Public School Teacher Use of Instructional Technology from an Organizational Culture Perspective: An Explanatory Case Study of Two Middle Schools

The purpose of this qualitative case study is to study the organizational culture and context of two school sites in which instructional technology (IT) use by teachers is evident; to study what and who influences individual teacher preferences toward IT use; and to describe the relationship of Mary Douglas' (1982, 1989, 1992) grid and group typology in the decision process to implement IT use in curricula. Statement of the Problem Public schools have increased the amount of technology available to teachers, assisted in increasing teachers’ familiarity with technology through training, and supported and encouraged the use of technology through administrative directives. In spite of these efforts to increase the use of instructional technology, public school teachers are not using instructional technology to create the anywhere, anytime classroom that was anticipated. While schools tend to make instructional technology resources available to all who seek them, many teachers refuse instructional technology for a variety of reasons. Rogers (2000) indicates that barriers to instructional technology adoption and integration are found in both internal and external sources: Internal barriers may be summarized as “teacher attitude” and “perceptions” about a technology, in addition to a person’s actual competency level with any technology. External sources include the availability and accessibility of necessary hardware and software, the presence of technical personnel and institutional support, and a program for staff development and skill building. Barriers that cross internal and external sources are lack of time and funding and the unique culture of the institution. (p. 459) Rogers (2000) and Chiero (1997) summarize several studies of teacher barriers to instructional technology adoption and point out that different studies discover similar barriers. Internal barriers (barriers imposed by the teacher) include lack of time (both personal and release) to learn to use instructional technology and integrate instructional technology, lack of role models (others in the school site using instructional technology), lack of other models for using instructional technology, and teachers’ attitudes about instructional technology. Rogers (2000) and Chiero (1997) also summarize external barriers (barriers teachers view as imposed upon them) as lack of availability and quality of hardware and software, lack of time, low levels of funding, low institutional support, minimal staff development, uncertainty that instructional technology affects student learning, and lack of technology support. In addition to the question of adoption and integration, instructional technology represents a change in the way teachers and school officials operate. Change is always difficult and change in schools often seems even more difficult than in other areas. Gruenert (2000) determined that the culture of the school itself is one major factor in promoting change within schools: If things do not change it is because the existing culture did not allow it. Understanding what culture is and what it does allows leaders to orchestrate real change. Shaping school culture is not for the timid (Peterson & Deal, 1998) and it takes a long time, five to seven years. (p. 17) The adoption and integration of instructional technology is a fundamental change in school culture and the education community. Cohen (1987) comments upon change, technology, and schools: Americans have celebrated technology as a powerful force for change nearly everywhere in social life. Computers are only the latest in a long line of mythologized machines, endowed with near-miraculous powers. Americans are fond of picturing technology as a liberating force . Nearly all of the new technologies pressed on schools, from books to microcomputers, also have been advertised as agents of liberation. They would change education by making students less dependent upon teachers, and by reducing whole class, lock-step, batch-processed teaching and learning. (p. 154) Teachers may be reluctant to embrace the change Cohen comments upon simply because they have found