#17 Reflection on “Factors Affecting Technology Uses in Schools:

#17 Reflection on “Factors Affecting Technology Uses in Schools:
An Ecological Perspective” published in American Educational Research Journal
Winter 2003, Vol. 40, No. 4, pp. 807–840 by Yong Zhao and Kenneth A. Frank

Here are the summary and my reflection

Summary:

The interesting idea in this paper came from the understanding Zebra Mussels that rapidly invaded the Great Lakes ecosystem. Simulating themselves as ecologists, the authors adopted the concepts of the interaction of ecological conditions, including characteristics of the invading species, characteristics of the existing species, temperatures, and other geographical characteristics. They then applied their understanding into computer uses in schools. In short, they intended to correct the traditional ways of studying discrete factors in isolation.

The authors used the ecosystem as a metaphor to construct an interconnected framework and tested their model by selecting schools that had made significant investments in technology between 1996 and 2001.
Their criteria for selecting districts for participation in the study included (a) recent passage (between 1996 and 2001) of a bond referendum or receipt of a community foundation grant for implementation of technology;(b) willingness on the part of the superintendent of schools to participate in the study; and (c) a district size that would allow us to include all of the elementary schools in the district.

Metaphors they created are: (a) Schools are ecosystems; (b) computer uses are living species; (c) teachers are members of a keystone species; and (d) external educational innovations are invasions of exotic species. These metaphorical bridges are intended to help them apply what they learn from ecological examples to their current task of understanding technology uses in schools (p.811).

As we know that an ecosystem has the tendency or ability to maintain internal equilibrium. The introduction of new species, whether intentional or unintentional, affects the equilibrium to varying degrees. When a new species, such as the zebra mussel, enters an existing ecosystem, it essentially is an invader from outside. The invading species may interact with one or more existing species.

Depending on the properties of the invader and of the existing species, as well as on the types of interactions, several consequences may result: (a) The invader wins and wipes out the existing species; (b) both win and survive, in which case some other species may perish or the ecosystem may eventually become dysfunctional because of its limited capacity; (c) the invader loses and perishes; and (d) both the invader and the existing species go through a process of variation and selection and acquire new properties.

In this case, the techno-enthusiasts are viewed as invading species. Whether they are successfully adopted and become permanently established depends on their compatibility with the teaching environment.

The variables they constructed and employed were (1) the ecosystem, (2) the teacher’s niche in the ecosystem, (3) teacher–ecosystem interaction, (4) teacher–computer predisposition for compatibility, and (5) opportunities for mutual adaptation.
For the implications for policy and practice the authors provided the following suggestions: teacher-level change; recruitment/selection; training/socialization; providing opportunities to explore and learn; leveraging change through the social context and programmatic possibilities (p.831)

In part of their research, they used real life example to illustrate 3 phrases of interaction between a focal teacher and the new technology. Initially, the technology has certain capabilities, represented by its shape as depicted. The teacher’s perception of the value of the technology may reflect his or her history, pedagogical practices, and so forth, and may include an assessment of the costs associated with use.
In the second phase, the teacher and the technology change shapes as they co-evolve. Note that the teacher’s modifications are influenced by the help received and by perceived pressure from others (shown by the dotted lines).The other teachers may, themselves, be reacting to institutions or other forces exogenous to the school. This process is analogous to the settlement process of an invading species as it interacts with native species, which in relation to the invader may become food sources, competitors, or predators. The compatibility between the invading species and the native species influences their ability to survive. When new computer uses “invade” a school, the forces of the larger ecosystem are conveyed by relationships within the subsystem of the school.
In the last phase, the technology begins to conform to the teacher, as teachers develop the capacity to modify software and hard-ware to suit their needs. At the same time, the teacher can also change her ways of interacting with the computer, which may demand different teaching practices. This is the stage of co-evolution, in which the invading species and the native species adapt to each other by changing themselves. In other words, the teacher may change her role to become more of a facilitator than an instructor, while the computer becomes a tool to support that. Or the teacher may find the intended uses of the computer completely incompatible and stop using it. In a very unlikely scenario, the computer uses could become so pervasive that the teacher’s role in the school is transformed and her old role becomes extinct.

The authors identified the factors influencing on computer use in schools are: location of exposure; teacher–computer predisposition to compatibility; playfulness, perceived complexity; perceived relative advantage; opportunities for mutual adaptation (Teacher Professional Development) and others.

They concluded that their ecological model took them beyond simply identifying and correlating factors and focused our attention on interactions, activities, processes, and practices. They suggested that by accepting ecological metaphor make the concept of innovations more clear by taking a holistic view. That is innovation cannot be implemented without regard to both internal structures of schools and/or external social forces that challenges the schools. Finally they concluded that an evolutionary rather than revolutionary approach to change in school computer use would be more appropriate.

Reflection:

One thing that echoed my thought from this paper is the issue concerning the nature of school teachers. Dan Lorti has detailed dissection on this issue in his classic Schoolteachers- A Sociological Study. Where do these teachers come from, why they want to be teachers, what are the criteria to recruit the teachers, how are they idiosyncratically and conservatively socializied, what does the school ecology and policy foster their development and so on, all were scrutinized in his book.

In this article, the authors also mentioned researchers who pointed out the root of the above concerns from various angles such as from case studies (Cuban, 2001; Schofield, 1995; Zhao et al., 2002), to historical analysis (Cuban, 1986), to large surveys (Becker,2000a, 2001). They offer various accounts of why teachers do not frequently use technology to its full potential or in revolutionary ways that could truly lead to qualitatively different teaching and learning experiences (p.808).

Some researchers believe that education is one of the most conservative social institutions that are directly at odds with new technologies. The authors quoted that the goal of schools as organizations, according to Hodas (1993), is “not to solve a defined problem but to relieve stress on the organization caused by pressure operating outside of or overwhelming the capacity of normal channels” (p. 2). In other words, schools naturally and necessarily resist changes that will put pressure on existing practices (Cohen, 1987; Cuban, 1986).
Look at the reality, it is the business world, or industrial-military complex that spearheads the revolutionary phenomena. It was astonishing to me when the first time encountering this statement “Those who can – do; those who cannot-----teach---- and “please teach well”!
Hopefully, this is a finger pointing moment. If we want both quantity and quality, democratization and capitalization, believing in everyone can teach and learn, as well as teach and learn well, then more and more research like this will continuously reminds of the fundamental uniqueness of the structure and functions embedded in the education systems

The other minor observation from this paper can be a bias of mine- I notice some research or disciplines inherited from European tradition or certain regions in Asia have a tendency to employ holistic or eclectic approaches in the studies. Both micro and macro views are important to gain insight into human complexity. Multi-level analysis and bio-ecological/system approach point out the interconnectedness of human conditions, while discrete ( isolated conditions) approach provides certain degree of causal or relational explanation.