In response to national technology mandates, schools across the United States have committed themselves to laptop technology programs as a way to encourage student-centered learning and critical thinking in collaborative classrooms. Most secondary English teachers in this study did not reject technology per se; rather, they saw some benefits of laptop technology in English instruction. Unfortunately, however, when asked to describe their overall experiences and attitudes toward technology, these teachers revealed a great deal of ambivalence about it in their instruction, especially in the context of a schoolwide laptop technology initiative. Four larger clusters of conflict contributed to this ambivalence: (1) conflicts surrounding institutional control in implementing the laptop program and teacher agency; (2) conflicts surrounding standardized testing's uncertain relationship with technology mandates; (3) conflicts surrounding technology uses in the general curriculum and technology allocation in specific class types; and (4) conflicts surrounding professional identity and the challenges that both student and teacher technology use brought to this identity. The study concludes that these teachers needed to be given greater agency in planning and implementing the laptop technology initiative and in revising their curriculum to embrace this new technology, and the necessary professional development to prepare them for such an educational innovation.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BakerE. A. (2001). The nature of literacy in a technology-rich fourth-grade classroom. Reading Research and Instruction, 40, 159—184.
2.
BarrellB. (1999). Technology and change in Atlantic Canada's new secondary English language arts curriculum. English Education, 31, 231—247.
BogdanR., and BiklenS. (1992). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
5.
BruceB. C. (1997). Critical issues. Literacy technologies: What stance should we take?Journal of Literacy Research, 29, 289—309.
6.
BruceB. C., and LevinJ. (2003). Roles for new technologies in language arts: Inquiry, communication, construction, and expression. In FloodJ., LappD., SquireJ.R., and JensenJ.M. (Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching in the English language arts (2nd ed., pp. 649—657). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
7.
CreswellJ. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
CubanL. (2001). Oversold and underused computers in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
10.
DeeJ. R., HenkinA. B., and PellS. W. (2002). Support for innovation in site-based-managed schools: Developing a climate for change. Educational Research Quarterly, 24(4), 36—49.
11.
FulkerthB. (1992). Computer romance? Those were the days. The Quarterly of the National Writing Project and the Center for the Study of Writing and Literacy, 14(2), 1—8.
12.
FullanM. (1993). Change forces: Probing the depths of educational reform. Bristol, PA: Falmer Press.
13.
FullanM., and StiegelbauerS. (1991). The new meaning of educational change (2nd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.
14.
Getting America's Students Ready for the Twenty-First Century: Meeting the Technology Literacy Challenge. (1996). A Report to the Nation on Technology and Education. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
15.
GottfriedJ., and McFeelyM. G. (1997-1998). Learning all over the place: Integrating laptop computers into the classroom. Learning and Leading with Technology, 25(4), 6—12.
16.
HarrisJ. (2001). Teachers as telecollaborative project designers: A curriculum-based approach [Online serial]. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 1(3). Retrieved August 5, 2002, from http://www.citejournal.org/voll/iss3/seminal/articlel.htm
17.
HealeyT. (1999 April). Notebook programs pave the way to student-centered learning. T.H.E. Journal, 26(9), 14—15.
18.
JonassenD. H., HowlandJ. L., MooreJ. L., and MarraR. M. (2003). Learning to solve problems with technology: A constructivist perspective. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.
19.
KarchmerR. A. (2001). The journey ahead: Thirteen teachers report how the Internet influences literacy and literacy instruction in their K-12 classrooms. Reading Research Quarterly, 36, 442—466.
20.
KeyserM. W. (2000). Active learning and cooperative learning: Understanding the difference and using both styles effectively. Research Strategies, 17(1), 35—44.
21.
KingJ. R., and O'BrienD. G. (2002). Adolescents’ multiliteracies and their teachers’ needs to know: Toward a digital detente. In and and AlvermannD. (Ed.), Adolescents and literacies in a digital world (pp. 41—50). New York: Peter Lang.
22.
LeuJ. D. (2002). The new literacies: Research on reading instruction with the Internet. In FarstrupA.E., and SamuelsS.J. (Ed.), What research has to say about reading instruction (pp. 310—336). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
23.
McGrailE. (2004). Laptop technology and ELA instruction: High school teachers’ perspectives on benefits and challenges. Proceedings of the Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference, USA, 15, 3935—3941.
24.
MilesM. B., and HubermanA. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
25.
MinkelW. (2002). Maine buys 36,000 school laptops. School Library Journal, 48(2), 25.
26.
MoormanG., BlantonW., and McLaughlinT. (1994). The rhetoric of whole language. Reading Research Quarterly, 29, 309—329.
ParrJ. M. (1999). Extending educational computing: A case of extensive teacher development and support. Journal of Research and Computing in Education, 31, 280—291.
PopkiewiczT. S. (2000). The denial of change in educational change: Systems of ideas in the construction of national policy and evaluation. Educational Researcher, 29, 17—29.
31.
PuttI., HendersonL., and PatchingW. (1996). Teachers’ thinking elicited from interactive multimedia professional development courseware. Educational Technology Research and Development, 44(4), 7—22.
32.
RatnesarR. (1998, March 2). Learning by laptop. Time, pp. 60—63.
33.
RideoutD. (2002). Laptops on the range!Education Canada, 42(2), 20—23.
34.
RussellM., and AbramsL. (2004). Instructional uses of computers for writing: The effect of state testing programs. Teachers College Record, 106, 1332—1357.
35.
SarasonS. B. (1996). Barometers of change: Individual, educational, and social transformation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
36.
SelfeC. L. (2000). Technology and literacy in the twenty-first century. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
37.
SnoeyinkR., and ErtmerP. G. (2001-2002). Thrust into technology: How veteran teachers respond. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 30, 85—111.
38.
StakeR. E. (1995). The art of case study research. London: Sage.
39.
StraussA., and CorbinJ. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques (2nd. ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
40.
TollC. A. (2001). Can teachers and policy makers learn to talk to one another?The Reading Teacher, 55, 318—325.
41.
TraubitzN. (1998). A semester of action research: Reinventing my English teaching through technology. English Journal, 87, 73—77.
42.
WilkesD. (2001, February 1). Wireless laptops in the classroom. Media and Methods, p. 33.
43.
WindschitlM., and SahlK. (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, 165—205.
44.
ZardoyaI., and FicoM. (2001, December). Urban students cross the digital divide through laptop leasing program. Education, pp. 262—268.
45.
ZehrM. A. (2000, June 7). Laptops for all doesn't mean they're always used. Education Week, pp. 1—3.
46.
ZhaoY. (1998). Design for adoption: The development of an integrated Web-based education environment. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 30, 307—328.
