacher education strategies on preservice teachers’ dispositions to integrate technology, it would be important to determine how treatment groups could be created. One cannot follow elementary school students through their school careers and on to teacher education programs because one cannot know which elementary school students will ultimately enroll in teacher education. However, one must be careful to ensure that a relatively equal distribution of similar habitus is present among preservice teachers in each treatment group. One method may involve collecting information about socioeconomic, ethnic, and geographic backgrounds, as well as experiences during K-12 and teacher education, of preservice teachers. Preservice teachers could be divided into groups with similar sets of experiences, and a sample from each group could be observed during student and inservice teaching. This type of research could be performed to provide further support for a link between teachers’ past experiences and their practice. When added to other types of evidence such as from prompted, retrospective interviews, evidence from such longitudinal studies could contribute to a substantial base of empirical evidence of a relationship between past experiences and teacher dispositions to integrate technology. 7. Conclusion While the physical and administrative capacity for technology integration is present in most classrooms and schools (Ertmer, 2005; Hughes & Ooms, 2004; NCES, 2006), technology integration has occurred minimally (Albion & Ertmer, 2002; Ertmer; Hew & Brush, 2007). Rather than focus on post-teacher education barriers to technology integration, this paper examined the folk pedagogies formed through home and K-12 schooling experience as a source of teacher education graduates’ failure to integrate technology. By lengthening preservice teachers’ exposure to messages about educational technology and technology integration through modeling of effective technology integration throughout teacher education programs, and by providing opportunities for practical experiences in technology integration through problem-based collaborations with local teachers on technology integration projects, preservice teachers’ dispositions to integrate technology may be changed. Moving beyond the study of barriers may provide the knowledge necessary to allow technology integration to be achieved. References Albion, P. R., & Ertmer, P. A. (2002). Beyond the foundations: The role of vision and belief in teachers’ preparation for integration of technology. TechTrends, 46(5), 34–38. American Educational Research Association (2006). Standards for reporting on empirical social science research in AERA publications. Educational Researcher, 35(6), 33–40. Anderson, S. E., & Maninger, R. M. (2007). Preservice teachers’ abilities, beliefs, and intentions regarding technology integration. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 37(2), 151–172. Andrew, L. (2007). Comparison of teacher educators’ instructional methods with the constructivist ideal. The Teacher Educator, 42(3), 157–184. Apple, M. W. (2001). Markets, standards, teaching, and teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 52, 182–196. Balli, S. J., & Diggs, L. L. (1996). Learning to teach with technology: A pilot project with preservice teachers. Educational Technology, 36(1), 56–61. Barrett, T. S. (1997). Exploring the moral dimension of professors’ folk pedagogy. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. Retrieved 10.07.07. Barron, A. E., Kemker, K., Harmes, C., & Kalaydjian, K. (2003). Large-scale research study on technology in K-12 schools: Technology integration as it relates to the national technology standards. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 35(4), 489–507. Bauer, J., & Kenton, J. (2005). Toward technology integration in schools: Why it is not happening. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13(4), 519–546. Blanton, W. E., Simmons, E., & Warner, M. (2001). The fifth dimension: Application of cultural-historical activity theory, inquiry-based learning, computers, and telecommunications to change prospective teachers’ preconceptions. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 24(4), 435–463. Bolick, C. M., Berson, M. J., Friedman, A. M., & Porfeli, E. J. (2007). Diffusion of technology innovation in the preservice social studies experience. Results of a national survey. Theory and Research in Social Education, 35(2), 174–195. Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice Tr. R. Nice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Bourdieu, P. (1979). La distinction: Critique sociale du jugement [Distinction: Social critique of judgment]. Paris: Les Editions de Minuit. Bourdieu, P. (1984). Homo academicus Tr. P. Collier. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Bourdieu, P. (1990). In other words: Essays towards a reflexive society Tr. M. Adamson. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Bourdieu, P. (2004). Science of science and reflexivity Tr. R. Nice. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Bourdieu, P., & Passeron, J. (1990). Reproduction in education, society, and culture Tr. R. Nice. London: Sage Publications. Brinkerhoff, J. (2006). Effects of a long-duration, professional development academy on technology skills, computer self-efficacy, and technology integration beliefs and practices. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 39(1), 22–43. Brown, D., & Warschauer, M. (2006). From the university to the elementary classroom: Students’ experiences in learning to integrate technology in instruction. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 14(3), 599–621. Bruner, J. (1996). The culture of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Brush, T., Glazewski, K., Rutowski, K., Berg, K., Stromfors, C., Van-Nest, M. H., et al. (2003). Integrating technology in a field-based teacher training program: The PT3@ASU project. Educational Technology Research and Development, 51(1), 57–72. Buchanan, T. K., & Smith, R. M. (1998). Restructuring courses in higher education to model constructivist practice. Action in Teacher Education, 20(3), 62–72. Capobianco, B., & Lehman, J. (2006). Integrating technology to foster inquiry in an elementary science methods course: An action research study of one teacher educator’s initiatives in a PT3 project. Journal of Computers in Science and Mathematics Teaching, 25(2), 123–146. Chicoine, D. (2004). Ignoring the obvious: A constructivist critique of a traditional teacher education program. Educational Studies Journal, 36(3), 245–263. Collier, S., Weinburgh, M. H., & Rivera, M. (2004). Infusing technology skills into a teacher education program: Change in students’ knowledge about and use of technology. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 12(3), 447–468. Cooper, B., & Dunne, M. (1998). Anyone for tennis? Social class differences in children’s responses to national curriculum mathematics teaching. The Sociological Review, 46(1), 115–148. Culp, K. M., Honey, M., & Mandinach, E. (2005). A retrospective on twenty years of education technology policy. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 32(3), 279–307. Damarin, S. K. (2000). The ‘digital divide’ versus digital differences: Principles for equitable use of technology in education. Educational Technology, 40(4), 17–22. Dawson, K., & Dana, N. F. (2007). When curriculum-based, technology-enhanced field experiences and teacher inquiry coalesce. An opportunity for conceptual change? British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(4), 656–667. Dexter, S., Doering, A. H., & Riedel, E. S. (2006). Content area specific technology integration: A model for educating teachers. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 14(2), 325–345. Drucker, M. J. (2006). Commentary: Crossing the digital divide: How race, class, and culture matter. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 6(1), 43–45.

B.R. Belland / Computers & Education 52 (2009) 353–364

363

Duhaney, D. C. (2001). Teacher education: Preparing teachers to integrate technology. International Journal of Instructional Media, 26(1), 23–30. Ellington, A. J. (2007). A capstone course for pre-service mathematics teachers which uses technology as its unifying theme. Mathematics and Computer Education, 41(1), 55–66. Ensor, P. (2001). From preservice mathematics teacher education to beginning teaching: A study in recontextualizing. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 32(3), 296–320. Ertmer, P. A. (1999). Addressing first- and second-order barriers to change: Strategies for technology integration. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(4), 47–61. Ertmer, P. A. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for technology integration? Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4), 25–39. Ertmer, P. A., Gopalakrishnan, S., & Ross, E. M. (2001). Technology-using teachers: Comparing perceptions of exemplary use to best practice [Electronic copy]. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 33(3). Fang, Z. (1996). A review of research on teacher beliefs and practices. Educational Research, 38(1), 47–65. Finley, L., & Hartman, D. (2004). Institutional change and resistance. Teacher preparatory faculty and technology integration. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 12(3), 319–337. Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing. Franklin, C. A., & Molebash, P. E. (2007). Technology in the elementary social studies classroom: Teacher preparation does matter. Theory and Research in Social Education, 35(2), 153–173. Frederick, G. R., Schweizer, H., & Lowe, R. (2006). After the in-service course: Challenges of technology integration. Computers in the Schools, 23(1–2), 73–84. Garcia, P., & Rose, S. (2007). The influence of technocentric collaboration on preservice teachers’ attitudes about technology’s role in powerful teaching and learning. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 15(2), 247–266. Garland, V. E., & Wotton, S. E. (2001–2002). Bridging the digital divide in public schools. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 30(2), 115–123. Germann, P., & Sasse, C. M. (1997). Variations in concerns and attitudes of science teachers in an educational technology development program [Electronic version]. The Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science, 16(2–3), 405–423. Gibbs, R. W. (2001). Intentions as emergent products of social interactions. In B. F. Malle, L. J. Moses, & D. A. Baldwin (Eds.), Intentions and intentionality: Foundations of social cognition (pp. 105–122). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Goubeaud, K., & Yan, W. (2004). Teacher educators’ teaching methods, assessments, and grading: A comparison of higher education faculty’s instructional practices. The Teacher Educator, 40(1), 1–16. Green, T. D., Tran, M., & Young, R. (2005). The impact of ethnicity, socioeconomic status, language, and training program on teaching choice among new teachers in California. Bilingual Research Journal, 29(3), 583–598. Grove, K., Strudler, N., & Odell, S. (2004). Mentoring toward technology use: Cooperating teacher practice in supporting student teachers. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 37(1), 85–109. Hannafin, M., Land, S., & Oliver, K. (1999). Open-ended learning environments: Foundations, methods, and models. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional design theories and models. A new paradigm of instructional theory (Vol. II, pp. 115–140). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Hargrave, C. P., & Hsu, Y. (2000). Survey of instructional technology courses for preservice teachers. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 8(4), 303–314. Hernandez-Ramos, P. (2005). If not here, where? Understanding teachers’ use of technology in silicon Valley schools. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38(1), 39–64. Herzberg, H. (2006). Learning habitus and the dynamics of lifelong learning. Studies in the Education of Adults, 38(1), 37–47. Hew, K. F., & Brush, T. (2007). Integrating technology into K-12 teaching and learning: Current knowledge gaps and recommendations for future research. Educational technology. Research and Development, 55(3), 223–252. Hollingsworth, S. (1989). Prior beliefs and cognitive change in learning to teach. American Educational Research Journal, 26(2), 160–189. Hudson-Ross, S., & Graham, P. (2000). Going public: Making teacher educators’ learning explicit as a model for preservice teachers. Teacher Education Quarterly, 27(4), 5–24. Hughes, J. E., & Ooms, A. (2004). Content-focused technology inquiry groups: Preparing urban teachers to integrate technology to transform student learning. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 36(4), 397–411. Isabelle, C., Desjardins, R., & Desjardins, Y. (2001). Croyances des futurs enseignants et l’utilisation des technologies de l’information en milieu scolaire [Beliefs of preservice teachers and information technology use in school settings]. Journal of Educational Thought, 35(3), 249–267. Jonassen, D. H., Howland, J., Moore, J., & Marra, R. M. (2003). Learning to solve problems with technology: A constructivist perspective (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education. Jonassen, D. H., & Reeves, T. C. (1996). Learning with technology: Using computers as cognitive tools. Handbook of research for educational communications and technology. New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan. pp. 693–719. Judge, S., Puckett, K., & Cabuk, B. (2004). Digital equity: New findings from the early childhood longitudinal study. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 36(4), 383–396. Judson, E. (2006). How teachers integrate technology and their beliefs about learning: Is there a connection? Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 14(3), 581–597. Kane, R., Sandretto, S., & Heath, C. (2002). Telling half the story: A critical review of research on the teaching beliefs and practices of university academics. Review of Educational Research, 72(2), 177–228. Karlsen, U. D. (2001). Some things never change: Youth and occupational preferences. Acta Sociologica, 44, 243–255. Kay, R. H. (2006). Evaluating strategies used to incorporate technology into preservice education: A review of the literature. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38(4), 383–408. Kopcha, T. J., & Sullivan, H. (2007). Self-presentation bias in surveys of teachers’ educational technology practices. Educational Technology Research and Development, 55(6), 627–646. Kovalik, C. (2003). Reflections on a technology integration project. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 11(1), 73–90. Lauer, P. A. (1999). Guidelines for applying the learner-centered psychological principles to preservice teacher education. Aurora, CO: Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning (Eric Document Reproduction Number ED440928). Lawless, K. A., & Pellegrino, J. W. (2007). Professional development in integrating technology into teaching and learning: Knowns, unknowns, and ways to pursue better questions and answers. Review of Educational Research, 77, 575–614. Li, Q., & Guy, M. (2005–2006). Partnering prospective and practicing teachers to create technology-supported learning opportunities for students. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 34(4), 387–399. Lumpe, A. T., & Chambers, E. (2001). Assessing teachers’ context beliefs about technology use. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 34(1), 93–107. Marsh, J. (2006). Popular culture in the literacy curriculum: A Bourdieuan analysis. Reading Research Quarterly, 41(2), 160–174. Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In R. L. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement (3rd ed., pp. 13–103). New York: American Council on Education. Meyers, E. Jr., (2006). Using electronic journals to facilitate reflective thinking regarding instructional practices during early field experiences. Education, 126(4), 756–762. Mims, C., Polly, D., Shepherd, C., & Inan, F. (2006). Examining PT3 projects designed to improve preservice education. TechTrends, 50(3), 16–24. Nash, R. (2002). The educated habitus, progress at school, and real knowledge. Interchange, 33(1), 27–48. National Center for Educational Statistics (2000). Teachers’ tools for the 21st Century: A report on teachers’ use of technology. Retrieved 05.07.07. National Center for Educational Statistics (2006). Internet access in US public schools and classrooms: 1994–2005. Retrieved 05.07.07. Newby, T. J., Stepich, D. A., Lehman, J. D., & Russell, J. D. (2006). Educational technology for teaching and learning (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education. Niederhauser, D. S., Salem, D. J., & Fields, M. (1999). Exploring teaching, learning, and instructional reform in an introductory technology course. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 7(2), 153–172. Noyes, A. (2004). (Re)Producing mathematics educators: A sociological perspective. Teaching Education, 15(3), 243–256. Palmer, B. C., Rowell, C. G., & Brooks, M. A. (2005). Reflection and cognitive strategy instruction: Modeling active learning for pre-service teachers. Reading Horizons, 45(3), 195–216. Park, S. H., & Ertmer, P. A. (2007). Impact of problem-based learning (PBL) on teachers’ beliefs regarding technology use. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 40(2), 247–267. Perrenoud, P. (1996). Savoirs de référence, savoirs pratiques en formation des enseignants: Une opposition discutable [Scientific and practical knowledge: A debatable opposition]. Bildungsforschung und Bildungspraxis, 18(2), 45–48.

364

B.R. Belland / Computers & Education 52 (2009) 353–364

Perry, G. S., Jr., & Areglado, R. J. (2001). The computers are here! Now what does the principal do? In J. F. LeBaron & C. Collier (Eds.), Technology in its place: Successful technology infusion in schools (pp. 87–98). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Phelps, A. J., & Lee, C. (2003). The power of practice: What students learn from how we teach. Journal of Chemical Education, 80(7), 829–832. Ravitz, J. L., Becker, H. J., & Wong, Y. (2000). Constructivist-compatible beliefs and practices among US teachers. Teaching, learning, and computing: 1998 national survey report # 4. Minneapolis, MN: Center for Research on Information Technology and Organizations. (ERIC document reproduction number ED445657). Redmann, D. H., & Kotrlik, J. W. (2004). Technology integration in the teaching–learning process in selected career and technical education programs. Journal of Vocational Education Research, 29(1), 3–25. Reigeluth, C. M., & Curtis, R. V. (1987). Learning situations and instructional models. In R. M. Gagné (Ed.), Instructional technology: Foundations (pp. 175–206). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Rice, M. L., Wilson, E. K., & Bagley, W. (2001). Transforming learning with technology: Lessons from the field. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 9(2), 211–230. Roblyer, M. D., & Edwards, J. (2000). Integrating educational technology into teaching (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill. Rogers, E. M. (1983). Diffusion of innovations (3rd ed.). New York: The Free Press. Schrum, L. (1999). Technology professional development for teachers. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(4), 83–90. Schrum, L., Thompson, A., Sprague, D., Maddux, C., McAnear, A., Bell, L., et al. (2005). Advancing the field: Considering acceptable evidence in educational technology research [Electronic version]. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 5(3/4). Schwartz, C. V., Meyer, J., & Sharma, A. (2007). Technology, pedagogy, and epistemology: Opportunities and challenges of using computer modeling and simulation tools in elementary science methods. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 18, 243–269. Shamburg, C. (2004). Conditions that inhibit the integration of technology for early childhood teachers. Information Technology in Childhood Education Annual, 2004, 227–244. Shriki, A., & Lavy, I. (2005). Assimilating innovative learning/teaching approaches into teacher education – Why is it so difficult? In H. I. Chick & J. L. Vincent (Eds.). Proceedings of the 29th conference of the international group for the psychology of mathematics education (Vol. 4, pp. 185–192). Melbourne, Australia: PME. Simmons, P. E., Emory, A., Carter, T., Coker, T., Finnegan, B., Crockett, D., et al. (1999). Beginning teachers: Beliefs and classroom actions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 930–954. Smith, J. (2001). Modeling the social construction of knowledge in ELT teacher education. ELT Journal, 55(3), 221–227. Steel, P. (2007). The nature of procrastination: A meta-analytic and theoretical review of quintessential self-regulatory failure. Psychological Bulletin, 133(1), 65–94. Steel, P., & König, C. J. (2006). Integrating theories of motivation. Academy of Management Review, 31, 889–913. Stefl-Mabry, J., Powers, J., & Doll, C. G. (2005–2006). Creating and sustaining problem-based partnerships among graduate, undergraduate, and K-12 learners: Opportunities and challenges. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 34(2), 131–153. Stetson, R., & Bagwell, T. (1999). Technology and teacher preparation: An oxymoron? Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 7(2), 145–152. Strudler, N., Archambault, L., Bendixen, L., Anderson, D., & Weiss, R. (2003). Project thread: Technology helping restructure educational access and delivery. Educational Technology Research and Development, 51(1), 41–56. Strudler, N., & Wetzel, K. (1999). Lessons from exemplary colleges of education: Factors affecting technology integration in preservice programs. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(4), 63–81. Swain, C., & Pearson, T. (2003). Educators and technology standards: Influencing the digital divide. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 34(3), 326–335. Thompson, A. D., Schmidt, D. A., & Davis, N. E. (2003). Technology collaboratives for simultaneous renewal in teacher education. Educational Technology Research and Development, 51(1), 73–89. Wang, Y., & Chen, V. (2006–2007). Untangling the confounding perceptions regarding the stand alone IT course. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 35(2), 133–150. Wenglinsky, H. (1998). Policy information report: Does it compute? The relationship between educational technology and student achievement in mathematics. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service (Eric Document Reproduction Number ED425191). Willden, J. L., Crowther, D. T., Gubanich, A. A., & Cannon, J. R. (2002). A quantitative comparison of instruction format of introductory level content biology courses: Traditional lecture approach vs. inquiry based for education majors. In Proceedings of the annual international conference of the association for the education of teachers in science. (Eric Document Reproduction Service Number ED465607). Willis, J., Thompson, A., & Sadera, W. (1999). Research on technology and teacher education: Current status and future directions. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(4), 29–45. Windschitl, M. (2002). Framing constructivism in practice as the negotiation of dilemmas: An analysis of the conceptual, pedagogical, cultural, and political challenges facing teachers. Review of Educational Research, 72(2), 131–175. Windschitl, M., & Sahl, K. (2002). Tracing teachers’ use of technology in a laptop computer school: The interplay of teacher beliefs, social dynamics, and institutional culture. American Educational Research Journal, 39(1), 165–205. Wood, D., Bruner, J., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem-solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 89–100.