This article examines the change in teachers' attitudes and instruction following computerization of their schools. Parameters chosen to assure the success of the study were: teachers' training courses, establishment of teachers' teams, teachers' expectations and willingness, and teachers' use of the computer in the school. The study took place in Israeli schools using the following tools: interviews, questionnaires, observations, case studies, and focus groups. The groups examined were teachers and students. The results showed a significant change in the teachers' attitude and instruction following computerization. Those who took training courses on computers, used computer tools as aids, and made greater use of software, had a greater willingness to employ the computer. Yet the teachers were not yet open to changing their methods by using the computer as a teaching tool and still preferred traditional frontal teaching. They stated that they did not have expectations for changing the learning process significantly as a result of computerization.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AdamsD. (1985). Computers and teacher training (pp. 35–145). New York: Haworth Press.
2.
AlmogT. (1997). Between the screens. Computers in Education, 41, 4–7.
3.
AmiadR. (1991). Integrating computers into instruction, March 1990. The Ministry of Education and Culture, Curriculum Department, pp. 1–7, 79–101.
4.
BataneT. (2004). Inservice teacher training and technology: A case of Botswana. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 12(3), p. 387.
5.
BebellD.RussellM., & O'DwyerL. (2004). Measuring teachers' technology uses: Why multiple-measures are more revealing. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 37(1), 45–63.
6.
BeckerH. J. (1994). How exemplary computer-using teachers differ from other teachers: Implication for realizing the potential of computers in schools. Journal of Research on Computing, 26(3), 291–321.
7.
BeyerbachB.WalshC., & VannattaR. (2001). From teaching technology to using technology to enhance student learning: Preservice teachers' changing perceptions of technology infusion. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 105.
8.
DreyfussA.FeinsteinB., & TelmonJ. (1995). The matriculation exam in biology using a spreadsheet. Computers in Education, 35, 4–14.
9.
Executive Directors Report, Computers in Education—Curriculum for the 1995 school year, October 1994.
10.
FeibergY. (1997). A model for curricular planning using the computer. Master's thesis, Hebrew University, Jerusalem.
11.
FeldA. (1991). The educational system in the “third wave” era: Guidelines for Policy. Summary of lecture, conference on computer education.
12.
FisherY. (1996). The teacher's role in computerized instruction. Computers in Education, 36, 4–12.
13.
FullanM. G. (1992). Successful school improvement (pp. 28–57). Cetic Court, Bristol: Open University Press.
14.
GivonY. (1996). Characteristics of open tools. In MavrechZ. & HativahN. (Eds.), The computer in school (pp. 35–39). Tel Aviv: Shocken Press.
15.
GlennanT. K., & MelmedA. (1996). Fostering the use of educational technology: Elements of a national strategy. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Critical Technologies Institute.
16.
HadleyM., & SheingoldK. (1993). Commonalities and distinctive patterns in teachers' integration of computers. American Journal of Education, 101, 261–315.
17.
HannafinR. D., & SavenyeW. C. (1993). Technology in the classroom: The teacher's new role and resistance to it. Educational Technology, 33(6), 26–31.
18.
HatfieldL. L. (1992). Project LITMUS: A teacher education model for implementing technologies in K-12 mathematics. The 7th International Congress on Mathematics Education, Universite Laval, Quebec, Canada.
19.
HebenstreitJ. (1985). Computers in education: The next step. Education & Computing, 1, 37–43.
20.
HoneyM., & MoellerB. (1990). In Wiburg, Karin (1994). Integrating technology into schools: Why has it been so slow?The Computing Teacher, 21(5), 6–7.
21.
HuffmanD.GoldbergF., & MichlinM. (2003). Using computers to create constructivist learning environments: Impact on pedagogy and achievement. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 22(2), 151.
22.
KatzY., & OffirB. (1996). In MavrechZ. & HativahN. (Eds.), The computer in school (pp. 214–221). Tel Aviv: Shocken Press.
23.
LepingL.MadduxC., & LamontJ. (2004). Computer attitude and achievement: Is time an intermediate variable?Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 12(4), 593–607.
24.
MarcinkiewiczH. (1994). Computers and teachers: Factors influencing computer use in the classroom. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 26(2), 220–237.
25.
MaushakN.KelleyP., & BlodgettT. (2001). Preparing teachers for the inclusive classroom: A preliminary study of attitudes and knowledge of assistive technology. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, (3), 419.
26.
MavrechZ., & HativahN. (1996). Computerized learning environments—for whom and why? In MavrechZ. & HativahN. (Eds.), The computer in school (pp. 9–15). Tel Aviv: Shocken Press.
27.
MillenD., & GivonY. (1993). Training of software use in instruction—approaches and guidelines. People and Computers in Education, 1, 9–29.
28.
Ministry of Education. (1993). Operative program for computerizing the Israeli school system.
29.
MorrisJ. R. (1992). Computer experiments in a course for mathematics teachers. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 11, 13–18.
30.
NetzN. (1988). Influence of computer-aided drill and diagnosis on professional image, individual responsibility, and teacher behavior. Ramat Gan, School of Education, Bar-Ilan University.
31.
OffirB.KatzY. J., & SchmidaM. (1991). Do universities educate towards change in teacher attitudes?Education and Computing, 7, 289–292.
32.
OTA–U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment. (1995). Teachers and technology: Making the connection (pp. 1–47, 89–103, 165). OTA-EHIR-616, Washington, DC: USA Government Printing Office.
33.
PlompT., & PelgrumW. (1991). Introduction of computers in education: State of the art in eight countries. Computers in Education, 17(3), 249–258.
34.
ReinenJ., & PlompT. (1993). Staff development as a condition for computer integration. Studies in Education Evaluation, 19, 127–148.
35.
SandholtzJ.RingstaffC., & DwyerD. (1992). Teaching in high-tech environments: Classroom management revisited. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 8(4), 479–505.
36.
SheingoldK., & HadleyM. (1990). Accomplished teachers: Integrating computers into classroom practice. New York: Center for Technology in Education, Bank Street College of Education.
37.
SolomonG. (1996). Technology-based learning environment. In MavrechZ. & HativahN. (Eds.), The computer in school (pp. 31–32). Tel Aviv: Shocken Press.
38.
SteenM. F., & TaylorR. (1993). Training mathematics to use the computer in instruction. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 1(2), 149–168.
39.
TaylorR. P. (1987). Computer for intellectual regeneration: Interview with Robert Taylor, conducted by Kendale & Budin in Social Education, 51, 34–36.
40.
Van DeusenM. R., & DonhamJ. (1986). The teacher's role in using the computer to teach thinking skills. The Computing Teacher, 14(4), 32–34.
41.
WoodrowJ. E. J. (1989). Teachers' knowledge of educational application of computers. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 8(4), 31–38.
42.
YaghiH. (1996). The role of the computer in the school as perceived by computer using teachers and school administrators. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 15(1), 137–155.
43.
ZahaviN., & ShemeshG. (1996). Teacher participation in a computer based class. In MavrechZ. & HativahN. (Eds.), The computer in school (p. 207). Tel Aviv: Shocken Press.
44.
ZilbersteinM. (1984). The teacher's place in curricula planning in Israel. Studies in Education, 40, School of Education, University of Haifa, p. 133.
