UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Impacts of computer use upon primary classroom routines Campbell, Stephen 1992

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-ubc_1992_fall_campbell_stephen.pdf [ 5.76MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0054732.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0054732-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0054732-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0054732-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0054732-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0054732-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0054732-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0054732-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0054732.ris

Full Text

Impacts of Computer Use Upon Primary ClassroomRoutinesbyStephen Joseph CampbellB. Ed., University of British Columbia, 1978A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THEREQUIREMENT FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTSinThe Faculty of Graduate Studies(Centre for the Study of Curriculum and Instruction)We accept this thesis as conforming to the requiredstandardniversity of British ColumbiaOctober, 1992© Stephen Joseph Campbell, 1992In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanceddegree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make itfreely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensivecopying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of mydepartment or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying orpublication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my writtenpermission.(Signature) Department of capp/em(imY The University of British ColumbiaVancouver, CanadaDate^/ DE-6 (2/88)AbstractThe study investigated some of the difficulties of integrating a singlecomputer into the curriculum of the primary . classroom. It described,from the point of view of primary teachers, the nature and range ofunanticipated impacts of computer use on classroom routines (bothmanagement and instructional routines) and on instructionalpurposes. These impacts were examined in the light of an hypothesisthat they are barriers to successful implementation.Four primary teachers (Kindergarten through grade three) and onecomputer helping teacher in one elementary school were interviewedfive times each over a four month period to gather their perceptionson the impacts of computer use on their routines and purposes. Theschool was located in a large metropolitan school district in BritishColumbia. The interview transcripts were analyzed for similaritiesand differences in the teachers' reported experiences.It was found that, although unanticipated impacts on routines andpurposes occurred, they were not described by the interviewees asthe only deterrents to implementation. A range of circumstantial,institutional, and attitudinal factors were also influential in shaping aparticular level of computer integration for each teacher. Thoseteachers who held simple goals for the computer (such as drill andpractice, and student motivation) reported fewer unexpected impactsupon their classroom routines and instructional purposes, whereasthose teachers with more complex goals (such as word processing)experienced more pervasive impacts. The study has implications fora school-based computer helping teacher whose role it is to facilitatecomputer implementation with colleagues.111Table of ContentsAbstract^List of TablesChapter1.Introduction^PurposeSignificance^Organization2. Review of the Literature^iivii13578Barriers^to^Implementation 8Classroom Culture and Routines^ 1 4Types of Routines^ 19The "Trojan Horse" Thesis 2 2Summary^ 2 63. Methodology 2 7Pilot Study^ 2 7Selection of the School^ 3 0The^Innovation 31Data Collection and Analysis 3 3Limitations^ 3 7Summary 4 04. The Cases^ 4 1Mrs. Freer 4 2Background^ 4 2Computer Experience^ 4 3Instructional^Purposes 4 3Classroom Context 4 5Management^Routines^ 4 5Instructional^Routines 4 7Unanticipated Impacts on Management Routines^ 5 0Unanticipated Impacts on Instructional Routines^ 5 5Unanticipated Impacts on Instructional Purposes^ 5 6ivVSeeking Assistance^ 5 9Interpretive Summary 5 9Mrs. Arthur 61Background 6 2Computer Experience^ 6 3Instructional Purposes 6 3Classroom Context 6 5Management Routines 6 6Instructional Routines^ 6 7Unanticipated Impacts on Management Routines^6 8Unanticipated Impacts on Instructional Routines 71Unanticipated Impacts on Instructional Purposes^7 3Seeking Assistance^ 7 8Interpretive Summary 7 8Mrs. Douglas^ 8 0Background 8 0Computer Experience^ 81Instructional Purposes 8 2Classroom Context 8 3Management Routines 8 5Instructional Routines^ 8 6Unanticipated Impacts on Management Routines^8 8Unanticipated Impacts on Instructional Routines 91Unanticipated Impacts on Instructional Purposes^9 4Seeking Assistance^ 9 8Interpretive Summary 9 8Mrs. Evans^ 9 9Background 100Computer Experience^ 10 0Instructional Purposes 101Classroom Context 10 3Management Routines^ 104Instructional Routines 10 5Unanticipated Impacts on Management Routines^ 10 7Unanticipated Impacts on Instructional Routines 110Unanticipated Impacts on Instructional Purposes^116Seeking Assistance^ 1 1 8Interpretive Summary 1 1 8Discussion^ 1 195. Commonalties Across the Cases^ 12 2Nature and Range of Unanticipated Impacts^ 12 2Unanticipated Impacts on Management Routines^ 12 4viUnanticipated Impacts on Instructional Routines^127Unanticipated Impacts on Instructional Purposes 129Impacts and Levels of Use^ 131Circumstantial Factors 134Institutional Factors 136Attitudinal Factors^ 138Summary^ 1436. Summary and Implications^ 146Summary^ 146The Trojan Horse 148Implications 150Further Research^ 153References^ 154AppendicesAppendix A^ 161Appendix B 162Appendix C 163Appendix D^ 164Appendix E 165Appendix F 166Appendix G^ 167Appendix H 168LIST OF TABLES 1. Table 1 - Unanticipated Impacts on Routines and InstructionalPurposes^  1232. Table 2 - Factors Affecting Implementation ^ 133viiCHAPTER ONEINTRODUCTIONElementary school teachers do not always find that the computer iseasy to integrate into their classrooms. It offers potential, but is alsoa source of frustration. Whereas much has been written about theeducational advantages of computer technology, there is a growingliterature which describes difficulties surrounding implementation(Weizenbaum, 1980; Shallis, 1984; Bork, 1985; Donnelly, 1985;Dreyfus & Dreyfus, 1986; Roszak, 1986; Olson, 1988). Despite theamounts of time, energy and money invested by school districts inhardware, software, and teacher in-service, a question arises: "Whyis a computer often difficult to integrate into the elementaryclassroom?"Some of the barriers to effective implementation of computers arediscussed by researchers (Considine, 1985; Cheever et al., 1986;Dreyfus & Dreyfus, 1986; Hoot, 1986; Sheingold, 1987). They refer,for example, to factors such as:- Limited or differentiated access for students due to therelatively high costs of hardware and software combined withsubstantial maintenance requirements.- Inadequate availability of appropriate, high quality software.- Lack of teacher expertise due to high training costs (includingboth time and money) and negative teacher attitudes.1- Scarcity of incisive research on the benefits of computers oninstruction.Another factor which has more recently come to light, however, isthe complexity of the innovation and its effect on the culture of theclassroom itself. The teacher often encounters unexpected impacts ofcomputer use upon classroom organization, including its routines,norms, and relationships (Olson, 1988; Preskill, 1988; Trumbull,1989).In particular, Olson (1988) contends that the implementation of acomputer in a classroom is not mainly a matter of access to hardwareand software, or even of learning to use it, but of dealing with itsunanticipated impacts. Teachers' classroom norms and organization,as manifested in routines, may be at stake:Routines reflect judgements teachers make about how to structuredaily life in their classrooms. They are routine only in that theyrecur, but they are not thoughtless or dull. Making sense of themis crucial to understanding the way teachers use resources likecomputers in the classroom (p. 90).He argues that these routines are "challenged in complex ways whencomputers are used" (p. 107), and can be changed in ways notforeseen by the teacher. These unforeseen changes may also conflictwith the teacher's instructional purposes, thereby adding toimplementation difficulties. Those who are inexperienced withcomputer technology may become quickly frustrated with thenumber of unanticipated problems they encounter and theconsequent modifications they may need to make to their classroomroutines.2In other words, implementation difficulties occur, says Olson, because"The computer acts as a Trojan Horse bringing new ways of doingthings into the classroom" (p. 107). It adds complexity to an alreadycomplex environment by adding to the base of unanticipatedoccurrences that arise in daily practice. Although stated in a verygeneral way, this "Trojan Horse" thesis emphasizes the tensionbetween teachers' instructional purposes for the computer andunexpected effects which may occur in daily practice. More researchis called for in order to understand how teachers perceive this"Trojan Horse" and its impact upon computer implementation:It is crucial to get behind the routines of classrooms to discovertheir significance. This is especially important if we are tounderstand the impact of computers because they have thepotential to dislocate these routines (p. 93).This study examines primary teachers' perceptions in oneelementary school concerning the nature and range of unanticipatedimpacts upon classroom routines and instructional purposesresulting from computer use.Purpose The purpose of this study is to clarify Olson's "Trojan Horse"hypothesis (1988) that a computer in the classroom is difficult toimplement because of unanticipated impacts on routines. The centralquestion is: In an elementary school where one computer perprimary classroom is being implemented, what are teachers'perceptions of the nature and range of impacts on routines and3instructional purposes? More specifically, this question includes thefollowing sub-questions:1. What are the instructional purposes that primary teachers tryto achieve with one computer in the classroom?2. What unanticipated impacts upon management andinstructional routines occur as a result of one computer in theprimary classroom?3. How do unanticipated impacts affect instructional purposes forthe computer?These questions are examined within the context of an elementaryschool where one computer is implemented per primary classroom(Kindergarten through grade three), as opposed to schools wherecomputers are only housed in a central location or grouped in variouslocations. Although the "Trojan Horse" applies to each of thesemodels, the nature of unexpected outcomes, as well as their impactupon implementation, may differ across these approaches. Thisstudy therefore focuses on a single, but widely-used model - that ofone computer per classroom - because its impact upon classroompractice is direct, and may be more pervasive than other models.Since it is beyond the scope of this study to include all aspects ofclassroom practice when examining the impact of the computer, it isnecessary to focus on a particular aspect of classroom organization.Routines are chosen because they are pervasive and necessary to thesuccess of classrooms. Yinger defines routines as "establishedprocedures whose main function is to control and coordinate specificsequences of behavior. Routines are an efficient and common mode4of operation in situations where action and behavior are repetitive"(Yinger, 1979, p. 165). He further distinguishes between two types:(1) instructional routines and (2) management routines. The first, hesays, are "methods and procedures established by the teacher tocarry out specific instructional moves. These routines are in effectstrategies or styles of teaching that have been developed over timeand occur in regular configurations and sequences". Managementroutines refer to "established procedures for controlling andcoordinating classroom organization and behavior not associated withspecific activities" (p. 166). "Unanticipated impacts" refer to theeffects of the computer upon the teacher's purposes for thecomputer, and upon her classroom routines. They are expected orunexpected in terms of her beliefs about, and purposes for, computeruse. The nature and range of these impacts may be construed byteachers as either positive or negative. When purposes and routinesare brought into question as a result of the computer in theclassroom, they may then need to be modified in some way.Teachers' perceptions are therefore central to this study because the"Trojan Horse" lies in their views about how the computer impactstheir purposes and routines.SignificanceSince routines are critical to classroom life and contribute to manybenefits for both students and teachers, Yinger encourages moreeducators to carry out research studies. "There is a need," he argues,5"for continued research on classroom teachers in the field to furtherinvestigate the use of routines by experienced practitioners" (p. 168).According to Fieman-Nemser (1986) such research must takeseriously what teachers themselves say about routines:The practical wisdom of competent teachers remains a largelyuntapped source of insight for the improvement of teaching.Uncovering that knowledge is a major task in research on thecultures of teaching and can lead to policies that build on whatteachers know. (p. 505)In response, educators have begun to examine the relationshipbetween school culture and computer implementation. Trumbull(1989), for example, argues that "Any innovation introduced into aschool or classroom will necessarily disturb the established culture.The innovation could prove too disruptive and be abandoned or theinnovation could be so seriously modified to fit the culture that itsbenefits are lost" (p. 458). It is essential, she contends, to attend toculture in a study of any innovation:An established classroom culture will lead to the smoothfunctioning of the classroom. To understand how computers maybe used in schools, then, it is important to understand howcomputers as computers will affect standard practices andmeanings. (p. 458)When a computer is introduced into a classroom, the fate of theinnovation and the nature of its use is shaped by the culture of thatclassroom. (Olson, 1988) However, this relationship betweencomputer implementation and routines in primary school classroomsis largely unexplored in the literature on innovation. Herein lies thesignificance of this study.6OrganizationThe literature reviewed in Chapter Two provides a context for thestudy in terms of barriers to implementation, classroom culture androutines, types of classroom routines, and unanticipated outcomes ofcomputer use. Each of these areas is explored in relation to theresearch question. A description of the school context andmethodology for collecting data is provided in Chapter Three.Chapter Four depicts the impacts of computer use on the routinesand instructional purposes of four primary teachers, while ChapterFive analyzes their commonalties and differences. The last chaptersummarizes the study, and lists some implications for the support ofcomputer implementation and for further research.7CHAPTER TWO REVIEW OF THE LITERATUREThis chapter sets a context for the study in light of current literaturein four areas relevant to the research question. First, some barriersto computer implementation in the classroom are presented. Second,a description of routines is provided, followed by, third, examples oftypes of routines. Finally, Olson's "Trojan Horse" thesis is explainedand illustrated.Barriers to Implementation The implementation of a computer into the classroom presents avariety of challenges.^On the positive side, researchers haveemphasized the advantages of this new technology. Among otherbenefits, computers are motivating, and they can be used as tools toincrease students' creative and productive potential in ways thatwould otherwise be impossible (Collis, 1988; Papert, 1980; Turkle,1984). They can be employed by teachers to cut down onorganization and planning time and by administrators to collect andsynthesize data so that more informed policy decisions andpredictions can be made (Bluhm, 1987).From a negative perspective, implementation in classrooms is amultifarious undertaking and there are many and varied barriers. Amajor study in three American school systems, carried out by a team8of researchers from the Bank Street College, identified general "issuesthat cut across the specifics of implementation in each district".These included:...differential access to microcomputers... the inadequate quantityand quality of software; the inadequate preparation of teachersfor using microcomputers; and the lack of incisive research on theeffects and outcomes of the instructional use of microcomputers...In most cases, they are more critical now than they were fiveyears ago, since the number of microcomputers in schools hasincreased independently of solutions to the problems of qualitysoftware, effective teacher training, or research. (Scheingold et al.,1987, p. 67)Researchers contend that these issues of differential access, lack ofquality software, costs of teacher training, and lack of conclusiveresearch will continue to remain relevant for many years (Lockard etal., 1990).Differential access causes implementation problems for a variety ofreasons. Computers are relatively expensive, which means thatcompromise often becomes standard in planning for their use (Hoot,1986).^Even when adequate numbers of computers are available,problems with software and equipment failure can prevent teachersfrom achieving their instructional purposes (Olson, 1988). Bluhm(1987) argues that there is "a hidden cost to computers" (p. 263);after the expiry of the warranty, he says, computers can becomecostly to maintain. Not only do breakdowns limit access, they causeteachers and students to become frustrated, increasing negativeattitudes which run counter to the implementation. Simplydistributing greater amounts of hardware and software is not likely9to solve implementation problems as many policy makers originallythought. Conversely, Sheingold (1987) points out that increasingaccess for students without careful planning may exacerbate theseproblems.Unavailability of appropriate, high quality software can also beproblematic to successful implementation (Bluhm, 1987). Althoughnew software titles come on the market each year, Forman and Pufall(1988) contend that a significant barrier to implementation may bethat hardware and software are not currently designed to meet theneeds of the individual learner. They contend that computers andsoftware are designed as "universal... systems that function as tutorsof the universal, not the individual, learner" (p. 244). Until softwareis developed that also caters to the needs of the individual, then, thepotential of the innovation will not be met.Inadequate teacher training is also problematic to implementation.Some teachers find the level of skill required to make effective useof the technology to be intimidating (Dreyfus & Dreyfus, 1986), andlack of appropriate technical training has been cited as a majorconcern of teachers (Preskill, 1988; McCarthy,1988; Knupfer, 1988).Advocating cross-curricular uses, although widely accepted as apositive use of the technology, has the potential to create problemson staffs where teachers are not trained for curricular integration(Schwartz, 1987). Unfortunately, the very enthusiasm that drivesthe growth of computer use can sometimes be detrimental to positivechange. If teachers are encouraged by colleagues, administrators,10students, parents, and other outside interest groups to incorporatecomputers into their curriculum delivery, without adequate trainingand support, the result can be negative teacher attitudes andnarrowed vision (Sheingold, 1986; Collis, 1988).Although new research is conducted each year, Sheingold (1987)points out that a lack of conclusive findings on the instructionaleffects continues to be a barrier to implementation. Collis (1988)elaborates on this point:Despite all the activity associated with computers in education,there is little evidence of many, or even any, significant overallchanges in the essential aspects of education, that is, in whatstudents learn, in how they learn, in what they are tested andgraded on, and in how teachers teach. (p. 3)Although these barriers make for significant problems, researchershave recently demonstrated that other factors also warrantconsideration when planning for computer use. For example,Mathinos and Woodward (1987) observed a school which had beenchosen as exemplary in its implementation of computers. The staffhad access to an abundance of computers which had been distributedto individual classrooms and also centralized in a lab. The observersreported a profusion of software as well as an impressive program ofteacher support, including a building computer coordinator and aide,and extensive in-service. The school was observed over 13 weeksand during this time, the observers noted that 60 percent of thestudents never used a computer at all. Of those who did, half usedthem one time only during the term. "Computer use was rarely11integrated, but rather a reward for finishing work early withstudents free to select software to use. Teachers complained thatequipment was scarce, but the researchers found at least fivecomputers unused at all hours of the day" (Lockard et al., 1990, p.362).Even when teachers have ample hardware and software, and arewell trained in computer use, they may be reticent to use theinnovation to enhance their programs. This indicates that there arestill other factors involved in successful implementation. One suchfactor, Sheingold (1987) claims, is the trend towards increasedcomplexity of the innovation:There is a marked shift in priorities for how students and teachersuse computers toward tool uses of the computer and integration ofthe computer with the curriculum, in contrast to earlier emphaseson the computer as an object of study and as a device for drill andpractice. These are encouraging trends, since tool uses appearmore likely to support the kind of learning, problem-solving, andinformation-management skills required of citizens and workersin the information age. (p. 83)Although it may be desirable to shift priorities for computer use tomore complex applications, Fullan (1982) warns that complexity is animportant factor influencing implementation. "Complexity," he states,"refers to the difficulty and extent of change required of theindividuals responsible for implementation" (p. 58), although theactual amount of complexity is dependent on the point from whichthe individual or group is starting. For some, computer use mayrequire considerable skill development, and extensive alterations in12beliefs, teaching strategies, and use of materials" (p. 58). As anexample, Shiengold suggests that "a teacher guiding students workingtogether on computers in pairs or in groups requires observationaland management skills different from the ones she normally applies,as well as new understandings about when and how to intervene inthe student-based activity" (p. 74). Beyond the simple addition ofequipment to the available classroom resources, fundamentalchanges in the role of the teacher may be implied, hence teachersneed a variety of forms of support to achieve successful integration.Planners of such support need to consider "such factors as classroomsize (students per classroom, as well as physical space forcomputers), student and teacher competencies, academic objectivesand materials, computer and software resources, and areas of conflictand consistency between school and community experience"(Simmons, 1980, p. 99).In summary, successful implementation of computers into classroomsis not a simple matter. Barriers such as differential access, thequality and quantity of software, inadequate teacher preparation,and lack of conclusive research have contributed to uncertainty.Even where these difficulties have apparently been overcome,however, successful integration has not always occurred. Thecomplexity of the innovation in terms of daily classroom life hascombined to create a variety of substantial obstacles. Further studyof the computer's impact on classroom culture is needed in order togain an understanding of this problem.1314Classroom Culture and Routines In this section, classroom culture and routines are defined. Somereasons why routines are important - their benefits for both teachersand students - are also examined.Classroom culture is described by Schein (1985) as "the solution toexternal and internal problems that has worked consistently for agroup and is therefore taught to new members as the correct way toperceive, think about and feel in relation to these problems" (p. 20).These solutions, he says, gradually become general assumptions andeventually come to be taken for granted. Classroom routines are anexample of such solutions, and thus provide a way of understandingculture.Routines are defined by researchers in a way that is consistent withthe well cited studies of Robert Yinger (1980). He defines them as:Established procedures whose main function is to control andcoordinate specific sequences of behavior. Routines are anefficient and common mode of operation in situations whereaction and behavior are repetitive. (1979, p. 165)These established procedures, says Doyle (1986), "provide acontinuous signal for organizational and interpersonal behavior" (P.412). They indicate to participants that they are pursuing sharedgoals in the classroom. For this reason:It is important to distinguish between rules and routines.Although some rules are also routines, most rules are statementsof what is not permitted or are explicit or implicit constraints.Routines, on the other hand, are fluid, paired, scripted segments ofbehavior that help movement toward a shared goal. Routines canhave explicit descriptors, can be modeled or, more commonly, cansimply evolve through a shared exchange of cues. (Leinhardt etal., 1987, p. 136)In short, the role of routines is to make classroom life morepredictable and manageable by reducing complexity:The complexity and unpredictability that characterizes theteaching environment impose many demands on the teacher, andit becomes necessary to find methods to decrease the amount ofinformation to be processed at any one time. One method to copewith these demands is by developing routines. The routinizationof action fixes certain aspects of behavior and thus reduces thenumber of characteristics that must be evaluated, decided upon,and manipulated. (Yinger, 1979, p. 167)As well as reducing complexity, Doyle (1986) suggests that they arealso important in "sustaining classroom order" since "routinizationmakes classroom activities less susceptible to breakdowns duringinterruptions because participants know the normal sequence ofevents" (p. 412).In recent studies, researchers have outlined a variety of specificbenefits for both teachers and students to establishing routines inclassrooms. For example, Leinhardt et al. point out that routinesallow more "cognitive processing space" for student and teachersalike. They contend that routines make automatic some of thecognitive processing tasks that otherwise need to be decided uponafresh each time problems are encountered and solutions required.By lowering the number of ongoing problems to be solved,15complexity is reduced, and teachers and students are able to pursuehigher level thoughts about teaching and learning (1987, pp. 135-6).Another benefit for teachers is that routines can help cut down onthe amount of time necessary for planning. In describing theplanning of an elementary teacher, for example, Yinger (1980) notesthat:Routines were mechanisms that (the teacher) used to establishand regulate activities and to simplify planning. Routines playeda major role in the teacher's planning. She used them so oftenthat her planning could be described as decision-making about theselection, the organization, and the sequencing of routines. (p.1 1 1 )Much of the curricular planning that teachers do takes place afterschool and on evenings and weekends. Routinization reduces theamount of time needed for ongoing planning and gives teachers moretime to plan special activities such as field trips for which establishedroutines may not be feasible (Yinger, 1979, pp. 167, 123).Successful routines also help free the teacher from managing thegroup in order to give more focus on individualized evaluation.Yinger (1979) found that because of routines "much preactiveteaching time was involved in keeping track of individual progress inmath and reading" (p. 168). More time is thereby made available forassessing students and prescribing for their needs.A teacher's flexibility and effectiveness can be increased as the timeand energy put into carrying out decisions are reduced; "theroutinization of action fixed certain aspects of behavior and thus16reduced the number of aspects of instructional situations that shehad to evaluate, make decisions about, and manipulate" (Yinger,1980, p. 112). This is particularly evident in how teachers deal withthe many transitions from one activity to another. Leinhardt et al.(1987) state that "it is clear that expert teachers utilize a largerepertoire of routines during transition" (p. 168), thereby enhancingthe flow and order of the class and improving rapport with students.Without a few simple routines for transitions, they say, chaos canresult, creating a loss of instructional time and student attention (p.1 6 8 )According to Olson (1988), routines enhance the teacher's influencein the classroom. "The routine is the context in which the teacher canexert influence " (p. 106) because it provides a way of handling largenumbers of decisions, solutions, and student needs. "Routines takethe place of tutorials" (p. 106) by helping the teacher attend to theneeds of students without having to provide them with individualinstruction for mundane or repetitive tasks.In terms of student benefits, routines cut down on interruptions and"increase the predictability and reduce the complexity of theclassroom environment" (Yinger, 1980, p. 112). This structureenables them to better perceive the larger context of activities and tounderstand teacher expectations for their participation. Less time isspent on reviewing procedures because students are able toanticipate upcoming activities without instruction. This increasesstudents' time on task while lowering anxiety levels (p. 168).17Student attitudes can be thus positively affected, says Olson (1986),because routines "furnish the student with stability and context... it isthe context in which students can make sense of what the teacher isasking of them." (p. 106)Leinhardt et al. (1987) claim that all routines must be established,both explicitly through overt teaching and implicitly by modelingand reinforcing correct use. More specifically, routinization occurs:(a) by calling for the action and supporting correct usage; (b) bydescribing or showing the actions and supporting correct use anddiscouraging incorrect use; and (c) by responding to incorrect use (p.173). They note how quickly students incorporate new routines intotheir day to day interactions: "By fourth grade, most support andexchange routines were fine tunings of an already existing system,and many management routines were school-wide." (Leinhardt etal., 1987, p. 173)In summary, the word "routine" may bring to mind negative imagesof inflexible or unthinking, repetitive action. On the contrary,because routines help to make planning easier and simplifyclassroom management, they afford teachers more flexibility in theselection and execution of other activities. Reduced is the need toplan each activity anew, thereby allowing the teacher more time toplan complex or unique activities, evaluate individual students, andenhance the flow and order of the class. For students they loweranxiety levels by increasing predictability and stability in the18classroom, cut down interruptions, and furnish an orderly context forlearning.Researchers have proposed that classroom culture, as embodied inroutines, needs to be studied more thoroughly in order to increaseunderstanding of complex innovations. In particular, Olson (1988)asserts that it is critical to consider the impact on routines whenimplementing computers into the classroom because he has linkedclassroom culture as manifested in routines to computerimplementation. Understanding routines, he says, is important tostudying the implementation of an innovation because:Routines reflect judgements teachers make about how to structuredaily life in their classroom. They are routine only in that theyrecur, but they are not thoughtless or dull. Making sense of themis crucial to understanding the way teachers use resources likecomputers in the classroom. (p. 90)Types of Routines While several researchers have defined and categorized types ofroutines in order to increase understanding of classroom culture,Yinger's (1979) model is used here because it is widely cited in theliterature. He categorizes four types of routines, including those foractivity, instruction, management, and executive planning:Activity routines (all routines that occur during instruction,including both instructional and management routines) controlledand coordinated the features of instructional activities...Instructional routines are methods and procedures the teacherestablished to carry out specific instructional moves. The teacherused instructional routines for questioning, for monitoring, and forgiving instructions, among other purposes...19Management routines are the procedures the teacher establishedfor controlling and coordinating classroom organization andbehavior not specifically associated with or occurring during anactivity. Management routines regulated behavior such astransition between activities, passing out or collecting materials,leaving the room, cleaning the room, and starting in the morningor after lunch...Executive planning routines are established thought patterns setoff by specific planning tasks...Executive planning routines -unlike activity routines, instructional routines, and managementroutines - do not occur during instruction. (pp. 111-112)Because the present research is concerned with the impacts ofcomputer use on daily classroom life, only two types of routines fromYinger's model, namely instructional routines and managementroutines, are highlighted here.Instructional routines may be developed to simplify planning andpreparation and to reduce the amount of specific sets of instructionsand tutorials to be given in a day. Examples of instructional routinesinclude procedures for questioning, monitoring, reviewing,instructing, demonstrating, and giving instructions. For instance,teachers may give instructions several times to a large group beforeasking students to repeat them, as may be the case when introducinga new software program to the whole class at once. When dealingwith small groups such as may be found at the computer,instructions may be given only once, after which the teachermonitors individual students to determine whether the instructionswere understood.^While the teacher works with a small group atthe computer or helps students individually, routines may be inplace for other students to deal with questions and problems theyencounter with their seatwork.20Routines exist in some form in every classroom, but around thecomputer, the teacher may need to be explicit about instructionalroutines because they could have a direct impact, either positive ornegative, on implementation. For example, a teacher described thefollowing instructional routines for computer use:When the students need help they must wait for a pause in theteaching and try to work the problem out for themselves, or askanother student. Occasionally the printer is used during lessontime but students will make eye contact to ask if they can print.Most of the time, the students are sensitive to what is happeningin the rest of the class and do not disturb the flow of the lesson.Sometimes the student at the computer is asked to pay attentionto the rest of the class but normally students at the computer arenot interrupted. (Olson, 1988, p. 40)In an interview with another teacher, Olson inquired about theestablishment of instructional routines for monitoring students whorequired assistance with the computer while other things were goingon in the class. The teacher responded as follows:Students seek out help when they need it and sometimes I goover to see how they are doing. I use quiet moments in the classfor this but will interrupt if the student needs help and there is noone else in the class who can help. Sometimes I ask the rest of thestudents to wait for a little while which they accept. (p. 41)Examples of management routines include transitions betweenactivities (i.e., switching from hands-on inquiry to writing injournals), distribution of materials (i.e., software or mathmanipulatives), beginning or ending the day, leaving the room, or21accessing resources. Carol Cummings (1983), in her book onclassroom management, states that:Teaching a class a routine for regular activities such as bathroomtrips, preparation for lunch, and collecting papers can saveprecious minutes when compared to repeating elaboratedirections. The time saved in better management leaves moretime for quality instruction... These routines eliminate wastedtime and misbehavior. (pp. 3, 13)Management routines may be in place for students to access thecomputer, thus making better use of the limited time available foreach student:Each student has a 40 minute turn on the computer. A schedule isprepared well in advance so that they know when their turn iscoming up... The machine is constantly in use while [the teacher] isin the room. (Olson, 1988, p.40)Of all routines identified by researchers, management andinstructional routines are of particular importance for the successfuloperation of classrooms. These can be impacted by the introductionof a computer to the classroom and, in the next section, specificimpacts are discussed.The "Trojan Horse" Thesis John Olson (1988) links classroom culture as manifested in routinesto computer implementation. Difficulties occur, he argues, becausethe computer adds to the complexity of the classroom throughunanticipated impacts on routines. While it may seem attractive tobring a computer into the classroom, with it comes a variety ofunanticipated impacts:22... how the teacher routinely teaches may be challenged incomplex ways when computers are used. The computer acts as aTrojan Horse bringing new ways of doing things into theclassroom. (p. 107)An example of an implementation difficulty brought about byunanticipated impacts is a weakening of teacher influence. Whileusing the computer, students may begin to explore in variousdirections, requesting aid from the teacher without being able toarticulate their problem or describe the nature of their difficulty.That they are unable to "diagnose and remedy problems quicklyconcerns these teachers - it undermines their influence" (p. 55), andmay therefore make computer implementation more difficult:Teachers solve classroom problems quickly and reduce thedemand for individual support to a minimum. They have to do so.Given class size and scope of curricula, it is not surprising thatthey do. In this way they maintain influence over the direction ofthe class. Computer based learning, however, creates more ratherthan less diffuseness in teaching and threatens teacher influence.Control of diffuseness is critical for teachers. (p. 55)Another example of a difficulty brought on by unanticipated impactson routines is that they may highlight discrepancies between ateacher's values and practice:Mrs. Everett wants children to write extensively... Extensivewriting, called for by the language arts doctrine she subscribes to,is also a burden on her students. They do not have sufficientaccess to computers to do all the writing they should. Not allstudents have equal access. Not all are adequately prepared. Toinsist on extensive writing leads her students to impossiblequeues at the computer and to frustration for her. Her avante-garde doctrine has flaws which are exacerbated by introducingthe computer. (p. 57)23Corresponding to the "Trojan Horse" is Fullan's notion of thecomplexity of innovations. "Many changes require a sophisticatedarray of activities, diagnosis, teaching strategies, and philosophicalunderstanding if effective implementation is to be achieved" (1982,p. 58). Innovations often have implications for many aspects ofteachers' roles and classroom practices which are not initiallyrecognized. This complexity is further exacerbated by unexpectedimpacts of the computer.While unexpected impacts may lead to implementation difficulties,they can also stimulate further change. Fullan argues that: "Whilecomplexity creates problems for implementation, it may result ingreater change because more is being attempted" (p. 59). Oneexample of how impacts of computer use can induce change inroutines is described by a teacher who took part in the AppleClassrooms of Tomorrow study:Children are somewhat noisier as they become familiar with theequipment, and they talk a lot. Some of the moving aboutroutines could be smoothed out to keep a good learningenvironment. There are many management changes withcomputers, disks, new and unfamiliar responsibilities for bothstudents and teachers. (Dwyer et al., 1990, p. 26)That the introduction of the computer can have an impact on ateacher's doctrine was further noted in this study on the effects of"high access to technology classrooms." Dwyer et al. claim thatadding one computer per student creates an innovation complexenough to initiate a change in teachers' beliefs and values. And since24"teachers' beliefs about instruction and school is an important factorthat underlies the institution's resistance to change...this fact mustinform planning and implementation of significant change efforts" (p.36).Further instructional benefits were described by a teacher in Olson'sstudy:I like the idea of being able to sit down with a small group ofstudents who are working on a particular task while others are atthe computer, or even being at the computer and helping themindividually. You are acting as a tutor rather than a teacher at thefront of the class. (Olson, 1988, p. 47)Challenges to routines can also have the beneficial effect ofstimulating teachers' reflections on their basic assumptions andvalues:Computer experience calls into question apparently settledassumptions about how the teacher exerts influence in theclassroom. Although the ambiguity is unsettling for teachers, it isa basis for reflection on what really is important in practice...Teachers are called upon to re-evaluate existing planning andteaching routines and resource access in relation to the demandsof computer-based learning - to find an accommodation betweenthe essential values of the former and the potential of the latter.Teachers are challenged to reconsider what it is they value asreflected in what they do. (Olson, 1988, p. 107, 122)In summary, Olson argues that introducing a computer into aclassroom impacts on routines. Some of these impacts areunanticipated, which adds to the complexity and therefore thedifficulty of the implementation. He provides examples of bothbenefits and difficulties brought on by these unanticipated impacts.25Since routines are critical to the functioning of the class, Olson's"Trojan Horse" thesis concerning unanticipated impacts on routines isworth examining in more detail.SummaryThe purpose of this chapter was to clarify what selected literaturestates about four related areas of computer use. First, some barriersto implementation and the complexity of the innovation wereexamined.^Of these barriers, one particularly important factor is thecomplexity of computer use, including its implications relative toclassroom life. Second, classroom routines were defined and theirimportance to teachers and students described. Research over thepast two decades has shown how crucial classroom routines are forthe smooth operation of the classroom. Bringing a computer into aclassroom may have some important impacts on structures andexpectations. Third, types of routines were described and examplesof management and instructional routines supplied. Finally,according to the "Trojan Horse" thesis, some of the impacts onroutines are unanticipated, which adds to the complexity of theinnovation. The next chapter describes the methodology used toexplore the impacts of introducing a single computer to each of theclassrooms in an elementary school.26CHAPTER THREEMETHODOLOGY This chapter describes the study's methodology, including the pilotstudy, selection of the school, data collection, and limitations. Thestudy took place in a large urban school district in which theresearcher was an elementary school vice-principal. Previously, heworked for three years (1988-1990) as a district teacher consultant,helping teachers in both elementary and secondary schools withcomputer implementation.Pilot Study In order to focus the direction of the research, a pilot study wasundertaken in June, 1991. Its purpose was threefold:1. To determine whether the Trojan Horse hypothesis hadsufficient empirical evidence to merit further study.2. To find out whether teachers could easily discuss the range andnature of unanticipated impacts of the computer upon theirinstructional purposes and classroom routines.3. To develop and refine a questionnaire and an interviewschedule.The elementary school for the pilot study is in the same schooldistrict as the school selected for the study proper.^It had a27population of just over five hundred students, in eighteen divisionstaught by twenty-two teachers. The administration explained thatthe staff had come to a consensus on the direction of professionaldevelopment, that they had created a cooperative, learner-centredenvironment, and that students represented a range of ethnoculturaland socioeconomic backgrounds. All teachers were given computersfor use in their individual classrooms in September 1990.Nine volunteers completed a survey which asked them to describe a)their purposes for computer use, b) perceived difficulties inachieving their purposes, c) any unexpected difficulties broughtabout by computer use, and d) any unexpected benefits. (AppendixA). It had been previously piloted by four teachers not in the schoolto ensure clarity of purpose and meaning, and to establish anappropriate sequence for questions. Participants expressed noconcerns about understanding the questions.On the basis of the questionnaire findings and in the light of Yinger'smodel of routines, interview questions were developed (Appendix B).Four volunteer interviewees (grades 1/2, 2/3, 6, and 7) were askedto describe, not only their purposes for computer use, but also anyimpacts of computer use on their routines and vice-versa.Participants had no difficulty understanding the interview questionsor giving examples of both routines and unanticipated impacts(positive and negative), although most reported routines wererelated to accessing the computer. The interviewer probed forexamples of other routines as they related to unanticipated impacts;28this was done by suggesting examples in order to help intervieweesarticulate their perceptions of impacts on routines.From this pilot study it was found that teachers do indeed experienceunanticipated impacts on routines and purposes, and that they wereable to describe and give examples of these. Appendix C listsexamples of impacts on instructional and management routinescollected from interviewees during the pilot study; this provided theresearcher with examples to be used as the basis for probing duringsubsequent interviews in the study. An important finding of thequestionnaire was that participants described routines and impactson routines (including unexpected impacts) without referring tospecific software; the Trojan Horse was recognized despite the use ofvarious titles.As a result of the pilot study the following changes were made to thesurvey and to the interview schedule:1. Survey questions about perceived difficulties and benefits ofhaving a computer in the classroom were deleted becauseteachers described general impacts rather than impacts onroutines; these questions were better dealt with through in-depth discussion in an interview format. However, thequestionnaire was an efficient means for identifying teachers'instructional purposes for the computer (as suggested byWerner and Case, 1991, p. 34).292. Rather than a single interview, it was decided that a series ofdiscussions would provide a deeper understanding of eachteacher's perceptions and a sense of how the implementationdeveloped over time. It was decided that the interviewschedule would be conducted during the first four months(September to December) of the implemenation.3. Because teachers commented upon impacts of computer use ontheir instructional purposes, this topic was included in theinterviews.Selection of the School Three criteria were used in selecting an elementary school for thestudy proper:1. A computer was to be placed in each classroom at thebeginning of the school year, September 1991. (This criterionis obvious because the purpose of the study is to examineperceptions about unexpected impacts from the introduction ofa single computer to primary classrooms.)2. The staff and administration had developed a policy forcomputer use. This implies that school-wide expectations andsupport for computer use across classrooms would be relativelyconsistent during the time of the study.3. The teachers and administrators were willing to take part inthe study. When the proposed research was presented at a30staff meeting by the computer helping teacher, they agreed tobe a part of the study.The selected elementary school had a population of 250 students, in10 divisions taught by 12 teachers, six of which are primary. Thestudents represent a range of ethnocultural and socioeconomicbackgrounds.The school had a bank of 15 computers centralized in one locationtogether with sets of software for each machine. Teachers wereencouraged to book their classes into this laboratory on a regularweekly basis, although there were allowances on the schedule tobook extra times on an ad hoc basis. The vice-principal administeredthe lab and maintained the hardware and software.The InnovationThree years previous to the study, the staff decided to focus oncomputers as a topic for professional development. They designatedone full day to explore the ways in which they might use computersto enhance cooperative learning. They planned the day with thedistrict computer helping teacher, who returned on several occasionsto present follow-up demonstration lessons. In the following years,no more professional development days were designated forcomputer inservice. However, a series of informal computer supportsessions, mainly to introduce new software and how to use a wordprocessor, were provided for interested staff after class by the schoolcomputer helping teacher. A district teacher consultant also31presented inservice to some of the intermediate teachers who wereinterested in using Cooperative Learning to teach keyboarding skills.This method was adopted by the intermediate teachers.Four years previous to the study, the vice-principal was in charge ofcomputer support for the school. Two years later, staff voted to havea computer specialist; a teacher was hired part time (60%) to takestudents in Kindergarten through grade 5 to the computer lab. Thisteacher took charge of all computer support for two years until shetransferred. In the year of the study, it fell back upon the vice-principal, who had previous experience as a computer helpingteacher in the school, to provide support for the staff. He taught 90%of the time, with 10% to include all of his administrative duties,including computer-related activities; he initiated and maintained allschool-wide policies for computer use in conjunction with theprincipal and teachers.After district distribution of new computers in June, 1991, theteachers voted at a staff meeting to house them in individualclassrooms, rather than add them to the laboratory. Each teacherwas then given a computer for use in his/her classroom inSeptember, 1991. It was also mutually agreed by the staff andadministration that a portion of the software supplied by the districtwould be designated for use in each classroom. Using a district-produced document that showed the recommended grades for eachtitle, the vice-principal grouped disks and distributed them to eachteacher, although he still maintained a central holding in order to32accommodate use of a variety of titles. This document became theagreed-upon policy for computer use for the school. Because he feltthat students would benefit from word processing, he promotedkeyboarding and word processing as a central focus for computeruse, particularly in the intermediate grades. Staff supported hisrecommendations.Data Collection and Analysis Data were collected during the first four months of the school yearwhen computers were being implemented by the teachers(September - December). This was also the time when routines werebeing negotiated by teachers and students. Doyle (1986) points outthe importance of establishing routines at the beginning of the year:Research on effective management at the beginning of the yearsuggests that classroom structures are successfully establishedwhen rules and procedures are announced, demonstrated,enforced, and routinized. In addition, successful managers hoverover classroom activities at the beginning of the year and usherthem along until students have learned the work system (p. 412).Procedures for collecting data occurred in the following sequence:1. In September, 1991, a questionnaire was distributed to allteachers (n=12) at a school staff meeting. It asked them todescribe their purposes for computer use (see Appendix D).Appendix E summarizes the results of this survey.2. At the same staff meeting, the vice-principal asked whetherthere were any teachers who were willing to be interviewed by33the researcher over the course of the next few months. Fourprimary teachers volunteered: Mrs. Freer (grade 2/3), Mrs.Arthur (grade 2/3), Mrs. Douglas (K/1), and Mrs. Evans (K/1)(All names used are pseudonyms). All were experiencedteachers who taught combined classes. What differentiatedthem was their computer experience.3. The four volunteers were interviewed individually before theybegan to implement their computer plans. These audiotaped,one hour discussions solicited the teachers' educationalpurposes and plans for the computer, background experienceswith computer use, and acquaintance with available software(Appendix F).4. These teachers were further interviewed individually at theschool on a regular basis in order to obtain their ongoingperceptions of what unexpected impacts arose as they weresetting up their classroom routines for the year (Appendix G).In the light of Yinger's model of types of routines, intervieweeswere asked to reflect on impacts (including unexpectedimpacts) upon instructional and management routines duringimplementation of a computer. The timing and number ofaudiotaped interviews was scheduled in consultation with eachteacher. Before the next interview was scheduled, each teacherwas asked by telephone whether any new impacts hadoccurred. This schedule continued until each teacher no longerreported unexpected impacts of computer use upon her34instructional purposes and classroom routines. Five interviewswere required with each teacher until mid-December. Twentyinterviews in total were conducted.5. The school's policy and plans for computer use were examinedin order to identify the stated school-wide purposes andsupport for the innovation. Clarification of this policy wasfurther accomplished by interviewing the vice-principal, fivetimes over the course of the study (Appendix H). Headministered the computers and software in both thelaboratory and the classrooms. (This information on the schoolcontext is discussed in the previous section.)6. Interview data were analyzed and are reported in two ways.First, each of the four teachers is presented in Chapter Four asa separate case. Included are descriptions of the background ofeach teacher as well as the routines she established, and herinstructional purposes for the computer; each summary alsocontains a description of unexpected impacts on instructionaland management routines and on instructional purposes.Second, commonalties and differences are reported across thefour teachers in Chapter Five.7. At the conclusion of the data analysis, the vice-principal, whowas in charge of the computers for the school, was interviewed(audiotaped) to get his perspective on the findings of the study.To gain a school-wide perspective on the accuracy of the35findings, he was given Tables 1 and 2 (see Chapter 5). Thesewere explained in a discussion of about half an hour. It was hisopinion that the impacts on routines and instructional purposesreported in Table 1 were reasonable and accurate. He alsothought they were typical of the types of impacts he hadencountered in his own classroom. He had no troubleunderstanding Table 2 and agreed that it represented keyfactors that influenced implementation of classroom computersin his school. He was unable to think of any other factors thatwere not on Table One (p. 123).In summary, these procedures allowed for a comprehensivedescription from the point of view of the principal actors, and arerelated to the major questions of the study in the following way:1. What are the instructional purposes that primary teachers tryto achieve with one computer in the classroom? (Data gatheredthrough the questionnaire, ongoing interviews with theteachers, and the policy analysis.)2. How did unanticipated impacts affect instructional purposesand classroom routines? (Data gathered through theinterviews.)LimitationsIt is assumed that information about computer use and its impactscan be gained from the perspective of teachers through the use of36interviews. However, there are three limitations to such data:1. No claims are made about the nature or extent of computerimplementation in the school or in the district because theresearcher did not observe the actual use of the computer ineach classroom. Computer use was defined narrowly in thisstudy in terms of the instructional purposes and activities thatteachers reported for the hardware and software in theirclassrooms. The survey and interviews gathered only self-report data, as teachers were asked to reflect on unexpectedimpacts. What teachers and students actually did with thecomputer may differ from the planned purposes or reportedactivities.2. External validity refers to the generalizability of this study.Because the school was not randomly selected from a givenpopulation, nor purposefully selected to represent certainfeatures of the population, there needs to be caution aboutbroader claims beyond the case. The use of one school sitelimits the generalizability of results because school culturesvary across sites, and this variability may effect the nature ofunexpected impacts. No claims are made about teachers, withor without similar computer experience, in other schools.However, it is assumed that if a reader understands theconditions under which unanticipated impacts wereexperienced, he or she will be able to judge how similar orapplicable the case is to his/her own situation.373. Reliability of case studies is usually weak in the sense thatfindings are not easily replicated. A case is constructed forcertain purposes (e.g., to show teachers' perceptions about theunanticipated impacts of computer use) and situated in a giventime and place (e.g., a specific elementary school). To help thereader locate the case in its context, the study outlines itspurposes, the details of data collection, and the reasons whyspecific choices were made in defining the case and the method(Stake, 1978).On the other hand, one of the strengths of case studies is internalvalidity. They portray some aspect of human activity in its naturalcontext apart from a researcher's manipulation. Internal validity ofthis case study refers to the need to demonstrate to readers that thefindings and interpretations are credible reconstructions of therespondents' perceptions and experiences (LeCompte and Goetz,1982). This involved a number of tasks:1. Instruments were piloted in order to enhance their facevalidity. Teachers not a part of the school under study wereasked to respond to questions included on instruments. Thishelped to clarify the questions and show whether they wereunderstood similarly by respondents and researcher.2. By interviewing the same individuals several times over aperiod of four months, each respondent's perceptions and anyapparent inconsistencies could be probed and clarified. With38ongoing interviews, there was less likelihood ofmisunderstanding a respondent's perceptions.3. Multiple data sources allowed for corroboration and extensionof perceptions. For example, in the interviews with teachersand administrator, reasons for conflicting perceptions werechecked.4. Individuals were given a summary of their own interviews,and asked to comment on the clarity and accuracy of how theirperceptions were portrayed, and the plausibility of theinterpretations. Any difficulties or inconsistencies perceivedby the interviewees were discussed with them and clarifiedaccordingly. Also, although respondents agreed to be re-interviewed as needed if the researcher had difficultyinterpreting the data, no such problems arose and furtherinterviews were not necessary.5. The research agenda was made clear to all respondents. Theyunderstood that the study was focussed on their perceptionsrather than classroom observations, that the findings were not,in any sense, evaluative of individual teachers or of the school'scomputer program, and that the school, school district, andrespondents would be anonymous.39SummaryThis chapter described the study's methodology, including the pilotstudy, selection of the school, data collection, and limitations.Chapter Four presents the case of each teacher.40CHAPTER FOURTHE CASES This chapter gives separate accounts of how computerimplementation evolved over four months in the classrooms of thefour interviewees. The pseudonyms used are Mrs. Freer, Mrs.Arthur, Mrs. Douglas, and Mrs. Evans. These cases are sequencedfrom the least to the greatest levels of implemenation. Provided aredescriptions of each teacher's background, the classroom contexts inwhich the implementation took place, and the unexpected impacts ofcomputer use on classroom routines and instructional purposes.Following the description for each teacher is a brief interpretivesummary in which the researcher makes a judgement about the levelof implementation reported.Interview quotes are referenced to indicate when they occurred. Forexample, (20) refers to the second interview which happened tooccur in the month of October, and (5D) refers to the fifth interview,which occurred in December. Because the descriptions ofbackground, purposes, classroom context and routines were collectedduring the first interview in September, this coding system is usedonly in the descriptions of unexpected impacts on routines and oninstructional purposes, which were collected over time (e.g., duringinterviews two through five).41MRS. FREER This account describes the least complex level of implementation inthe study. The teacher had almost no previous computer experienceand, although she felt that she should try to make good use of thecomputer, was vague about her instructional purposes. Of all theinterviewees, therefore, she found that the computer caused her thefewest problems or frustrations and reported the fewestunanticipated impacts. This was because she used it in a very simpleway (drill and practice) and did not attempt a more complex level ofimplementation (word processing, simulation, problem solving).Interviews were scheduled as follows:1. September 16 (1S)2. September 27 (2S)3. November 6 (3N)4. November 20 (4N)5. December 17 (5D)Background Mrs. Freer started teaching in a rural school district at sixteen yearsof age. After three years, she moved to an urban district where shecontinued to teach primary grades for another three years. She thentook 12 years off to raise her family, waiting until all of her childrenwere in school before returning to the profession. Upon returning toteaching, she began as a substitute and was consequently offered apermanent position by a past principal of the study school, and hasworked there ever since. In all, she has taught for twenty years,fourteen of these at the study school, where she currently enrolls a42grade two-three primary class. She intends to retire at the end of theschool year.Computer ExperienceMrs. Freer has no formal training with computers and, before thestudy, never had one in her room. Previously she had dependedupon parent volunteers trained by another teacher, or the computerhelping teachers to work with her students in the computerlaboratory. This relief schedule provided her with preparationperiods. Although she does not own a home computer she said that,this being her last year, she now feels obliged to gain some basicskills with the computer.She claims that computers are "an excellent resource" for studentsand said that if she were younger, she would spend more time andenergy learning to use them. She also opined that students arehighly motivated to learn to use computers and that they know "ahundred times more" than she ever will.Instructional PurposesMrs. Freer was given an Apple IIe with a single disk drive and acolour monitor in September, 1991 to use full time in her classroom.Although she did not have well articulated purposes for thecomputer, she described several general purposes in the first monthof the study. One purpose was to help students become more"computer literate" - to become familiar with the hardware and be43able use a variety of software programs. She also wanted them toget used to using the keyboard, inserting disks and loading programs.Another purpose was to help students build their skills in languageand math. Again, she was unsure as to how to do this, but intendedto supply them with an assortment of titles that might helpaccommodate this purpose. She hoped to match the software withthe math concepts being covered in class. Unknowledgeable aboutthe relevant and available titles in the school, she depended on thecomputer helping teacher to supply an initial box of assorted disksappropriate to her students. At the start of the year, the childrenwere free to pick the programs they wanted from that selectionwhen their turn on the computer came around. Because they hadused many of the titles in the previous year, they knew whatsoftware they preferred and were able to choose accordingly. Sheplanned to work together with the computer helping teacher tochange the titles sometime in January.A third purpose was to give the children opportunities to usesoftware that would help them improve their "thinking skills." Atthe time of the interview, she was unsure as to what software wasavailable for this purpose or how the computer might be used toaccomplish this, but intended to ask the computer helping teacher toassist in finding some appropriate programs.44She did not report an intention to use the computer to help thechildren with writing or any other kind of application software. Inthis case, because her purposes for the computer were vague, its usewas kept relatively simple.Classroom ContextThe class consisted of ten boys and thirteen girls. Three of the boyswere in grade two and seven were in grade three, while four of thegirls were in grade two and nine in grade three. One of her gradethree boys was identified Learning Disabled and there were noidentified gifted students.She described her class as challenging to work with, particularlywhere two boys were concerned. Both demonstrated social andemotional problems, which affected their behaviour and that of theclass in a negative way. Students were difficult to manage at times,and she spent an inordinate amount of time specifically establishingand modelling routines for the year: "Everyone in the school saysthat this has got to be one of the worst years in terms of needychildren." By the first interview most of the children hadincorporated the major routines into their daily activities: "I've gotthe two's sitting with the threes, and constantly reminded them tocheck with their partner and help them with routines."Management RoutinesWhen asked to priorize and describe the most important classroomroutines, she started with management of materials. Students were45arranged in six working groups with a leader for each team. Thisleader helped members who required assistance when completingtheir seatwork, and looked after distribution of materials for theirgroup whenever necessary.When calling the class to attention, she would say, "Class, sit up" or"Claaaass...", and all students were expected to sit and pay attention.She then waited until all eyes were on her; even if students weremoving around in the room, they were expected to stop and give hertheir attention. At the beginning of the year when this routine wasbeing established, she would have them purposely go back to whatthey were doing and repeat the direction for practice. When therewas a great deal of activity, she raised her hand to gain attention;each child stopped whatever they were doing and raised their hand,encouraging those around them to do the same.Students worked at learning centres, including listening, art andpainting, building blocks, LegoTM, and computer at specific times ofeach day. Although these centres were accessed on demand, eachstudent was expected to try all of them at some point during theterm. No formal management routine was yet worked out to give thestudents fair access.At the start up of each day, students were allowed to use the centres.At the bell, they gathered at the discussion carpet in order to gothrough calendar activities together, review the day of the month,46month of the year, special days, seasons, and share ideas and itemsthey brought from home.Her management routine for clean up included assigning twelvevolunteer monitors to help at the end of each day, from dusting towatering the plants. The routine for choosing these monitors wasinformal: "The next time around if your name wasn't on the board,you would get to pick the jobs you wanted to do." Names wereusually changed once every two or three weeks so that others couldtake turns helping tidy the classroom and looking after the materials."Sometimes the children will say, 'When are we going to change themonitors?' and I just say, 'When we have time,' because it takes tenor fifteen minutes to do. You almost have to put it in your daybook,otherwise it's five to three and you're rushing them." At clean-uptime she counted to five, either verbally or by showing her fingers,and then said "The magic number is..". This focused the children onthe task at hand and signalled them to move quickly.Instructional RoutinesTo provide activities for students who finished their assigned workearly, Mrs. Freer established a routine where the students couldselect from a number of activities without having to ask her. Shehad a changing list on the chalkboard called "Extra Work" whichstudents could refer to at any time during the day. Some of theseincluded working in centres for reviewing language and math skills,writing theme books, and doing puzzles and math games.^Onecentre changed according to seasons or special holidays; "I call it the47centre for speedy people and they get prizes for completing it - alittle bribery, but I don't mind... They have what I call a 'FunBooklet,' which includes activities such as dot-to-dot, colouringsheets, fun math sheets, fun language skills sheets - so even thoughwe call it our fun book, it's not just straight fun activities." They alsoworked in half lined, half plain exercise books where they coulddraw pictures on the top and write about them on the bottom.She decided not to establish the routine of having the children writein daily journals, "because I found last year it started out all right,but unless I gave them a topic, half the class wasn't interested. It gotto be a real drag. I found it was absolutely full of mistakes ingrammar and spelling, which they (current researchers on writing)say is fine, I mean, that is their control of the language, right? ...[But]I spent all this time trying to teach them how to use the dictionary tolook up words and use correct grammar. I could be wrong there, butI thought I'd leave it this year."As part of assessment and evaluation routines, she monitored thecentres by moving from one to another and observing the children.Often they were excited by what they were doing and wanted to tellher and the other children about their experiences. Some centreswere more conducive to this than others, and she intended toestablish a routine where telling about their work could be a regularpart of completing certain centres. She increased her understandingof their capabilities by sitting with them at the centres and listeningas they explained what they were doing. She endeavored to check48students' work frequently at the beginning of the year: "Sometimes Iwill just sit at a table and when they are finished, if it's math orsomething, they can bring it up to me before they start somethingelse. I do that more at the beginning of the year because that way Iget the routines down... If I let them get too far ahead, it doesn'tmatter what it is, there are always a number of them that will beginmaking mistakes in setting up the page and so on."She kept on-going anecdotal comments on the students and storedthese, along with samples of their work, in portfolios. "All of theirstory and poetry writing," she said, "is kept organized and all draftsare kept so that I can see their growth and show both the studentsand parents the progression throughout the year."As part of on-going assessment, she developed a routine for studentswho need extra help with some concepts. Whenever she came acrossa concept that anyone, particularly in grade three, had not mastered,she assigned specific homework. These students kept homeworkbooks which were written in regularly to help them keep track ofextra work.Establishing routines for having students set up their exercises eachSeptember was important: "That's another thing we spend a coupleof weeks on at the beginning - how to put your date and name on thepage, how to number, how many spaces to leave, things like that." Inthis way students learned how to follow a standard format for theirexercise books.49Another instructional routine pertained to story writing. EveryThursday was story writing day and this was linked to the themestory of the week covered on Tuesday and Wednesday. For instance,students were encouraged to write as if they were one of thecharacters from the story, or the subject was left up to them. Theykept their draft books so that she could compare early drafts of theirwork to more finished products, thereby monitoring progressthroughout the year. Each student also compiled a book which washung on display in the classroom and supplemented as the yearprogressed.Unanticipated Impacts on Management RoutinesMrs. Freer was asked to detail the specific unanticipated impacts ofcomputer use on her management and instructional routines, as wellas on her instructional purposes for the computer. She reported avariety of effects on management routines including: a) access; b)calling students to attention; c) managing materials; and d) seekingassistance.Many unanticipated impacts occurred around the category of access.Students were allowed to use the computer during the day, providedthey asked permission. "I would only say yes if it was their sparetime and if they'd finished their work, although sometimes they'requite happy to go and work at the other centres." She also assigned aspecific time, during silent reading at the beginning of eachafternoon, when the students were able to use any disk they wanted50from the titles available. But this caused some specific problems,such as occasional high noise levels and distraction of the otherstudents. (2S)By the second interview, she was not satisfied with the way studentswere accessing the computer, and expressed a desire to start aroutine where she would teach a math or language concept to thegroup, followed by pairs of students getting a turn on the computerto practice. She envisioned the pairs taking their turnsautomatically: "where we just have a list, and they just go up andtouch the next person to let them know it's their turn, and go backwithout saying a word - hopefully someday!" (2S)By the third month she was still unhappy with the accessing routinebecause students were rushing their work in order to get a turn onthe computer. Competition for computer use developed because oflimited access time. "What I'm finding now is that quite often two orthree children will finish their work very quickly, and I knowthey're rushing; they'll even run up to my desk to bring their worksaying, 'Can I please go to the computer? Can I go to thecomputer?'...they hurry through their work to get to the computer."She decided that students would benefit from having more timeswhen they could access the computer during the day and thoughtthat this may curtail the competition. She heard that another teacherhad a good plan for access, and intended to ask her how to set it up.(3N)51Student behaviour at the computer during the regular silent readingtime was still a problem by the third month. The noise leveldisturbed others and prevented them from concentrating on theirreading. "The kids will get so excited and they'll start laughing, and Ilook at them and they're even jumping up and down. Well then, halfthe class stops and watches them. That's bothering me and I thinkit's bothering the class." She partly attributed this to having morethan one student at a time at the computer, and thought she mightchange the routine to allow only one student access during silentreading. She had paired the students so that they could help eachother, but felt that later on when they all knew the programs, thestudents would be more successful on their own. She thought aboutadding a routine for access before school, at recess, and at lunch sothat they would not need to use it during silent reading, but decidedto continue with silent reading access for now. "They might just needto get used to it (the computer)... it's just that they get excited, Imean, I can't blame them for that". The computer would not be adisruption during other times of the day because there was normallya lot of activity at any given time. (3N)By the fourth interview, she reported an improvement on the accessroutine. In order to minimize disruptions during silent reading, onlyone student could use the computer at a time, although, on occasion,she still allowed two students access; a posted list of names meantthat students always knew when their turn was imminent. Further,on the advice of another primary teacher, she divided the class intofive groups, one for each day of the week. Each group was allowed52access on their day before school, during recess, during lunch, andany time during class when they finished their other work. Thisincreased access substantially, and allowed the children to makebetter use of the computer. (4N) By the fifth interview she said,"I've stuck with that because it hasn't caused any problems." (5D)The routine for calling students to attention was also impacted in anunanticipated way. "It's harder to get their attention when they're atthe computer because they don't want to shut it down when they'rein the middle of something."^Raising her hand and waiting for themto do the same didn't work well because their attention was focusedon the computer, and students could not easily see her because of thepositioning of the computer centre. While the rest of the class wasfocusing their attention, she would talk specifically to those workingon the computer, sometimes allowing them to continue their work,while at other times having them shut down completely, especially ifsomeone else was waiting for a turn. (5D)Although asked only to describe unanticipated impacts of computeruse on routines, she also reported on impacts of routines oncomputer use. In terms of managing materials, for instance, she wassurprised at how well the computer worked within her routine ofhaving the children sit in six groups, each with a monitor todistribute materials. There were no problems with distributionwhere the computer was concerned. Even when she adapted theroutine so that the students were sitting in three groups, this hadlittle effect on computer use. (5D)53In the category of seeking assistance, she reported two unanticipatedimpacts. (Although both were reported when asked about impacts ofcomputer use on routines, they also reflect the positive impact ofroutines on computer use.) The first was the addition of a newroutine. In order to prevent students from interrupting her, sheassigned two student "experts" to help others with many of theproblems they might encounter. Whenever someone had a computerdifficulty, he or she went to one of these monitors for assistance. Shechose these helpers by asking for volunteers who felt they hadenough expertise to do the job. The first two had been computermonitors in the previous year with their last teacher. (2S)Routines for seeking assistance worked well because students couldalso ask their buddies for help. An unexpected impact, she said, wasthat so far, she never had to drop what she was doing in order tohelp a student at the computer. The two monitors had a good graspof the available software: "in fact one of them came up to meyesterday and said, 'I think the disk those two girls chose is going tobe too hard for them. I said, 'You let them try it and see', and itturned out that they did just fine." Because of this unanticipatedsuccess, she decided not to change these monitors until later on inthe year when other students gained expertise and were morecapable of doing the job. (3N)54Unanticipated Impacts on Instructional Routines Impacts on instructional routines included: a) finishing early; and b)evaluation. The computer had an effect on her routine for studentswho finished assigned tasks early. It was a popular activity forthose who completed other work. They were motivated, often chosethat activity above others, and had little trouble getting startedindependently. The popularity of the computer waned during theChristmas season, however, since many students preferred to do therelated art activities. (5D)Other impacts on instructional routines came under the category ofevaluation. On-going observation of students worked well where thecomputer was concerned. "Two people will be working at thecomputer and I'll slide in a chair behind them and sometimes I talkto them and sometimes I don't. I just watch them to see what they'redoing. They get so enthused I don't say anything because they'reenjoying it and they certainly know what they're doing - they mayturn around and make a comment to me about what they're doing."She also noted that social development was encouraged: "I've seen agreat improvement in some of the kids going to the computer andhelping each other."^Although in the beginning of the year therewere arguments as to whose turn it was, over time the students'motivation to access the computer meant that they had to learn towork together. (5D)Routines unaffected by computer use included journal writing(because she rarely practiced this routine), story writing (she did not55use the computer for writing), and setting up exercise books (becausethis didn't apply to computer use).Unanticipated Impacts on Instructional PurposesWhen asked to describe the unanticipated impacts of computer useon her instructional purposes, she alluded to three: a) skilldevelopment; b) motivation; and c) literacy (learning aboutcomputers). However, because initial purposes for the computerwhere vague, so were the impacts on those purposes.By the second interview, she had not pursued her purposes relatedto skill development, although she still intended to do so. She wasnot satisfied with having students only play with the computer, andwanted a better match with the math program. This took longerthan she expected because of diverse student needs. "I find themath program so hard to know what's ahead of us, with the three'sdoing one thing and the two's doing their own math. Sometimes Ican combine them, but very, very little. So math period is going,going, going the whole time, and I haven't got it worked in so I cansend a group to the computer, but I hope that will happen." She andher planning partner had trouble developing the math program tomeet the needs of a range of student abilities. She hadn't had time tointegrate the computer, but hoped to do so soon with math andlanguage arts. (2S)56By the third interview (3N), she still had not aligned the computerwith her math and language programs as expected, although she stillintended to do so. "I'm not happy with what's going on in theclassroom with the computer so far and it's mainly my fault becauseI haven't organized everything. The whole class is taking too long toget organized. Up until last week we didn't know if we were going toreshuffle the whole school (because of increased enrollment) ...As faras the work load goes, we've been doing that, but not any of theextra things." (3N)To choose software to enhance what students were studying in math,Mrs. Freer needed assistance from the computer helping teacher.She knew that software existed for building number facts andrelated skills:^"I need to go through the software with someone else.The disks I want may be right in my room for all I know. I'll have tofigure out to work those." She felt, however, that children may notwant to work on this type of program for an extended length of time,and felt she would have to offer other kinds of software in order tokeep them interested. (3N) She finally went through all of thesoftware in the computer lab with a student monitor, but was unableto find a program that drilled basic math skills in a game format. "Icould have thrown that computer out the window, because we justcouldn't find it." (4N) At the end of the study, she still felt that shewould like to introduce new programs, although she was unsure as towhat programs were available and didn't have a plan as to how shemight do this. (4N)57Two unanticipated impacts were related to her purpose of motivatingstudents. In the second interview, she commented that mostchildren were eager to use the computer, and that she was surprisedat the high level of motivation that it provided. (Neither had sheexpected to find that the computer would become a source of suchpositive input from parent visitors.) (2S) The three or four childrenwho were not as enthusiastic were each paired with a student withmore interest and expertise. "I'll just say, 'How would you like to goto the computer and work with so and so... even if they just sit there,they're learning something." (4N)Due to previous experiences, student expertise was high enough thatthey were able to solve many problems without intervention. Shethought many of the children's families owned computers and thatthis contributed to their computer literacy. "Yesterday the computerwasn't working right, so I sent the two boys (monitors) back andsaid, 'See what you can find out.' They started moving things andplugging in this and this and this, and the next thing you know it wasworking."^Children, she said, will always be the experts becausethey spend more hours at the computer than most teachers will everhave. Because the children were familiar with the software and usedthe computer in a simple way as a learning centre, she did not haveto intervene, and the student monitors were enough to keep theothers out of trouble. (4N)She did not attempt to adapt computer use to suit her purposes,although she expressed an interest in doing so. In all, these vague58purposes were not clarified or made more specific over the course ofthe study - they remained virtually unchanged.Seeking AssistanceOnce the computer was set up and the software compiled by thecomputer helping teacher, Mrs. Freer had little need to seekassistance. The software was not changed and she did not attempt touse the computer for complex purposes. The hardware was fairlyreliable and she did not use a printer with moving parts. Sheoccasionally consulted with a colleague, but did not do any planningfor computer use on a regular basis.Interpretive Summary Although the computer impacted management routines (access,distribution of materials, transitions, start up, and clean up routines)and instructional routines (seeking assistance, finishing early, andevaluation), the researcher concludes that the effects were minimaldue to Mrs. Freer's vague and general purposes. In fact, because shedid not attempt to use the computer in a more complex, integratedway, unanticipated impacts on her instructional purposes were alsominimal. When asked to summarize key concerns about theimplementation, she acknowledged some anxiety about not using thecomputer to its potential, and attributed this to her inexperiencewith software and to adaptations she had to make to classroomroutines. (5D)59She had not anticipated that it would take as long as it did to get thecomputer routines running smoothly. She attributed this to anumber of competing activities in planning her program and to initialuncertainty about implementing the computer. She had expectedthat it would be a disruptive influence in the class, but this onlyoccurred early in the year. The routines she established eased theproblem and made the computer "absolutely no problem" in theclassroom. "It's positive because I've got a real routine working nowand the children know it. We've been doing it for some time now, sothere's no hassle... The children know what to do." Because the use ofthe computer was simple and she had low expectations, there provedto be few problems with implementation. (4N)Mrs. Freer had not asked to have the computer in her classroom, butreceived one because of a staff decision. As a result, she was notstrongly committed to the innovation, and did not use the computerfor anything more than an independent centre, where students couldfreely explore the software. There was little interest in spending thetime and energy necessary to use the computer in complex ways inher classroom. Because her commitment was low, purposes were notclarified or made more specific over time. They remained vague andlittle was attempted or accomplished in terms of implementation.By defining the computer as a "centre" in the classroom, she couldclaim some implementation without actually changing much of herteaching or adapting her role. Under this "false front", she gave anappearance to colleagues, parents and students that she was60complying with the decision to use computers in the classroom, butwithout having to change much of her practice.Olson's Trojan Horse thesis, although detectable, was not particularlyinfluential in this case because the instructional purposes for thecomputer were unclear over the course of the study. Unanticipatedimpacts of vague computer use had little effect on routines orpurposes. In the cases to follow, where the level of computer use ismore complex, unanticipated impacts are more apparent and have agreater impact on both routines and instructional purposes.MRS. ARTHUR This account documents the case of Mrs. Arthur, a grade two/threeteacher who had some previous computer experience but, like MrsFreer, was vague about her instructional purposes. Although also avery experienced teacher and late in her career, she did not attemptto implement the computer in a complex way. While she felt that itwas important to use the computer in the classroom, it presented herwith some unanticipated problems, and so she did not accomplish asmuch with the computer as she originally intended.^She wasinterviewed as follows:1. September 19 (1S)2. October 2 (20)3. October 22 (30)4. November 6 (4N)5. December 17 (5D)61B ackground At the beginning of her career, Mrs. Arthur taught for three years ina large metropolitan school district, but decided to stop teaching forthirteen years while she raised her children. She has taught in thestudy school for the last fifteen years and would have retired bynow, except that "things didn't work out financially"; she still enjoysteaching as it "keeps her young." She described herself as a "ratherstructured" teacher, open to using some new teaching strategies, aslong as they work well: "I don't mind trying something new andworking it into my program, but if it doesn't work for me, I don't useit."Mrs. Arthur is not enthusiastic about current curricular change: "It'snot necessary to agree with the changes brought about by the Year2000 Document [curricular integration, individualized learning,continuous student progress] completely. Every new program has itspitfalls and I'm not so insecure in the way I do things that I'm goingto say my way doesn't work." She is traditional in her outlook andbelieves in "covering the basics." She is not supportive of the currenttrend to individualization of the curricular program, and prefers touse whole group instruction: "I don't believe in individualizing theprogram, that's just not my way. But when you do have individualsin the classroom that really need it (an individualized program), Iguess that's the way I'll have to go." In short, she feels mostcomfortable with a teacher-centered classroom.62Computer ExperienceWhen asked about her computer experience, Mrs. Arthur said herskills were "at one time, very, very good", as her husband had owneda computer retail store. She was a participant in the first provincialcomputer implementation pilot program in the early 1980's, where anumber of schools in the province were given a computer to exploreits educational uses. In subsequent years her interest waned,however, and other staff members took an interest and became moreskilled with using the technology: "If you have a family, teaching ispart of your life, but for some single people, it's their whole life andsome of the people that were on staff became totally dedicated tocomputers. Their's was much superior to my knowledge, so I justkind of let them go to it, and they did a fantastic job. There is noway that I wanted to put in that much time, so my interest kind oflagged." She always had a computer at home, but never had muchreason to use it. When the school instituted a computer helpingteacher three years ago, she depended on this person to do all of thecomputer teaching in the lab until this year. "We had a person whowas very talented, she took the class for a double period, while I hada spare. I loved it and she was very good for the kids."Instructional PurposesMrs. Arthur was given an Apple IIe with a single disk drive, a colourmonitor, and a printer for her classroom, but she had little interest inthe innovation. As a result, her instructional purposes were vagueand she was not specific about how she intended to use thecomputer, except for word processing so that students could publish63their assignments, for simulation games to help with problemsolving, and for drill and practice to build skills in language andmath. Although she was able to outline these general goals, she hadlittle idea of what she had to specifically do to achieve them.Because most of the class were "below average achievers," shewanted to employ software that was easy to use. She felt that it wasimportant for the children to have success: "The computer has to beeasy for them, so that they feel successful when they use it. I wantto make them want to feel they can do it because, if you're like me,machines kind of scare you, and I don't want them to have thatfeeling."She had a printer mainly because of a student with a learningdisability for whom handwriting was a problem. It was hoped thatby using a keyboard, this student could record her ideas more easily,and print out her assignments rather than hand write them. Mrs.Arthur felt that it was important to get this student familiar withkeyboarding, so that she would be able to use the computer morefluently in later school years. Also in the classroom was an identifiedgifted student who enjoyed using the computer, and she intended touse it to help keep him motivated and challenged. She hoped hewould help the learning disabled student to learn how to use theword processor and to become more adept with the hardware andsoftware in general.64Classroom ContextThe grade two/three class of twenty-four children had equalnumbers of boys and girls.^Five of the boys were in grade three andseven in grade two, while nine of the girls were in grade three andthree in grade two. The fine motor control of one student wasunderdeveloped, causing her problems with handwriting; "By thetime she works through the mechanics of printing an answer, shegives up." There was also a gifted child, described as "my first trulygifted child in all my years of teaching. He has a grade twelve mindbut he is a seven year old, socially and emotionally." Having a "splitclass" was difficult for her because these special needs kidsdemanded a great deal of her time.The children as a group were at a lower level of academicdevelopment than average; "looking at my class list, most of mystudents are low." Some were developmentally delayed, bothemotionally and intellectually, and this contributed to behaviourproblems in class; the well behaved students were also the "quietestones," so they were not role models. Somewhat frustrated, she said:"It's very difficult for me to teach so many needy children -discipline is so different today, kids have much more freedom, and Iagree with that, but it makes for some interesting challenges. If youdon't have control, how effective is your teaching?"This theme of control underlay many of her concerns andapprehensions. However, when asked to describe the important65classroom routines that she was establishing in September, Mrs.Arthur chose to mention five. (1S)Management RoutinesThe establishment and maintenance of classroom routines wasimportant to the smooth and orderly functioning of her class. Shewas initially frustrated because many usual routines had beendifficult to activate, and she needed to spend an inordinate amountof time getting them established. She attributed this to studentswith special needs and behaviour problems.For the start up routine each day, the children gathered in a circle todiscuss calendar concepts and share their thinking about items theybrought from home. This allowed them to practice oral skills in frontof an audience: "I don't care if they bring something or not,everybody gets up and shares." Directly after this routine, theymoved to language arts activities.To get students' attention she called for order and waited until allwere focused on her. This was not working as well as it had in thepast because of the makeup of this particular group of students, andshe intended to reevaluate and adjust the routine so that it would bemore effective. By reteaching and repeating the routine, and byreinforcing a call for order through different words and voice tones,she hoped to increase student compliance.66She grouped students heterogeneously, and picked a leader for eachgroup to distribute materials and to help members of the group withquestions they may have about an assignment. Also, one studenteach day was assigned to be a special helper, both to aid inmanagement tasks and to make each student feel as though theywere a responsible member of the class. Every student got a turn ona rotating basis and was expected to help around the class and takesome responsibility in helping peers: "they become the leader incharge."Whenever there was movement as a group (for example, when thewhole class came to the carpet for a story), students wereencouraged to count by two's, or recite the alphabet, or months of theyear until the last person was seated. "I find that this cuts down onmumbling and talking as they walk to wherever they are going."This routine was used to gather them together on the discussioncarpet at any time during the day, or to call them to the chalkboardfor instructions.Instructional RoutinesTo encourage the children to cooperate and help one another on acontinuing basis, she had a routine whereby older or brighterstudents helped the younger or slower ones. Also, they wereencouraged to consult with peers before bringing their questions tothe teacher.67The focus of instruction varied from day to day, and integratedthemes were used to organize curricular content. On Mondays sheintroduced new concepts and worked on language and math skills,whereas on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays she concentratedon the theme for the week, organizing activities from several contentareas around a specific story or concept. Fridays were reserved fororal presentations and finishing activities that students had beenworking on during the week.Unanticipated Impacts on Management Routines Impacts were reported on a) access; b) seeking assistance; c)movement; and d) start up routines. Most impacted were routinesrelated to access. Initially, there was little trouble with organizingaccess to the computer. Students could use it whenever theyfinished their other work, and during silent reading (the first periodeach afternoon). For centre times (two to three times per week), thefirst two students to sign up were allowed to use the computer forthat period. Students usually rotated through the centres, andinitially she did not find it necessary to discipline anyone formonopolizing the equipment. "I try to be as fair as possible becausethey seem to think that it's a real treat to have the computer in theclassroom." (1S)Students had a strong sense of fairness about equal access to thecomputer. This raised a potential problem, however, in that shewanted both the gifted and the learning disabled student to accessthe computer on demand. By the second interview, the learning68disabled student was using the computer a great deal, and Mrs.Arthur was concerned about her monopolizing it. She tried toremedy this by allowing this student to use the computer only whenthe rest were engaged in the language arts period each day. She alsodecided to move from informal access routines to more structuredones: "I'm finding now... Last year's class could do this without a lotof regimentation, but I think I am going to have to be the 'oldgeneral' with these ones." (20)By the third interview, she was still frustrated with the competingdemands on the computer, and so decided to seek assistance from acolleague who had previous experience. Through co-planning withthis teacher, she divided her class into five groups corresponding tothe five days of the week. The Monday group, for example, wouldhave exclusive access to the computer on that day. This allowed anaverage of five students per day to use it, provided they had finishedtheir other seat work. This provided more equitable utilization ofthe equipment, while maintaining some flexibility of access. (30)By the fourth interview, earlier frustrations were somewhat resolvedas access routines began to work well and competition for usebecame minimal. "The kids come in early on their days (days whenthey were scheduled to use the computer); you'll see them at 8:30 inthe morning working quietly at the computer," although they werestill a "little leery" about beginning without permission. She foundthis intriguing and was surprised at the extent to which theyrespected and cared for the hardware and software. They enjoyed69using it and the teacher said that it was "highly educational and anasset to the classroom."^(4N)Two different impacts were reported when students needed to seekassistance with computer problems. Although she normally pickedat random a helper for the day, this did not work well where thecomputer was concerned because not all students were capable orconfident enough on the computer to be able to help others; "I have alot of low kids who are not computer literate enough to helpsomebody else."^She adapted this routine by making it clear thatthe daily helper was not responsible for aiding others with computerproblems. Second, the routine for having one competent student ineach of the learning groups help the others was strengthened. These"group experts" were chosen on the basis of maturity and academiccompetence - a student who ran into problems on the computercould always ask this person for help, even when the teacher wasbusy with someone else. (5D)She also noted that the customary method of dealing with movementaround the classroom - having students chant months of the year ortimes tables as they moved from one activity to another - workedwell for those at the computer; they seemed to have no problemtaking part in the routine with the rest of the class, and were able tomove without incident to the gathering area. (5D)Because the learning disabled student needed to use the computermore than the others, Mrs. Arthur felt it necessary to adapt the daily70start up routine to accommodate her. While the rest of the classdiscussed the calendar, she could work on improving her writtenskills at the, computer. This provided her with a consistent block oftime each day when it was not available for other students. "It wasgetting to a point where everyone feels that if she is on it too long, inspare time or before school, it's unfair that she's getting the majorityof the time, so I thought I might utilize that time because her oralskills are really good." At times during language arts, the giftedstudent would help the learning disabled student to transpose herthoughts onto the keyboard; this only worked depending on themood of both students. (5D)Unanticipated Impacts on Instructional Routines Impacts on instructional routines included a) integrated themes; b)evaluation; and c) student cooperation. Mrs. Arthur did not relatethe computer to the math program or to the integrated themes shedesigned each week, and so it remained a separate centre, unrelatedto much of the activity in the classroom. Part of the problem was herunfamiliarity with the software available in the school. "I don't havesoftware that I can use well enough. I probably would use it withmy brighter kids, which maybe is right or wrong, I don't know. Itmight just be my inadequacy, but I'm such a stickler for the old skillsand basically that's why I haven't got there yet. I thought if I couldget some of those disks that have some of the language arts skills onthem or even some reading skills for some of the other kids, then Icould link it better to the other things we are doing." (5D) Althoughthere were many software titles in the school that would help her71achieve these purposes, she did not take the time to learn what theywere or how to use them.Student evaluation routines did not work well with the computerbecause her "normal kinds of evaluation involve a lot of printing andwriting skills."^Although she looked informally for "improvement"in their computer use, no comments were made on the first reportcard. (5D) Evaluation was difficult simply because implementationpurposes were not clarified.The computer had a positive effect on students cooperating with eachother, and encouraged those who were more capable to help theyounger ones. This was the case, for example, when the giftedstudent finished his other work early and enjoyed helping otherstudents on the computer. This worked because her students were"the kind of children who liked helping each other." (5D)There was also a more serendipitous impact on student cooperation.When some of the "average students" were motivated to get theirwork done quickly, they often encouraged their partners to finishquickly as well, so that they could both take a turn on the computer.(30)These impacts upon management and instructional routines wereminimal, largely because the computer was not significantlyintegrated into the classroom. As a special interest centre, itremained peripheral to the program.72Unanticipated Impacts on Instructional Purposes Mrs. Arthur talked about impacts on purposes, including: a)motivation; b) development of skills; c) managing student needs; andd) curricular integration.By the second interview, motivation continued to be an importantpurpose for implementing the computer. Students enjoyed using itand unexpectedly wanted to get their work finished to use it moreoften. In particular, several boys who were difficult to motivate,worked at a higher level because they wanted to finish their workquickly and well in order to use the computer.By the third interview, children were still eager to get to thecomputer and continued to help their partners finish work so thatthey could both get to it sooner: " I don't allow them to give eachother the answers per se, but they are definitely using cooperativelearning to teach each other." (30) This motivating aspect wasturned into a vague sense of purpose: "I want them all to feelsuccessful and not to be intimidated as the adults are; I find thatbecause they're having fun, they think its a treat." (5D)She described how the computer was particularly useful inmotivating her gifted child: "With my philosophy and with my workload, and particularly my gifted child plus my low students, thecomputer has helped me a lot.^Without it, I think I would be introuble at this point with my gifted child, because he really doesn't73want to do extensions of what the others are doing all the time. Heloves using the computer." (20) He had little patience for anythingthat seemed tedious, and it was the computer that kept himchallenged: "I shouldn't use the computer as a carrot, but right nowits my sanity." By the third interview he was not monopolizing it ashe had done earlier; " The one thing that it's done for him is that it'staught him to deal with his frustration level. He's making aconcerted effort to finish his work immediately so that he can get atthe computer; even though it's so and so's turn, they still have thingsto do. So if he gets in there first, he'll get ten or fifteen minutes to dosomething that he wants to do." (30) Other children viewed him as arole model and wanted to use the computer because they saw someof the things he was able to do with it. She hoped that theirwatching him publish work on the printer would encourage them touse the word processing software as well, and to write moreprolifically. (20)On the other hand, the learning disabled student lost interest in wordprocessing. "It worked really well for about the first month for meto motivate her to finish some of her work, so that she could type itin - to see the typewritten product. But she's lost interest, and it'sslowed right down." The reason was that her printing had improvedwith practice, and it was now easier to write assignments by handthan to use the keyboard. "Her printing has improved, so she doesn'tmind the appearance of her work now. Whereas, before she wasashamed of her printing and so she would hide it." This student stillused the computer for drill and practice games. (30)74In the fourth interview, Mrs. Arthur related a "major unexpectedimpact." The computer broke down and no one in the school wasable to fix it immediately. While it was not working, she realizedhow much she depended on it for dealing with her two specialstudents. The lack of access to a computer adversely affected thebehaviour of her gifted child. He increasingly required herundivided attention and became upset when she couldn't or wouldn'tgive it to him: "I no longer have that big carrot, so he is restless... Inotice that he's encroaching on my time too much - he wants me onehundred percent now, whereas before he could go to the computer.I'm getting more frustration from him... It's not even so much themotivation that the computer provides - the child is motivated - hisemotional stability is most important and dealing with frustration isa big component of his education at this point. So I do have to havecertain things like the computer that are appealing to him becauseanything else is boring." Similarly, when the learning disabledstudent was unable to use the computer for drill and practice, shereacted negatively to having to do things with paper and pencil, anddemanded more teacher attention.Another impact on purpose was in the area of skills development.She wanted to use the computer to reinforce the math program; "asfar as using it as a tool for math in the classroom, I haven't been ableto do that yet, but I would like to spend more time on this." To thisend, she wanted to better match the software with the concepts shecovered in math. She had not expected to take so long to arrange for75this, and attributed this lack to the extra time it was taking to planfor two grade levels in math; "my problem is that the math programneeds to be so individualized and I have such a spread of abilities inmy class." Although math was one of her strengths, she wasfrustrated that students were not getting the skills they needed.She knew that the computer could help alleviate some of thepressure, but wasn't sure how to go about this. She thought thatperhaps there was some software that could help teach problem-solving, but was unaware of its availability in the school. (20)Because her commitment to the innovation was weak, her purposesremained vague over time.At the third interview, she still had not related the software to hermath program because, she said, the disks were unavailable. Shealso felt that she needed more time to build her own skills on thecomputer. Although it could be a "marvelous tool," she had difficultyin changing her "old philosophy of teaching." "With the split class, Ifind I don't have as much time to use the computer advantageouslyas a teaching tool because I'm flying all day. It may be me, with myold, structured style of teaching, trying to still give too muchinstruction of skills while incorporating the new program. So I don'thave time to get to the computer as well. I think it could be amarvelous teaching tool if I could just get past my old ideas ofteaching, which I can't. I can't allow these children not to have theskills that I think have to be drummed into them." (30) By thefourth interview, the computer was still not being used forreinforcement of skills. Once again, she claimed that she had not76expected it to take so long to align the software to her math program;she had not had a chance to do so to date. (4N) Resistance to changeprevented her from integrating the computer into daily classroomlife.She did say that the computer helped her to manage student needs.She likened it to a classroom assistant, on which she had come torely, and suggested that money would be more effectively spent onpurchasing software rather than providing more classroom assistantsto help with special needs kids; "I really rely on the computer forhelping keep my special needs kids occupied. These are possibly thewrong reasons, but they work for me." She was willing to give upclassroom assistance time in exchange for more software. (4N)Slow curricular integration was blamed on a lack of a wide variety ofsoftware. More kinds of math games and drills, for instance, wouldhelp her to use the computer more effectively. "I'd love to have'Rosie Rabbit' now. I've got the printer and the kids could writestories and print them out." When she was told that the software wasavailable in her school, she replied, "Okay, a lot of those things[software] I should get a list of so I'll know what's here." (4N)Although she expressed a desire to use a wider range of software,she did not take the initiative to find out what was available in theschool. This ongoing contradiction demonstrated her lack of interestin anything beyond minimal implementation.77Seeking Assistance Although Mrs. Arthur had a variety of ways available for assistance,she did not use them on a regular basis. Occasionally she went to thecomputer helping teacher with a problem; "the vice-principal isprobably the most helpful in the school, since we lost last year'scomputer helping teacher." (20)She did not observe other classrooms as originally intended becauseof her "troublesome" class and busy schedule. By the secondinterview she no longer had any intention of observing othersbecause she felt that "what works for some may not work for others."(20)She expressed a desire, however, to talk with one particular teacherwho had previous experience with a computer in her classroom, anddid so by the third interview. From this colleague she learned somevaluable pointers about the hardware and software, and how tobegin integrating the computer into daily classroom life; inparticular, she learned to group the children for better access, usingthe days of the week as a guide. Although this brief collaborationwas helpful, she did not pursue regular or further planning.Interpretive Summary The researcher concludes that in Mrs. Arthur's class implementationwas shaped by three factors. First, classroom control was of primaryimportance to her; "If you don't have control, how effective is yourteaching?" She was apprehensive about any shift in the locus of78control that could threaten her authority, as evidenced by inflexibleroutines designed to keep students in check and by her treatment ofthe two special needs students. Because they didn't fit the normalroutines, she was unsure about what to do with them, except to keepthem happy and occupied so that she could continue working withthe whole group. She used the computer to keep them busy withoutalso exploiting its potential for a rich, individualized learningexperience.Second, her purposes were vague to a point that they demonstratedno real intention to integrate the computer into her overall curricularplan. She made comments such as "It's highly educational" and"Children enjoy it," but did not discuss the specifics of what thismeant, nor did she attempt any plan for achieving her purposes.While claiming that the computer could provide opportunities toenhance math and language skills, she did not pursue these purposesin a specific way. She remained consistent in her unfocused andminimal use of the computer; when the computer broke down andthere was little attempt at getting it fixed for about three weeks.Third, although her purposes for the computer were vague, theywere still more complex than Mrs. Freer's, and so the Trojan Horsethesis became a more important factor - unanticipated impacts werea minor deterrent to implementation, and caused her feelings offrustration and inadequacy. Partially because of these impacts, shedid not try to achieve her purposes within the expected time; she didnot integrate the computer into the daily math program or language79arts themes and no attempt was made to use the computerspecifically for problem solving as originally intended. She felt thatfactors like a challenging class, a learning disabled student, a giftedstudent, and concurrent school-wide curricular changes hinderedfurther implementation. In reality, though, her low threshold forchange prevented her from becoming committed to the innovation.MRS. DOUGLAS As a Kindergarten/grade one teacher, Mrs. Douglas' experience withcomputers was more extensive and her instructional purposes morecomplex than those of Mrs. Freer or Mrs. Arthur. Consequently, theTrojan Horse was more evident than in the previous cases, and ittook her longer than anticipated to integrate the computer into herclassroom.^The interview schedule was as follows:1. September 18^(1S)2. October 2^(20)3. October 30^(30)4. November 8^(4N)5. December 17^(5D)BackgroundMrs. Douglas is an experienced teacher who started in the professiontwenty-six years ago. She took a leave from teaching while raisingher children and worked as a substitute teacher for four years uponher return. Previous to the current school, she taught at one other80school in the district and in two other large metropolitan districts inBritish Columbia. Before that, she taught in a school district inOregon. She taught Kindergarten at the study school for the pastthree years and currently enrolls a combined class of Kindergartenand grade one students, sixteen of which had been in herKindergarten class during the previous year. This is the second timein twenty-six years she has taught students in grade one.At the time of the study, Mrs. Douglas sponsored a student teacheron a thirteen week practicum from the University of BritishColumbia. This student attended the first interview in order to gainan understanding of the study. Throughout the implementation, Mrs.Douglas reported that the presence of the student teacher hadsignificant impacts on the use of the computer and the classroomroutines.Computer ExperienceAn IBM-compatible computer was used mainly for word processingat home. Further, she had developed a program for aiding primaryteachers to write anecdotal report cards as part of a course whileworking on her teaching diploma at the University of BritishColumbia. She organized and completed a presentation on thisprogram at the university's Language Department Conference in thesummer of 1991.^Although designed for Kindergarten teachers, sheplanned to adapt the program to be used by teachers of grade onechildren.81She was only now becoming comfortable with Apple II computersand software. In the past, she had parent aids take students to theschool computer lab, and depended on the computer helping teacherto work with her class. In January of last year, however, she decidedto introduce students to computers, and took them to the computerlab herself rather than utilizing the computer helping teacher.Instructional PurposesIn September, 1991, Mrs. Douglas was given an Apple He, with asingle disk drive and a colour monitor. She hoped that it wouldmotivate students to achieve better through using the softwareregularly. To this end, she organized the classroom around learningcentres and set the computer up as one of them. At the time of thefirst interview, the computer was the most popular centre. Often agroup gathered to watch someone use it. She intended to establish aroutine where the student of the day (or "special person") would useit first, and only after this person had finished, would others beallowed to sign up for a turn.Mrs. Douglas intended to use the computer in three stages. The firstwas to reinforce math and language skills through drill and practiceand games. The focus would be on number and letter recognition,and she intended to align each program with the number or letterconcepts she was covering at the time. By changing each game aboutonce a week, all students would get a chance to various programswithout becoming bored. She was unsure whether this would bepossible, however, because of a lack of appropriate software. She82used math games as an alternate method of drill and practice, andplanned toIn the second stage, she intended to teach students how to use theschool's automated library system for finding and checking outbooks. This would familiarize them with entering series of numberson the keyboard while someone called them out orally, help build theskills necessary to use the library computer, and aid with numberrecognition.The third stage would be simple word processing in order to enterand print stories and journals. This was a long term goal for theyear, and because her students were young, she was unsure as tohow successful it might be. She felt that it would not be possible todo this solely with the classroom computer, and so planned to takethe students to the school lab when ready to begin word processing.New concepts would be introduced in the lab, whereas the classroomcomputer would be used for follow-up and on-going writingactivities. Although she was not yet conversant with the programentitled, "The Children's Writing and Publishing Centre," she felt itslarge fonts (letter shapes) and graphics capability would beappropriate for primary students.Classroom ContextIn a class of 24 students, 19 are in grade one and five are inKindergarten, including 13 boys and 11 girls; the ages ranged fromfive to six years. The grade one students attend full time and the83Kindergartners on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursdayafternoons and all day Friday. All of the Kindergarten students wereJanuary entrants, and experienced their first six months of school ona half-day schedule. The seven new grade one students wereworking on routines that the others had established in the previousyear. She felt, however, that routines changed for all students sincethere were new curriculum expectations and differences in theclassroom environment such as sitting in desks and working inexercise books.The students constituted what Mrs. Douglas called a "very activegroup." At the time of the first interview, she took them outsidetwice a day, because the group became restless if they remainedinside too long. She felt that they were still "getting over thesummer," but added that some of them had never really settleddown from the previous year.^"In that respect," she said, "we areslow in getting concepts across to some of them, so we're stillworking on establishing routines and this is a big part of their day."Mrs. Douglas also described her class as a "fairly challenging group".Although there were no identified gifted or learning disabledstudents, there were some "very needy kids," most of whom weredescribed as "immature." Four received learning assistance andneeded constant reinforcement of routines and rules, and five othershad unusually short attention spans. "It may take several years forthem to learn some of the routines and behaviour expectations," shesaid. This was the second consecutive year she taught some84students; she requested to have them enrolled in her class againbecause what they had learned in the previous year could have apositive effect, particularly for those with special requirements. "Onelittle girl," she said, "has to be constantly monitored and needs to bebrought back on task three or four times during one activity." Aboutone third of the class were ESL (English as a Second Language).Experience had taught her that it was essential, particularly foryoung students, to establish routines early in the year and then tomodify them as the year progressed. She reiterated that since thechildren constituted a very active and immature group, many of theclassroom routines were still being established and reinforced at thetime of the first interview.Management RoutinesMrs. Douglas reported several key management routines. In order togain the group's attention, for instance, she sounded a clappingpattern, which the children repeated, forcing them to stop what theywere doing. For a "more formal" lesson, where the children werecompleting seatwork, she rang a bell to get their focus. Since thechildren were still learning the routine of raising their hands tospeak or answer a question at the time of the first interview, theyneeded frequent reminders to comply.For the daily start up routine, students read silently for ten minutesand then met together for circle and calendar activities. At this timethey usually worked on number concepts related to the date.85When distributing materials to a large group, she used a routinewhereby those behaving as expected (e.g., by sitting quietly andpaying attention) would receive materials first. She did most of thedistribution herself because she felt that it was too early in the yearand the students were still too young to take on the responsibility ofacting as monitors.Upon completion of certain activities and at the end of each day, thechildren followed a routine for leaving the group, including dismissalby colour of clothing, alphabetically by first initial, or sequentially byage. This helped to reinforce skills and prevented rushing throughthe classroom or crowding in the cloakroom. At the time of theinterview, they often needed to be reminded by coming back andstarting again when they forgot to comply.To establish and reinforce management routines, she often modeledcorrect procedures for the class. If students forgot to put away thescissors, for example, she engaged them in a lesson on correct care ofscissors. Once she had demonstrated where to put materials, sheexpected students to comply with the routine.Instructional RoutinesWhen asked to describe her most important instructional routines,Mrs. Douglas gave a variety of examples. Delivering instructions, forinstance, included two routines. First, the entire group to came to thecircle area (a carpeted corner of the classroom), where they were86expected to sit quietly and attend to instructions. Second, whenintroducing something new such as an art project, she demonstratedand then charted each step; in some cases, she used students todemonstrate instructions, in order to involve them and increasemotivation. Oral and visual instructions accommodated differentlearning styles; the time and effort involved was worthwhile, sheclaimed, because the children were just beginning in the schoolsystem and it was important to teach them to how to attend to whatwas being said. Demonstrations were also used to reinforceinstructions because of the ESL students.An assessment routine occurred when students finished writing andillustrating their daily journal entries. After taking them to her forchecking, students received a sticker. In this way, she was able togive immediate feedback on their ideas and provide an audience fortheir writing.^Further, at times during the day when they wereworking independently or in groups, she circulated amongst thestudents to assist them while monitoring their progress.When students finished activities early, they worked at one of thelearning centres, which included the computer. Because the roomhad originally been designed for Kindergarten, it was furnished withappropriate equipment and materials for centres (such as the house,puppet theatre, and water table); with the addition of grade onematerials, there was always a wide variety of independent activitiesavailable. Students understood that limited numbers were allowedat each centre of choice. This minimized problems and allowed them87to get the most benefit from each learning station. Those whomisbehaved were moved from that centre and, in some cases, notallowed to use it for a set amount of time. Because the computerprovided incentive to pursue interesting, independent activities on adaily basis, students quickly learned to demonstrate acceptablebehaviour while using it. (4N)Unanticipated Impacts on Management RoutinesA variety of effects were reported for management routines,including: a) gaining attention; b) managing materials; c) access; andd) transitions.The routine for gaining students' attention by having them repeat aclapping pattern was modified by repeating the clapping pattern.Those using the computer often needed this further reminderbecause they were interested in what they were doing and did notstop and pay attention immediately. (20)The routine for distributing and organizing classroom materials didnot work for managing software. Although some students knew howto handle the disks and turn the computer off, she took personalresponsibility to make sure it was powered down and the disks wereput away each day, because the children were very young: "the lastone turned six today, so they're still pretty little." She expected thatthey would care for the software in the second term, and intended toestablish a routine to accommodate this. Except for one child, allcared for the equipment properly because they didn't want to risk88losing their turn on the computer: "I think it's because they'reinterested and because it's a new centre and they know that they'reonly on it for a certain amount of time." (4N)By the third month, difficulty with the management of materials wasrelated to the complexity of a particular word processing program.She needed to supervise it closely, since it required two separatefloppy disks and students were not yet ready to switch disks on theirown; their immaturity and inexperience could lead to damageddisks. The children only used the word processing program whenshe was available to help them. (She felt that she wouldn't be able touse the program extensively until the student teacher finished herpracticum.) (4N)Computer use also resulted in the creation of new access routines.She allowed access at all times during the day provided that thestudents' other work was done, except during times of whole groupor small group instruction. Some occasionally attempted to bypassthis rule by asking to begin or continue using the computer duringthese times. (20) Extending access before class and during lunchhour also became problematic when some students insisted onconsuming food and drink at the computer when unsupervised, andso she disallowed access during the lunch period. (20)After two months, the computer was still the most popular centre inthe classroom. In September, those who had finished their work firstwere allowed to use the computer. However, this led to a few89students monopolizing it, and so all were required to sign up foraccess. This new routine worked well and the children were gettingbetter about letting each other have their rightful turn: "They just goup and if they've used it that week, then they know that they go to adifferent centre and leave it for someone else to do. If no one else isfree, I let them use it even if they've had a turn that week, because Idon't like to leave the computer sitting there just because a personhas already used it." This was the only centre that needed a sign-uproutine to ensure equitable access. (30) By the third month, Mrs.Douglas adapted the routine so that students could bypass the sign-up list if the next person on the list was not ready.A routine was needed to let students know how long their turnshould be. Each student was to play a single game and then turn thecomputer over to the person who was looking on. Sometimes theperson watching would coach the one playing and, although all of thestudents knew which keys to press to make the games work, some ofthem needed help from their classmates to successfully use softwarethat required number recognition. (20) If no one was waiting, anextra turn could be had after checking with her. (4N)Another access routine limited the number of students at eachcentre, because she felt that if the numbers were too high, studentswouldn't get as much benefit. Although she began by allowing twostudents at the computer (one watched while the other used thekeyboard), one would begin doing something else rather than watch."It's pretty well down to one at a time and they go and do something90else and wait for their turn, and not waste their time." Thosewatching became bored because they were familiar with most of theprograms. The grade one students had begun experimenting withthe writing program and they weren't interested in watching eachother write. The routine had evolved to work more efficiently. (4N)During the fifth interview, she expressed surprise that, once accessroutines were in place, no one fought over whose turn it was next.Students had become generally responsible in their use of thecomputer and respected the equipment. Except for the sign-up list,the routines for access had become essentially the same as those forany other centre. (5D)The routine for accommodating movement worked well with thecomputer. When children were summoned for circle (discussion orstory) time, for example, she gave them five minutes advance noticeso that they could finish what they were doing and clean up. Theywere not allowed to start new activities during this transition time.This worked well for ending a student's turn by affording themenough time to complete their game and shut down. (5D)Unanticipated Impacts on Instructional Routines Impacts on instructional routines fell into four categories, including:a) reinforcing routines; b) giving instructions; c) questioning; and d)evaluation.91Occasionally students became negligent in following computerroutines. When reinforcement of these routines was necessary, itwas done with individual students rather than reteaching the wholeclass. (4N)When introducing a more complex word processing program, sheadapted her routine for giving instructions and worked withindividual students instead of several at once, while the studentteacher took the rest of the class. Concerned about distracting others,however, she then decided to model the use of new programs infront of small groups in the computer lab, so that they would be ableto try the programs immediately after instruction. She felt that sheneeded to wait until the student teacher was finished her practicumbefore attempting this. (30)The routine for having children raise their hands to answer questionshad been unaffected by the computer, since she did not allowstudents to use it while she was questioning the whole group. Theyonly accessed the computer during centre time or when they finishedtheir work early. (5D)Mrs. Douglas had a variety of routines for evaluating students,including observations, interviews, marking products, and testing.With the computer, though, she kept these informal because studentswere not as far along in their learning as expected; they were still ata beginning level. When they would begin using the computer in amore integrated way (for completing writing assignments, for92example), she intended to utilize more formalized routines to assessprogress. In the meanwhile, she observed them to find which oneswere able to handle the programs and were ready to move on to newones. Also, by reviewing the sign-up sheet, she had a record ofprecisely which programs the students used. From this record shecould determine which programs they preferred and in which onesthey had gained expertise: "I'll also go through (the lists) and seewhich ones are having success with the programs and I'll know thatthey are ready to move on to harder ones. The children know thatthey'll get to the point to where they know that they've done thisdisk and they're ready for that one." Once they would start aprogram that was capable of printing out their stories, they wouldthen become even more accountable because she would have hardcopies of the writing. These could be used to share with otherstudents in the class and with parents during conferences. (5D) Shedidn't comment on the students' computer use on the first termreport cards, but intended to do so in the second term, once all wereusing it for writing. This delay was partially because of the studentteacher: "I was waiting until I had control of the class, really.Because my student teacher wrote part of the report cards, there justwasn't a computer comment this time." (5D)Many of these minimal impacts on management and instructionalroutines were unanticipated. Some existing routines had to bemodified and new ones added. This made implementation slowerthan expected and she felt frustrated that she was not using thecomputer for writing as originally planned. Because her purposes93were more complex than those of Mrs. Freer or Mrs. Arthur, it hadindeed been a Trojan Horse that, to some extent, impededimplementation.Unanticipated Impacts on Instructional Purposes Mrs. Douglas detailed changes on her instructional purposes for thecomputer related to: a) accountability; b) word processing; c) studentcooperation; and d) development of skills.In September her purpose was to let students freely explore thesoftware. As they began to use the computer, however, she felt aneed to make students more accountable, so that she could keepbetter track of their progress and so they would take moreresponsibility for their work. This could be done once they startedusing the computer for writing, providing her with a hard copy to beedited and evaluated, thus making students more answerable fortheir efforts. (4N)Although she believed they were not quite ready to start wordprocessing, Mrs. Douglas began planning for journal and storywriting. Spelling and letter recognition skills were still low, exceptfor two or three children. These more capable students would firsttry writing and spelling on the computer, while the others continuedworking on letter recognition games in order to increase theirreading skills. Once she became more familiar with the wordprocessing program, she intended to set up an instructional routineto introduce it to the whole class. (5D)94She planned to have them write on the classroom computer and thenprint in the lab. (She would first have to learn how to use the schoolprinters herself.) It would be motivating for students to see theirwork in typed print, particularly for those who were not yet able toprint neatly and efficiently. In the second month, she anticipatedthat it would take time and organization to accomplish this goal, butfelt that the student teacher would provide the time she needed. (30)When she began teaching the children to use a simple graphics andword processing program, she encountered unexpected problemswith the start-up disk and couldn't get it to work satisfactorily; notall of the features of the program were working. "I will continue touse it," she said, "once I figure out how it works. I just put it out forone day and the children went as far as they could go on it and I putit away so that they wouldn't become frustrated like I was.... I don'tknow whether it's a faulty disk or whether it's the computer, orwhether it's just that I'm using the software incorrectly." (20) Latershe reported still having problems: "I am still having troublelearning how to use the program...Even though I have been shownhow to get in to it, I haven't been able to do it on my own." Theproblem turned out to be a faulty disk, and this affected the timingof her instructional purposes. (30)By the fourth month she had still not begun to tutor individualstudents in word processing as planned, because she felt it would bea distraction while the student teacher was in charge. The dynamics95of the class also changed because a new student had arrived and onehad left, giving the student teacher further problems with planningand management. "It's enough for her to do the lesson plans and toteach the lessons because she is progressively teaching a largerpercentage of the day, and to ask her to do the computer on top ofthis is really asking too much at this point. So it's going to be slowerimplementing the program." To give students individual time on thecomputer, she planned to take them out of the class: "I just felt thatthat was too much distraction in the class, so I will probably have totake them out of the class and do it in the computer room becauseshe [the student teacher] is still working on her management and anydistraction in the class can make things more difficult." (5D)To enhance student cooperation, she intended to pair a younger orless able student with an older or more able one to help with theword processing once they began writing, saving and printing. Somecould also do their individual stories while other, younger studentsworked together in pairs on a single story. Because this may becomplex to attempt, she decided to "wait until they really know theprogram and know what they're doing." She would see how thisunfolded once they actually began using the computer for writing,but decided not to initiate student pairs until they moved into thelab and began working on their stories. She also hoped toestablished a routine whereby grade seven students would helpthem save print their stories in the lab. (4N)96Mrs. Douglas planned to take a few of the less capable students andwork with them on the computer in order to help them increase theirbasic number and vocabulary skills while the student teacher wasinstructing the rest of the group. (She explained that she would haveto increase her own skill with the programs before trying this.) Sheattempted to align the computer programs to the materials theywere covering in class so that there was a "natural fit," although thiswas not always possible due to the lack of appropriate software.(20)Many impacts on instructional purposes were positive. Thecomputer, for instance, provided students with an additional avenueto build basic skills in reading and mathematics; the drill andpractice programs and games were useful in motivating them toincrease their competency, particularly in math. Students alsogained on-going experience with manipulation and exploration ofhardware and software. (5D) Although only a few began to writestories, those older grade one students who did seemed to be highlymotivated, and she intended to continue until all of the students haddone so. (4N) By the end of the interviews, all were writingjournals, as originally intended, although there occasionally wereminor problems with some of the disks, as they seemed to beworking improperly. Once she had full charge after the studentteacher completed the practicum, she was able to do more in herclass and the lab. She took the students to the lab in order to use theword processor and print their stories and journals, while using theclassroom computer to supplement this process. (5D)97Seeking AssistanceMrs. Douglas sought assistance from two sources: a) the computerhelping teacher; and b) another classroom teacher.She usually requested help from the computer helping teacher, whohad set up the computer and software in her room; this kind of helprelated to solving hardware and software problems and to selectingappropriate software. By the second month, she requested help fromanother classroom teacher of the same grade who had previouslyimplemented a classroom computer at another school. This colleaguegave ideas on how to integrate the computer more effectively. Mostof the time, however, Mrs. Douglas said she depended on her ownresourcefulness to help her through difficulties. By trying softwareherself, for example, she was able to judge its appropriateness forstudents and how to best work towards her purposes.Interpretive SummaryAs an experimental computer user, Mrs. Douglas was enthusiasticabout implementation and attempted to use it in a variety of morecomplex ways. Instructional purposes were more precise than thoseof Mrs. Freer and Mrs. Arthur, although she was not able to achievesome of them in the time allotted; it was not until January that wordprocessing was done on a regular basis with the whole class. Twofactors negatively influenced the implementation. First, the presenceof a student teacher who had difficulty managing the high energyand low maturity of the students took some of the focus away from98implementation. Second, there was some difficulty in getting thesoftware and hardware working because of faulty disks andequipment. However, her purposes were better articulated to startwith and she was motivated to adapt them as things progressed.Since she was committed to the innovation, her threshold for changewas higher and unanticipated impacts did not discourage her. TheTrojan Horse, however, did slow the implementation as unanticipatedimpacts were brought on by both the computer and by the studentteacher. She adapted her purposes as she became more aware of thecomputer's potential as a learning tool.MRS. EVANS The case of Mrs. Evans was unique because, compared to the otherthree teachers, her experience at integrating the computer into dailyclassroom life was considerable. Although this was her first year inthe study school, computers had been used extensively in previousyears, and she had implemented a classroom computer for one yearat her preceding school. Her case contrasts to the others because theimplementation proceeded successfully, even though complexpurposes were attempted and unanticipated impacts wereencountered. Interviews were scheduled as follows:1. September 18 (1S)2. October 4 (20)3. October 16 (30)4. November 8 (4N)5. December 17 (5D)99B ackground Mrs. Evans has taught for seventeen years, mostly at the primarylevel. She began her career in Winnipeg, teaching grades four, fiveand six language classes for one year before transferring to primary.She taught primary for two more years in Winnipeg and then movedto the study district where she has continued in the primary gradesever since. Grade levels taught include Kindergarten, one, two andthree.^She worked at three other schools in the district beforeattaining her current position at the study school, where she teachesa 1/2 combined class.Mrs. Evans' class consisted of thirteen boys and ten girls. Three ofthe girls and eight of the boys were in grade two and seven of thegirls and five of the boys in grade one. Two of the grade two boyswere identified Learning Disabled and five students were ESL(English as a Second Language). Although this particular combinationconstituted a challenging group whose needs were varied, shedescribed them as "very pleasant to work with - both easy-going andcooperative."She described her teaching style as "laid back" and that she was oneto "go with the flow." She had not always been this way, butexperience taught her that in order to do her job well, she wouldhave to develop a "relaxed attitude." With the increasing amount ofchange in the educational environment, she felt it was critical to beable to adapt to change. Along with this ability to relax, she was able100to adjust to large scale changes more easily and had begun to seekout opportunities for innovation.Computer ExperienceAt her previous school, the enthusiasm of the computer helpingteacher motivated her to understand the potential benefits ofcomputer use. On her request, he helped her learn how to use thehardware and software to enhance her instructional program overtwo years. In the year previous to transferring to the study school,she was given a computer for her classroom, which she used ascentre to reinforce math and language skills, to explore a variety ofsimulation software to improve student thinking and, for journal andstory writing.Besides the classroom computer, she also made use of the computerlab for word processing by having students write and publish"books." Dealing with primary students in the lab was difficultbecause of problems they had with the hardware and software. Inresponse, she adapted her management and instructional routinesand requested assistance from parent helpers, thereby improving thesuccess of implementation.Instructional PurposesAn Apple He with a single disk drive and a colour monitor was usedfull time with her students during the 1991/1992 school year.Because she had implemented a classroom computer previously, shewas clear about instructional purposes and how she might attain101them. At the first interview, she planned to use it in four ways: toteach independence and familiarity with the computer, to use a wordprocessing and graphics program, to reinforce arithmetic andlanguage skills, and as "a tool to support thinking and reading."To enable children to become more familiar with the computer, sheintended to provide them with a variety of software to explore freelyfor the first part of the term. This would then allow her to planfurther activities based on their demonstrated interest. All childrencould have equal access to the computer if grouped according to thedays of the week, so that each day about five students had theirturn. In previous years she found that this method increasedstudent independence - they quickly learned that if they didn't takeresponsibility for their turn on their given day, they would have towait until the following week, unless there was a time when no oneelse was using the machine.To reinforce skills, she planned to concentrate initially on math andreading, and named several MECC Software titles that would helpaccomplish this, including: Phonics Prime Time, Contraction Action,Word Muncher, Compound It for Language, Addition Logician, PathTactics, and Circus Math. She intended to continue her past practiceof selecting software to enhance instruction; programs would berelated to those concepts introduced or reviewed in class.For word processing and graphics, she planned to employ theprogram Explore-a-Story as in previous years. Students would be102motivated, she said, to write more frequently and with better qualityas they saw their work published. The program would also helpthem become familiar with manipulating text and graphics on thescreen and increase their confidence with the computer, whileenabling them to see its potential for desk-top publishing. Sheintended to begin by training them to load the program, becomefamiliar with the commands. Learning to add text wouldaccommodate their emergent writing. Next, they would learn how tosave their work on data disks so that they could print them out inthe lab. She planned to pair emergent readers and writers with"buddies" who already knew their numbers and letters, as she hadtried this before and found it to be a successful method of motivatingbeginning writers.As the computer lab would allow students more access time tobecome familiar and independent with the equipment, she intendedto use it in conjunction with the classroom computer. Five studentswould be trained as peer tutors for their classmates, and parenthelpers would be incorporated to help children save and print theirstories and pictures.To help assess the achievement of her purposes, a record of student'sprintouts would be kept in their folders, allowing her to encouragethose who were behind and ensure they got their turn. In the pastshe noticed that, while some students wrote prolifically, otherscontinually started passages without saving them. If their files were103kept current, students were not likely to find themselves at the endof a term with little or nothing printed out.Management RoutinesWhen asked to describe management routines key to the functioningof her class, she identified a) start up; b) seeking assistance; c) callingattention; and d) managing materials as important.To start up each day, students were expected to read independently,or with a buddy or with her. Once the morning attendance wastaken, she called them together on the carpet to go over the calendar,discuss news stories, and then write in their journals before going tothe centres. Free writing in journals was encouraged, although sheprovided suggestions on a regular basis for those children whoneeded them.When students needed to seek assistance with a particular problem,they checked with two other classmates before coming to her. Thishelped them become more independent, while seeing the value ofpeer resources.To call the class to attention, she said "Freeze" and expected them, nomatter what they were doing, to stop and listen. Sometimes sheclapped a pattern, which the children repeated, to focus them onsubsequent directions.104Routines for managing materials were established early in the year.She overtly taught where to put materials and how to look afterthem; to aid this process, she labelled places for putting things away.If a student did not care for materials properly, she asked a peer tomodel the correct procedures; if someone abused the materials, theylost their privilege for a short time.Instructional RoutinesIn describing her instructional routines, Mrs. Evans included: a)questioning; b) monitoring; c) giving instructions; d) assessment andevaluation; e) expectations for behaviour; and f) finishing early.When questioning students, Mrs. Evans used a ten second wait timeto allow them to think about an answer. If anyone had troubleanswering, she allowed that student to discuss the question with aneighbour and came back to him/her after other students sharedtheir thinking.To monitor seat work, Mrs. Evans circulated in order to answerquestions, offer assistance, and reinforce behaviour expectations.While students were completing their journals, for instance, shehelped them with vocabulary and spelling on request.After giving instructions she made a game of having students repeatin their own words or model the instructions in order to make surethey understood what was expected. Sometimes she placed theinstructions on the board or a chart. A child who had difficulty105focusing would be separated in order to lessen distractions forhim/her and those close by. Younger students had older "buddies" tohelp with repeating directions.To aid in assessment and evaluation, she recorded observations andon-going anecdotal comments on index cards, kept file folderportfolios for samples of each child's work, and dated the journalseach day to monitor progress. Her intent was to build a range ofevidences which demonstrated to parents what the children werecapable of doing.Expectations for behaviour were set through student input (groupbrainstorming and discussion) and were defined in positive terms.(i.e. "Walk for safety" rather than "Do not run.")Students who finished assigned activities early were free to go to theclass centres, unless there was a quiet activity going on. In this casethey read or did other quiet activities provided for them.In all, she described a dynamic classroom, where routines were usedto help cut down the amount of time spent on teaching repetitivetasks so that more time could be given to a flexible, child-centredprogram of instruction. The structure imposed through thisframework of routines was intended to allow students to gainindependence by making clear choices while working within specificlimits.106Unanticipated Impacts on Management RoutinesAlthough impacts were minimal because of previous experience shereported some effects on management routines, including a) access;b) managing materials; c) seeking assistance; and d) calling attention.In the second interview, she stated that students were eager toaccess the computer and that they were enthusiastic about thesoftware. To organize access more equitably, she established severalroutines. For example, during whole group instruction, they weren'tallowed to go to the computer on their own, but when they finishedtheir other work, they were free to use it; a sign-up sheet allowedthem to check their names each time they had a turn. Although theroutine was clear, students sometimes forgot, and so she checked thelist whenever a new student began to see whether he/she had signedthe list. Because she wanted students to explore the software freely,she did not yet wish to formalize software access. (20)By the third interview, she adapted the routine so that studentsworked in groups of two's and three's. Although she originallyintended to pre-arrange student pairs, she found that they finishedtheir work at different times, and that a few weren't interested inusing the computer at all. As this created a variety of accessdifficulties, she decided to allow students to pick their own partnerswhen they were ready. This adaptation had not presented anyproblems to date. (30)107By the fourth interview, she noticed that the computer was unusedfor portions of the day: "I would still like to see it used morefrequently. There are a lot of times during the day when thecomputer is not being used." She decided to adapt her accessroutines so that fewer students could use the computer for a longertime each day: "What I'd like to do now is look at setting up a timeeach day where a couple of kids can go and work on the computerand the next day a couple more kids would use it all day. Then Icould try and track them while they get more familiar with what todo next. That way they'll come to me less often with, 'What do I donow?' questions." This helped her adapt computer use to individualneeds. (4N)During "buddy reading time" at the start of each morning andafternoon, students were not allowed to use the computer, althoughsome of them occasionally tried to circumvent this routine. Oncethey had finished reading, however, groups of two or three often setthemselves up independently at the computer. (5D)By the third month, the students were getting better at managingmaterials. They were usually good about clean up and software careroutines. She found, however, on returning from a two-day absence,that routines were ignored under the substitute teacher. Disks werescattered about the room and the computer had not been properlycared for. Further reinforcement of the routines was necessary sothat the children would carry them through when she was not there.108Apart from that single instance, management of computer materialsdid not pose a problem. (4N)When children needed help while she was busy, they could seekassistance from another member of their group. Failing this, theyasked one of the two classroom "computer experts" that she hadtrained specifically for this purpose. If they were still unable tosolve their problem, they asked her for help, although she said thatthe children had gained independence and this did not occur veryoften.In order to gain students' attention, and they were asked to stopwhat they were doing and focus on her; "I just say 'Freeze' andeverybody stops, looks, and listens, no matter what they are doing."The children on the computer complied as well: "That's because Ireinforce it. If I have someone who doesn't stop, I say "Remember,"or I reinforce it be saying, 'Boy! Those people were really fast tostop, look, and listen,' and I find that just pulls the whole grouptogether." Frequent use of positive reinforcement helped hermotivate the children to cooperate enthusiastically. (5D)To hold student attention, she described a simple modification thatwas significant. She had initially set the computer up so that it wasfairly central, but as a result most children could see what washappening on the screen, even when it wasn't their turn. Shedecided to change its location so that it would not distract them: "Ithink you have to situate the computer so its not a distraction, so I109found if I just turned it and then gave the kids the security ofknowing they would get to it, then it was okay and they could attendto whatever they where doing. But I think for some teachers, thatcan be a drawback of the computer and they may think that whilethey're doing this or that the computer should be definitely out ofbounds, because it's too distracting of a force." (30)Unanticipated Impacts on Instructional Routines Mrs. Evans also described impacts on her instructional routines,including: a) tutoring; b) accessing software; c) student cooperation;d) questioning; e) giving instructions; and f) evaluation.During the third interview she reported an impact on her routine fortutoring individual students that was frustrating her. More complexsoftware would require more teaching time on her part: "I'm notquite sure yet how I'm going to schedule the time in the day so that Ican help with the computer, and still have the others constructivelyoccupied as well." She planned to take the last period of each dayand allow them to work on the computer while she was available tohelp instruct and encourage individuals. She also enlisted a parent tohelp the students with software problems and other computerrelated inquiries. (30)Although the implementation went smoothly, Mrs. Evans wanted tomaximize the benefits for all students. "When we do journals in themorning, I'm helping them and listening to them read; they finish atdifferent rates, [and then] go off and choose an activity. But because110I'm still helping the slower ones, I'm not available to help kids on thecomputer, so they pretty well have to be independent with it. Doinggames works well; they are self-directed and the kids can helpthemselves. But what I'm trying to think of is 'What can I haveeveryone working on so that I can be there to help if they need it.That's one thing that I find very difficult to address - the diversity,the range. It's very hard to be there for both ends of the spectrum."She found that by using a parent helper and enlisting the help of thelibrarian she was able to better meet this diversity. (30)She also planned to set up a time in the afternoon when somestudents would be allowed to complete their writing assignments onthe computer while the rest were working on the same assignmentwith pen and paper, but she suspected that it would take some timebefore she and the students were ready for this: "If you're going tobe using the computer with the young ones, you have to be availableto help them if they need it. You can't be working with a smallgroup, you have to be working with the whole class, so that you canmove over to the computer if necessary. It's that juggling act ofwhole group, small group, and individual instruction that makes itdifficult."^The age and social maturity of the students affected theway she approached tutoring: "If we do a writing and drawingactivity in the afternoon, then a couple of kids can be using thecomputer for the same purpose and I can circulate and help themwhen they need it. I can't be doing a math lesson and have theminterrupt me to get help. With some of the older ones, if they getstuck, they will persevere - they will try to fix things. But with some111of the younger ones, they want me right away and it makes itdifficult." A few of the younger students needed a lot of guidance atthe computer and "tended to panic" if they weren't sure what to donext. (4N)Once she began using the word processing software, she needed tointervene more because the program was more complicated to useand because there were "such a lot of steps for pre-readers." She didsome direct teaching to demonstrate how the program works, andhad the whole group at the computers in the school lab so that theycould all see at once. After whole group instruction at the beginningstages, however, she felt it was best to move back to individualizedtutoring so the students could progress at their own pace. (30)Accessing software was also impacted. The software was kept at thecomputer so that students could choose any title they wanted. Shefelt comfortable enough with the computer to allow her students tofreely explore the software. She wanted them to be self- directed intheir learning and found that some of the software extended thisopportunity to them. When a student discovered something new,he/she often showed it to others in the class. Before long, she said,the whole class would have an understanding as well. Because ofthis potential, they were encouraged to work together and share theknowledge they gained. (4N)Although her intention was to allow them to make as many choicesas possible, she did not do this in a random way, but kept careful112track of what they were doing in order to find opportunities to guidetheir learning. Many of them, she said, recognized the programsfrom the year before and knew which ones they wanted to use. Bythe fourth interview, the students were comfortable with choosingand loading their own software: "Right now I don't interfere in theclassroom when they choose (software). If they get part way into aprogram and decide they don't like it, they can choose another one,that's okay. But in the lab I am encouraging them to get to know theword processing software." (4N) "They tend to choose the games onthe computer in the classroom because they know we don't have aprinter on that machine. They tend to use the math games, thematching games, and phonics and so on, but then they like to use the"Best Bubble Blower" (Explore-a-Story) disks because they know howto go and print out in the lab. They realize they can't print out in theclassroom so they go for the games on the classroom computer." (5D)Mrs. Evans also reported impacts on her routines for studentcooperation. She used a buddy system so that less mature studentswould have the advantage of working with older, more capablestudents and decided to try this with the computer. She thought itwould work well to demonstrate new concepts on the computer to allof the students at once and then let the whole group practice whatthey had seen. She felt that they would need a lot of guidance,particularly at the beginning, when the youngest students were firstlearning a new program. (30) As the term passed, she continued tolet them choose their own partners on the classroom computer, andfound that it worked well, although some problems arose once they113started word processing: "I do notice that the child who is moreproficient with recognizing the letters tends to dominate. SometimesI get concerned that some children aren't getting their turn atwriting." She felt that she would have to continue to monitor this tomake sure all students got equitable access. (4N)Techniques for questioning the group were very minimally impacted.The reason was that she did not question the class while somestudents were at the computer, since they needed to be workingindependently, and would not be so engaged during whole groupinstruction. (5D) On the other hand, when questioning small groupsduring independent study, she found that the computer sometimesdistracted them from paying attention, and so she needed to repeatthe question.Having students retell instructions in their own words worked wellfor the computer, although it was easier for older students. Shewould also model step by step when introducing a new concept andthen have the children repeat the steps. "When introducing a newprogram on the computer, I'll only pull up a group of eight to tenchildren, no more than that, so that they can all see the monitor."She felt it was important to check with them to make sure that somechildren understood the instructions well, so that they would, in turn,be able to help other students. (5D) She found that, when givinginstructions, it helped to use analogies that encouraged students tomake real-world connections to whatever they were doing. Forinstance, she used a simple metaphor to remind them how to handle114the disk drive, "We called the disk drive the garage and I told themnot to forget to shut the garage door - that made perfect sense tothem and they rarely forgot."Mrs. Evans reported that her general evaluation routines workedwell when the computer was concerned, - she kept anecdotalcomments, samples of their work, and interviewed students tounderstand what they were able to do. Comments were placed onindex cards for future reference and possible inclusion on a reportcard; "if someone is really interested in the computer, and some aredefinitely more interested than others, I make comments about thaton a recipe card." She also had some specific computer-relatedevaluation routines, as for example: "I keep a checklist of who'swritten a story and who's printed a story, so I'll know if I've gotsome that have printed several stories, or some that have onlyprinted one, or even if they haven't printed anything yet." (5D)To support evaluation routines and help monitor progress, shecontinued to date student journals on a regular basis. Although shehad not specifically assigned them to write about their experienceswith the computer, some children had voluntarily written about theirenjoyment of the computer in their journals. (5D)She continued to keep portfolios of student work although childrenliked to take their stories home. For the older students she kept anotebook for evaluative comments before the stories went home, asfor example; "Carlos printed out a story with completely invented1 1 5spelling, but he could read it back for me; he remembered it from theweek before. He called it up and worked on it and printed it out - soI just took a look at the printout and recorded a comment aboutwhere he is with his spelling. If he was writing in his journal, Iwould get him to use a dictionary, but on the computer I just wantthem to write." (5D)Unanticipated Impacts on Instructional PurposesBecause she was precise about her goals, there were no unanticipatedimpacts to Mrs. Evans' instructional purposes. As a result, thesepurposes did not change during the implementation.By the second interview, she was using drill and practice softwarealong with the math and language games as originally intended fordevelopment of skills. She intended to move to word processingbefore the next interview and did so the following week. Thecomputer lab was used in combination with the class computer forthis purpose. (She continued using the class computer as anextension of what the students did in the lab, while having aselection of math and language games, because she felt that some ofthe beginning readers would be more comfortable using programsother than those used for word processing.) (20) She attributedsuccess using the computer lab to three factors: First, previousexperience with young children in a computer lab helped heranticipate potential problems. Second, because many of the studentshad used the lab in the previous year, they remembered what to do.Third, the classroom computer had a positive effect: "they've had the116computer in the classroom for six weeks, and so they've had a chanceto get familiar with it." (30)Reliability in the lab, however, was an ongoing problem. Thecomputers could not be counted on to work consistently. "A goal forJanuary is to have all of the students working on the computers inthe lab at one time, provided all of the computers are working. Nowthat's your unknown factor; you can have eight working in themorning and only six by one o'clock." (4N)Mrs. Evans felt that she had successfully integrated the computerinto her daily classroom environment. By the fourth interview moststudents were familiar with much of the available software. "When Ifirst started using the computer, I would not have been comfortablehaving it in the room. I must say, when the computer first came in,my first reaction was, 'I'll leave that for the older students.' So Ithink that anyone who has not had a computer in their room mightbe reluctant or uncomfortable with it or find it a disruption. Theyare afraid that the kids will become very attracted to it while you'retrying to ...focus on a task, - that they will keep running over to thecomputer to watch." Because of her well established access routines,however, she found this did not occur in her classroom. (30) Havinga computer in the class posed few problems for her, mainly becauseof her past experience with integrating computers and because of herstudents' previous experience with many of the programs. "They'requite independent with using the computer and it's not a problem atall, it fits right in really well." (40)117Seeking AssistanceWhen she encountered problems with the computer, she dependedmainly on her past experience and sometimes on the computerhelping teacher. She also learned from the students, as often theyfound "little tricks" to solve their software problems by trial anderror and through sheer persistence. Other teachers came to her foradvice, not, she said, because she had new ideas, but because she hadlearned a lot of practical coping strategies through experience. (4N)Interpretive Summary Compared to the other teachers, Mrs. Evans had the most complexpurposes for computer use, and displayed a more sophisticated levelof use. Two main factors that influenced implementation were herprevious experience and her access routines. Because she had acomputer in her classroom in the year previous to transferring to thestudy school, along with several years of experience with usingcomputers with young children, few problems arose over the courseof implementation: "These things are no longer unanticipated simplybecause they are things I have learned through experience andobservation." Although minor unanticipated impacts occurred, theywere not seen as obstacles, but merely variations to be dealt with asthey arose. Her commitment to the implementation, along with herproactive planning style made the potential effects of the TrojanHorse much less significant.118Students were given frequent access to computers, and made it a"normal part of their lives." (4N) They were free to choose theirpartners and to explore the software, while more formalizedinstruction was saved for the lab. Her role included both directinstruction, guiding groups and encouraging individuals.DiscussionBecause teachers were asked to describe those routines that werecritical to the successful functioning of the class, not all routines werereported. All said that routines were essential to the successfulfunctioning of the class, and that they established management andinstructional routines through direct instruction, modelling, andreinforcement.Most management routines were relatively simple and occurredsimilarly in the various classrooms. All four interviewees, forinstance, reported clear routines around calling the children toattention, and for start up at the beginning of each day to introduceactivities, share news and reinforce calendar concepts. Three of theteachers described routines to simplify the ongoing task of managingmaterials needed for "hands on" learning, whereas two highlightedclean up routines related to managing materials and giving studentsresponsibility for maintaining a clean environment in the class.Instructional routines were usually more complex and, as such, weredescribed and interpreted differently by each of the interviewees.Some commonalties, however, can be specified. All four teachers, for119instance, felt responsible for establishing and maintaining practicalevaluation and assessment methods for student progress. Threereported routines around students finishing early; because of thevariety of open-ended activities in these classrooms, it was expectedthat students would finish at different times and would have tomake independent choices about what to do next. Two teachersreported routines for giving instructions; students were at thebeginning of their schooling, and needed help to understand and actupon directions.Although each of the teachers approached the implementation intheir own way, there were four distinct levels of computer use. Mrs.Freer held very general and vague purposes, set the computer up asan independent centre, and depended on the students to learn howto use the software themselves. Mrs. Arthur had slightly morecomplex purposes, but also did little more than use it as one ofseveral independent centres in the room. With more complexpurposes in mind, Mrs. Douglas was unable to achieve them becauseshe sponsored a student teacher during the start up of theimplementation. Mrs. Evans had prior experience with a classroomcomputer and used it in a more sophisticated, integrated way in herclassroom.Because there were four distinct levels of use, unanticipated impactswere dealt with in different ways. Mrs. Freer and Mrs. Arthurtended to ignore the implications or problems created by the TrojanHorse, and little implementation occurred. In the case of Mrs.120Douglas, one implication at a time was dealt with, therefore makingthe implementation run much longer than anticipated. Mrs. Evansanticipated implications, and her experience counteracted thepotential effect of these impacts.This chapter provided a depiction of each of the teachers in thestudy, their computer experience and classroom context and theimpacts of computer use on classroom routines and instructionalpurposes. The next chapter provides an analysis of commonaltiesacross the cases, and further explanation of the levels of use andtheir impact on the implementation.121CHAPTER FIVECOMMONALTIES ACROSS THE CASES This chapter has two main purposes. First, it answers the researchquestion - In an elementary school where one computer perclassroom is being implemented, what are teachers' perceptions ofthe nature and range of impacts on routines and instructionalpurposes? - from the perspective of similarities across the four casespresented in Chapter Four. Second, it relates these impacts to fourlevels of computer use evident among the four teachers involved inthe study.Nature and Range of Unanticipated Impacts The teachers had little prior experience discussing classroomroutines, and so had some initial difficulty explaining how these wereshaped by computer use. Over the course of four months, however,they gained experience in discussing unanticipated impacts in bothpositive and negative terms. Table 1 (following page) is included toillustrate the range of impacts of computer use as well as theirfrequency. It is not intended, however, to summarize their intensity.In some instances the relationship is reciprocal - that is, computeruse affects classroom routines, and these in turn have a significanteffect on implementation.122TABLE 1 - UNANTICIPATED IMPACTS ON ROUTINES ANDINSTRUCTIONAL PURPOSESImpacts^on^Management^RoutinesFreer Arthur Douglas EvansTotalAccess X^X X X 4Calling X X X 3AttentionManagementof^MaterialsX X X 3Seeking X^X X 3AssistanceStart^up X 1Movement X X 2Totals 4^4 4 4 16Impacts^on^Instructional^RoutinesEvaluation^X^X X X 4Student X X 2CooperationGiving X X 2InstructionsFinishing X X 2EarlyIntegrated X 1ThemesReinforcing X X 2RoutinesTutoring X 1Accessing X 1SoftwareQuestioning X 1Totals 2^3 3 8 16123124Impacts^on^Instructional^PurposesFreer ArthurTotalDouglas EvansDevelopmentof^SkillsX X X X 4Motivation X X 2Word X X 2ProcessingCurricular X X 2IntegrationLiteracy X 1Managing X X 2Student^NeedsAccountability X 1Student X 1CooperationTotals 3 4 4 4 15TotalImpactsReported^9^11^11^16Unanticipated Impacts on Management Routines Although the need for access routines did not exist before theaddition of the computer, the process of establishing them wassignificant to the success of implementation. Access included dailytimes when children were allowed to use the computer, and the wayin which they were expected to take their turns. Each teacher foundit necessary to design and then refine routines that permitted thegroup to access a single computer. Mrs. Douglas, for instance, wassurprised that by the second month, no one had fought over lengthor frequency of turns, and that students were generally responsiblein their use of the computer. This was because she organized thecomputer as a centre, and students were well acquainted with theaccess routines for the other classroom centres; there was a limit onhow many were allowed to use each centre, and a routine was inplace for taking turns and cleaning up. Later, however, she foundthat competition increased as students' interest in the computerincreased, and she was forced to formalize a more structured methodof taking turns.On the advice of Mrs. Evans, who had previous experience withclassroom computers, the other three teachers divided their classesinto five groups, one for each day of the week. Each group wasallowed access on their day before school, during recess, lunch, andwhen they finished their other work. This increased access time andeased competition, allowing the children to make better use of thecomputer. However, Mrs. Evans was still concerned with this routinebecause the centre remained unused for portions of the day.Three teachers described impacts on their routines for callingstudents to attention. They found it difficult to get the attention ofstudents working on the computer because it demanded their focus.Silently raising a hand and waiting for them to do the same, forinstance, didn't work well, because they were absorbed in what theywere doing and easily missed the signal.125Three interviewees also described impacts on their routines formanaging material, especially to organize, store, and distribute thesoftware. Two felt that, although their students participated inroutines to manage other classroom materials, they were either tooyoung or inexperienced to handle and maintain the software.Therefore, these teachers looked after the management of hardwareand software themselves.Routines for having students seek assistance when they encounteredproblems were impacted for three teachers. Although some impactswere negative, two of the teachers reported that their routinesworked well where the computer was concerned. This was anothercase where there was a reciprocity between impacts on routines andcomputer implementation. Mrs. Arthur, for example, had a routinewhere one competent student in each of the learning groups helpedthe others; this provided a way to solve problems when she wasunavailable. Mrs. Evans had a similar routine, although she also hadtwo designated computer experts whom students could call upon iftheir group leader was not able to help. This eased the pressure onthe teachers having to solve every computer problem as it arose,giving them freedom to attend to other children.Two teachers reported impacts on routines for controlling movementaround the classroom and in one case there was a reciprocal effect.Giving the children a five minute warning before moving on to thenext activity worked well for those using the computer; they had126enough time to finish what they were doing and get ready for thesubsequent activity. Because students were previously acquaintedwith this routine it had a beneficial effect on computer use.As well as impacts on management routines that were common totwo or more teachers, one was unique. Mrs. Arthur reported that thestudents using the computer first thing in the morning weresometimes so interested in what they were doing that they wouldnot comply with the start up routine. Once she adapted the routineso that each group had an incentive to be ready, she never had tospeak to the persons at the computer, because others wouldencourage them to get ready on time.Unanticipated Impacts on Instructional Routines All interviewees felt the computer had a significant impact onevaluation routines. Mrs. Arthur's usual kinds of evaluation,primarily focussed on printing and writing skills, were not wellsuited for the computer.^Like the other teachers, her methods ofassessing computer use were informal and she did not comment onthe first report card, whereas Mrs. Douglas intended to develop moreformalized routines to assess student progress in the second term.Two teachers reported negative impacts on their routines for studentcooperation.^Mrs. Evans, for example, initially let her studentschoose their own partners, but found that those who were moreproficient with letters and numbers tended to dominate when wordprocessing and she had to intervene by structuring routines that127ensured equitable access. All said, however, that the computeractually helped to motivate students to work cooperatively and solveproblems together.Two teachers reported impacts on routines for giving instructions.Some of Mrs. Evans' students found it difficult to follow instructionswhen using the computer, because the complexity of some of theprograms necessitated involved sets of instructions. Youngerstudents had trouble comprehending such instructions and so newroutines were needed to simplify the process.Two teachers mentioned impacts on routines for finishing early. Mrs.Freer said that the computer was a popular centre and motivatedsome students to finish other work early, while Mrs. Evans said thatshe needed to adapt her routine so that early finishers would notmonopolized the equipment.Because the computer worked well with her usual methods ofreinforcing routines for non-compliant students, Mrs. Douglas used itto good advantage. Mrs. Evans reported having to use specificroutines to reinforce correct behaviour while using the computer.There were also some unique impacts on instructional routines. Mrs.Arthur reported that her organization of integrated themes had anadverse effect on computer use since the computer was not seen tofit the themes presented and so was not used during these times.Mrs. Evans was frustrated that her usual method of tutoring was not128always appropriate, since it was inordinately time consuming towork with them individually at the computer. She also found thatsome children needed flexibility in accessing software, and changedthe routine to accommodate their needs. Finally, she noticed thatduring questioning in small groups, she would often need to repeat aquestion to students focused on the computer.Unanticipated Impacts on Instructional PurposesComputer use not only impacted on classroom routines, but also on arange of planned purposes. Some of the purposes were not achievedto the extent and within the time frame as originally intended. Also,initial priorities given to purposes changed - some became moreimportant while others became less. All participants reportedimpacts on their purposes for development of skills. They found thatusing the computer to reinforce math and language arts took longerthan anticipated, and was not accomplished well because of aperceived limit in the range of software. Mrs. Freer furthercomplained that competing priorities had given her trouble inmeeting the diverse needs of her students; this prevented her fromintegrating the computer with the curriculum. Mrs. Arthurexpressed a similar sentiment: "as far as using it as a tool for mathin the classroom, I haven't been able to do that yet, but I would liketo spend more time on this." She attributed some of the problem tothe extra time necessary for planning: "the math program needs tobe so individualized and I have such a spread of abilities in myclass."129Both teachers who reported that the computer had a positive effecton other subject areas felt that it motivated students to get theirother work done quickly. A group of Mrs. Arthur's studentscompleted their work sooner and more accurately in order to getextra time on the computer, and it maintained interest for studentswith special needs and induced them to do well.The two teachers who used word processing found that unanticipatedproblems set them back and it took longer than expected toaccomplish their purpose.^Competing priorities prevented Mrs.Douglas from doing word processing as expected, and, although Mrs.Evans began using word processing in the third month, she alsocontinued to use math and language games because some studentswere beginning readers.Two teachers reported impacts on their purposes for curricularintegration.^Although Mrs. Arthur claimed she intended to enhanceher program by integrating software titles, she did not attempt to doso because of complexity and time demands. Mrs. Evans, on theother hand, was able integrate the computer quickly and successfullyso that it enhanced her program.Impacts on managing student needs were reported by two teachers.The computer strongly impacted Mrs. Arthur's handling of specialneeds students, while Mrs. Evans reported having difficulty using thecomputer while attending to the diversity in her classroom.130A number of unique impacts on instructional purposes were alsorecorded.^Mrs. Freer reported that her goal of promoting studentliteracy was impacted in a positive way because many of herstudents became motivated. For Mrs. Douglas, student accountabilityand cooperation were enhanced.The four teachers perceived unique and similar impacts on theirroutines and instructional purposes. These varying effects onimplementation can be related to four levels of computer use.Impacts and Levels of UsePerceived impacts are related to four distinct levels of use,differentiated on the basis of the teacher's clarity of purposes andcomplexity of implementation over time:1. Mrs. Freer used the computer in very simple ways. It became oneof her classroom centres, whereby the students were encouraged to"freely explore" the software whenever their turn came up. Herpurposes remained vague and actual use did not become moresophisticated as the implementation progressed. After four months,the computer was used almost exactly as it had been in September.Students used language and math programs for simple drill andpractice and games exclusively.2. Although Mrs. Arthur's purposes were slightly more complex andspecific, she did not achieve them during the study. Like Mrs. Freer,131she used the computer as one of many centres, where students usedan unchanging selection of drill and practice software. Although sheoccasionally employed word processing software, this was mainly tokeep her gifted student and her learning disabled students occupied.Her use of the computer during implementation did not change.3. Mrs. Douglas had more precise purposes for the computer thaneither of the first two teachers and she was able to attain most ofthese during the study. Her students used the computer for acombination of drill and practice, simulations, and word processing.As the study progressed, she used the computer in moresophisticated ways and implementation, although more difficult, hadmore of an impact. By the end of the study, she had begun to planmore creative ways of using the computer and intended toimplement her plans in the new year.4. Mrs. Evans had previously implemented a computer and used thisexperience to help create sophisticated, albeit demanding, purposes.She was able to adapt her practice as the implementation demandedand was creative in the development of her purposes. Although shewas more experienced than the others, her commitment was strongand she put more time and effort into the implementation in order toachieve her purposes.These levels of use give rise to a number of questions: What factorsaffected these levels? Why were teachers slow in exploiting theeducational potential of the computer? Why was implementation not132a higher priority? As mentioned in Chapter 2, barriers such asdifferential access, inadequate quality and quantity of software,inadequate teacher preparation, and lack of conclusive researchcontribute to making implementation difficult. Table 2 displays theteacher identified factors, both positive and negative, that affectedimplementation.TABLE 2 - FACTORS AFFECTING LEVELS OF IMPLEMENTATION1. Circumstantial1.1 Lack of time1.2 Competing demands1.2.1 Student teacher1.2.2 Special needs students1.2.3 Challenging class1.2.4 Curricular changes1.3 Organization of centres1.4 Hardware or software failure2. Institutional2.1 Computer helping teacher2.2 Supporting inservice2.3 Teacher collaboration2.4 Limited access3. Attitudinal3.1 Personal relevance3.2 Clear goals3.3 Awareness of complexity3.4 Motivation/commitmentAlthough these factors are listed separately for purposes ofdiscussion, they are interdependent and did not affect each teacher'scomputer use to the same degree.133Circumstantial Factors Circumstantial factors are related to the classroom context. Lack oftime, for instance, was identified as a limiting factor by all fourteachers. There was not enough time in the course of any given day,or over the course of the term, to implement the computer aseffectively as they would have liked. Not surprisingly, the timefactor was related to other circumstantial factors such as competingdemands and equipment failure. Lack of time is a sociallyacceptable, and commonly identified, barrier to implemenation.Using it as an excuse for avoiding implementation may reflect ateacher's priorities, or lack of commitment to and understanding ofthe innovation.All of the teachers but Mrs. Evans commented on the negative effectof competing demands on implementation. Mrs. Arthur said that theTrojan Horse effect lay more in the rival encumberments that kepther from using the computer effectively; these unanticipatedcompeting demands were more limiting than specific computerimpacts. Mrs. Douglas was not able to introduce word processingwhen intended, largely due to hosting a student teacher; timedemands and planning priorities took precedence overimplementation of the computer, particularly because the newteacher required extra help with classroom management. Mrs.Arthur's two students with special needs took time away from otherpriorities, including computer implementation. Both Mrs. Freer andMrs. Arthur felt frustrated by the challenging needs of their classes.134Mrs. Freer felt that her class was more needy than any she hadexperienced, and Mrs. Arthur described her students as "anunusually challenging class" who kept her busy establishing andreinforcing behaviour routines.Although all of the teachers were faced with curricular changes, onlyMrs. Freer and Mrs. Arthur described these changes in a negativeway. Both felt that many of the new ideas were too time consumingand did not allow for enough skill development. Mrs. Arthur thoughtthat these changes prevented her from spending enough time ondevelopment of content with the students. She suspected thecomputer might help in dealing with curricular change, but wasn'tclear as to how this might occur and did not pursue this potential.The validity of centres is unquestioned in the primary grades, whichmeans that they can be used for almost any purpose. While all fourteachers initially organized computer use as one of many centres,two did not move beyond a minimal centre format. Using it in thisway was easy for Mrs. Freer and allowed her to demonstrate that shewas upholding the school-wide expectation, while at the same timeavoiding any fundamental change; she was content with thisarrangement and did not plan to change her instructional purposes.Mrs. Arthur made plans to move to more complex uses, but nevercarried through - the computer was treated as a centre formotivating students, often for simply keeping them occupied ratherthan exploring its potential. While the student teacher was in chargeof the class, Mrs. Douglas used the computer as a centre and then135moved to integration once the practicum was completed. Mrs. Evansallowed the students to freely explore the software in a centreformat in order to assess their competency and interest levels, beforemoving into more complex uses.Two teachers found that hardware and software failure checkedimplementation. While attempting to start word processing, Mrs.Douglas had difficulty because the software had been inadvertentlymodified and did not work as expected. The problem wasexacerbated by the fact that it appeared to be working properly,until more advanced features were tried. The unanticipatedbreakdown of the hardware had an impact on Mrs. Arthur becauseshe depended upon it to motivate her gifted and learning disabledstudents.Institutional FactorsInstitutional factors pertain to the school environment. Although apart of the context for all four teachers, these factors did not affecteach person in the same way.All of the teachers depended on the computer helping teacher tosupply appropriate software, to set up the hardware, and to solveequipment malfunctions. They did not, however, utilize this personas well as they might have. Although he was both enthusiastic andknowledgeable, his responsibilities as a classroom teacher and vice-principal left him little time to be proactive about implementation.As a result, the majority of his extra time was spent keeping the136software organized and the equipment running. Because of theselimitations, he was not able to significantly support teachers inintegrating the computer into their classrooms.There was also a lack of supporting inservice to help the teachersintegrate the computer. Although the decision to place a computer ineach class was made at a staff meeting in the previous spring, littlethought was given to implementing a school-wide plan that wouldmake the decision a success. Professional development days werenot focussed on computer implementation nor was there any plannedfollow-up to deal with teacher concerns.Although teachers discussed computer problems and solutions withtheir colleagues, collaboration was not regularly scheduled. Itoccurred only on an informal, irregular basis. This may have beenbecause of limited time, but also, by asking for help, teachers puttheir professional reputation at stake. Peer support was thus limitedto learning how to operate the hardware and software, rather thanhow to use the technology more productively.Another factor which adversely affected implemenation was limitedaccess to both hardware and software. Problems raised by having aclass of students access a single computer were reported by allteachers. All said that lack of sufficient hardware and softwareprevented them from using the computer as they planned. This mayhave been an excuse not to attempt more complex purposes,however, for only Mrs. Douglas and Mrs. Evans envisioned how they137might use extra computers if they were available. Although Mrs.Arthur insisted that limited access to software prevented her fromattaining her purposes, she was unaware of many of the titles in theschool other than the ones supplied by the computer helping teacher.Indeed, three of the teachers did not make use of the availablesoftware as well as they might have.Attitudinal Factors Attitudinal factors refer to each teacher's disposition regarding theimplementation. Although circumstantial and institutional factors setthe context for implementation, attitudinal factors largely drive itssuccess or failure. They determine whether or not a teacher takesaction when faced with circumstantial or institutional barriers.Personal relevance defines the way that each teacher understandsthe need for the innovation. Fullan (1991) says that perceived needis an obvious factor, although the "fit" between an innovation andneed may not become apparent until implementation actually begins,and even then may not be straightforward:First, schools are faced with overloaded improvement agendas.Therefore, it is a question of not only whether a given need isimportant, but also how important it is relative to other needs.Needless to say, this prioritizing among sets of desirables is noteasy, as people are reluctant to neglect any goals, even thoughit may be unrealistic to address them all... Second, preciseneeds are often not clear at the beginning, especially withcomplex changes. People often become clear about their needsonly when they start doing things, that is, duringimplementation itself. Third, need interacts with the otherfactors to produce different patterns. Depending on the138pattern, need can become further clarified of obfuscated duringthe implementation process. (p. 69)In an environment of competing priorities, the need to use thecomputer for anything more than a minimal classroom centre wasonly one of many considerations when planning programs. In thecase of Mrs. Freer, for example, the implementation came late in hercareer. With retirement impending, she made a token attempt tobecome familiar with the computer, and complained that competingpriorities prevented her from attaining instructional goals. It wasconsidered an add-on, rather than an integral part of herinstructional program because perceived need was low: "I'm nothappy with what's going on in the classroom with the computer sofar and it's mainly my fault because I haven't organized everything.The whole class is taking too long to get organized. Up until lastweek we didn't know if we were going to reshuffle the whole school(because of increased enrollment) ...As far as the work load goes,we've been doing that, but not any of the extra things." (3N)Lack of clear goals often characterizes implementation, and Fullanmakes the point that clarity of goals and means is a multi-facetedand "perennial problem" that needs to be carefully considered; evenwhen teachers agree that a change is needed, it is not always clearhow they should change practice or what should be done differently.(p. 70) The steps necessary for using the computer for more complexpurposes such as word processing or problem solving are neverprecisely laid out. Support for teachers in the study was limited;139very little was available to help them clarify how to integrate thecomputer into the curriculum or how it might affect or be affected bythe classroom culture.A further complication is "false clarity," which "occurs when peoplethink that they have changed but have only assimilated thesuperficial trappings of the new practice." (Fullan, 1982, p. 35) Thisis illustrated in the case of Mrs. Freer, who felt that she adequatelyunderstood the computer as a centre in her classroom.Implementation occurred without much frustration because she usedthe computer in simple ways. The vague purposes that Mrs. Freerand Mrs. Arthur held over time demonstrated that they did not takethe computer seriously as a way to solve instructional problemstypical of primary education, such as diverse needs and abilities ofthe students and individualization of the curriculum. As Fullansays,False clarity... occurs when change is interpreted in anoversimplified way; that is, the proposed change has more to itthan people perceive or realize... In Canada, new or revisedprovincial curriculum guidelines may be dismissed by someteachers on the grounds that "we are already doing that"; butthis is another illustration of false clarity if the teachers'perception is based only on the more superficial goal andcontent aspects of the guidelines to the neglect of beliefs andteaching strategies. (Fullan, 1991, p. 70)Implementation difficulties are exacerbated by unclear intentionsand false clarity.140A third attitudinal factor refers to awareness of the perceivedcomplexity of the innovation. Fullan describes this as "the difficultyand extent of change required of the individuals responsible forimplementation." (p. 71) Although complexity is dependent uponeach teacher's starting point, any change can be investigated inrelation "to difficulty, skill required, and extent of alterations inbeliefs, teaching strategies, and use of materials." (Fullan, 1991; p.71) All of these may come into play during computerimplementation, depending on the instructional purposes of theindividuals involved. Mrs. Douglas and Mrs. Evans, for instance,found that complex purposes brought more unanticipated impactsand, therefore, made implementation more difficult. Because theybetter understood the innovation and its potential, however, thesedifficulties were dealt with successfully.Mrs. Freer found that it caused her few concerns or frustrations andreported the fewest surprises because she focussed primarily on drilland practice and did not attempt a more complex level ofimplementation (i.e., for word processing, simulation, or problemsolving). She provided students with software that required little, ifany, teacher intervention, and allowed them to use it on demand; thisworked well, although little was attempted in terms of reflectingupon and changing practice. On the other hand, where teacherspursue more complex purposes, there may be more negative impacts.Although Mrs. Evans' case was unique because of her previousexperience with a classroom computer, unanticipated impacts stilloccurred on a continuing basis because of her more sophisticated141purposes. Despite previous experience, she worked harder atimplementation than any of the other teachers in order to achievemore difficult goals.Since there were no school-wide expectations for, or methods of,assessing the computer program, formal accountability for all fourteachers was low; they were not extrinsically motivated to carry outcomplex purposes. Consequently, the personal commitment ormotivation factor was a primary influence to their practice, and wasintertwined with other circumstantial, institutional and attitudinalfactors already discussed. Four levels of commitment, ranging fromweak to strong, were apparent. Where the commitment was weak,purposes were kept simple; where commitment was strong, morecomplex purposes were attempted.Having little sense of what the children were doing with thecomputer, Mrs. Freer's commitment was low. Since it was not clearto her what steps she might take in order to improve hereffectiveness, she was not motivated to attempt to change. Althoughslightly more committed because of previous experience, Mrs. Arthurmaintained a "wait and see" attitude hoping that if she waited longenough, implementation problems would become less important orwould be solved by others.^Mrs. Douglas, being a computer user,intuitively felt that the computer had potential and was motivated toplan for effective use, even in the face of barriers. Mrs. Evan'spositive experience with computers motivated her to work harder142than any of the others to achieve her complex purposes; she had aclear vision of what was desirable and how it could be attained.SummaryCommon and unique unanticipated impacts on routines andinstructional purposes which varied in range, frequency andintensity were reported by the teachers in the study. Effects of theseimpacts were related to four distinct levels of use: Where use wassimple, impacts were less frequent and less pervasive, whereaswhere use was more complex, impacts were more frequent andpervasive. These levels of use were also related to factors thatinfluenced implementation, including circumstantial, institutional,and attitudinal.^Although these three are interdependent, attitudinalfactors seemed to have the most influence on teacher practice. Notsurprisingly, those with a higher level of use had a greatercommitment to implementation.Attitudinal factors helped to define the teachers' threshold forchange (Werner, 1990). The threshold is defined by Werner as thedecision point at which the perceived benefits are outweighed by theperceived costs. Mrs. Freer's threshold was low because she wasnear retirement, had no previous computer experience, didn'trequest a computer in her classroom, and saw it as a competingproblem to be dealt with in her busy schedule. Integration wasperceived to be high in cost (in terms of time and energy) and low inbenefit (for herself and her students) and therefore she was contentwith operating under a "false front": implementation would appear143to be happening to any casual observer, whereas in reality very littlechange actually occurred.Mrs. Arthur's threshold for change was also low. She had lostinterest in computers earlier in her career, and her teaching stylefocussed on whole group learning rather than on individual needs.She perceived the implementation to be high in cost and slightlyhigher in benefit than had Mrs. Freer. Although she felt that thecomputer held educational potential, competing demands were givena greater priority.For Mrs. Douglas, a higher threshold for change allowed her toovercome barriers and achieve more complex purposes. As acomputer user who experiences the personal benefits on an on-goingbasis, she was committed to the successful use of computer in theclass, believed in its potential, and was willing to adapt her practice.Although she saw the implementation as high in cost, she felt thatthe benefits were worth the effort.Mrs. Evans' threshold was also high because past experience with acomputer in the class allowed her to experience its benefits. Shehandled surprises confidently, considered herself to be an "avantgarde" teacher, was interested in change, and understood thepotential of the technology at her disposal. Although she workedhard to make the innovation a success, she saw the cost ofimplemenation as acceptable in terms of the high benefits.144The next chapter provides a summary of the study, assesses theTrojan Horse hypothesis, outlines of some implications forimplementation planning and support, and identifies the need forfurther research.145CHAPTER SIXSUMMARY AND IMPLICATIONS This chapter briefly summarizes the study, assesses the Trojan Horsehypothesis, and provides some implications for supporting computerimplementation and for further research.SummaryThe study's central question was: In an elementary school whereone computer per classroom is being implemented, what are primaryteachers' perceptions of the nature and range of unexpected impactson routines and instructional purposes? Four primary teachers wereinterviewed five times each over a four month period (Septemberthrough December, 1991), in order to obtain their ongoingperceptions of what unexpected impacts arose as they were settingup their classroom routines.The major findings can be summarized around three sub-questions:1. What instructional purposes for computer use were planned?2. What unanticipated impacts occurred and how did they affectmanagement and instructional routines?3. How did unanticipated impacts affect instructional purposes forthe computer?146While there were many similarities in the instructional purposesreported, two of the teachers held vague goals, while the other twowere more precise about how they wanted to use the computer.^Allfour teachers planned to use the classroom computer for skilldevelopment in math and reading; three intended to use it topromote computer literacy, "thinking" skills, and word processing;and two for motivation. These purposes were expressed early in theterm, and others emerged as the implementation progressed.A range of unanticipated impacts on management and instructionalroutines were reported. All four teachers experienced impacts onthe management routines of organizing access to the computer; theseroutines were discussed at length by the teachers because they notonly had to be established, but also modified as the implementationprogressed. Three teachers reported impacts on calling students toattention, the management of materials, and how students were toseek assistance. Two teachers reported impacts on routines formanaging movement around the classroom and one on start uproutines.^Regarding instructional routines, all four describedimpacts on evaluation, and two on organizing student cooperation,giving instructions, reinforcing routines and finishing early. At leastone teacher reported impacts upon the routines for integratingthemes, tutoring individuals, accessing software, and questioning thegroup.Instructional purposes were impacted in several ways. Although allfour teachers, for example, initially used the computer for147development of skills (particularly in math and language arts), twomoved to more complex purposes as the implementation progressed:word processing and curricular integration (using software toenhance some curricular areas). Other uses included literacy(learning about computers), motivation (increasing interest inparticular curricular areas), managing student needs (aidingindividuals and students with special needs), accountability (makingthe students accountable for work completed), and studentcooperation.^The two teachers who held simple purposes for thecomputer reported fewer impacts of less intensity upon thesepurposes, whereas those with complex purposes perceived morepervasive impacts.The Trojan HorseThe study assumed Olson's (1988) hypothesis that unanticipatedimpacts of computer use upon classroom routines precipitatedifficulties for implemenation. Although its effects were noted, theTrojan Horse was not a major factor in implementation; thoseunanticipated impacts that were reported were relatively minor innature. There are three reasons for this.First, the nature and intensity of the Trojan Horse were dependentupon levels of use. Initially, all four teachers used the computer inways that allowed it to fit the existing culture without muchdifficulty. However, two teachers moved into more complexpurposes which led to higher levels of implementation becomingapparent over the course of the study, and the effects of148unanticipated impacts were more deeply felt. Integrating thecomputer into the curriculum, using it as a tool for graphics and wordprocessing, and publishing written work were complex enough toallow unanticipated impacts to occur. The teachers' commitment wassuch, however, that they persisted, even though successfulimplementation meant extra work on their part. In the other twocases, simple and general purposes made implementation relativelystraightforward - little change was attempted and this meant thatlittle change in practice occurred. For them, the Trojan Horse was ofminor consequence, and their frustration with the computer wasfairly low.Second, the Trojan Horse was only one of several factors affectingimplementation. Circumstantial barriers included a perceived lack oftime, competing demands, and hardware or software failure, whereasinstitutional barriers related to a lack of teacher support,collaboration, and inservice. Although all of the teachers facedsimilar circumstantial and institutional factors, the ways in whichthey dealt with them were related to attitude. These attitudinalfactors were essential to the success of the innovation and directlyrelated to levels of use. Implementation was adversely affected intwo cases because teachers did not recognize the need for computers,hold clear goals, or feel committed to the innovation. In the othertwo cases, teachers were more committed and their threshold forchange was higher.149Third, there was sometimes a poor match between software andpurposes for computer use. A factor that may account for this is thenature of primary classroom culture. Primary teachers often planand describe their purposes in quite general terms, without referringto specific ends and means. In contrast, often software is designed toserve very specific purposes. This is particularly true of drill andpractice programs, which are well suited to narrow purposes. As aresult, there may be at times a poor match between the teachers'general purposes and some software. Conversely, applicationsoftware such as graphics and word processing are more adaptable toteachers' general purposes. Where the latter kinds of programs wereused, teachers found that the computer could be more closelymatched to their curricular goals.ImplicationsBecause the innovation (one computer per classroom) represents aschool level change, there are implications for the role of the school-based computer helping teacher. All of the teachers in the studymentioned the importance of this role to them. In order to facilitatethis complex change with colleagues, the person in this role needs tobe aware that there are various factors which influenceimplementation and that more is required than just distributinghardware and appropriate software. Three points are particularlyrelevant for this role in relation to primary teachers.First, the computer helping teacher can encourage colleagues to thinkin terms of clear, precise purposes for computer use. This may150require opportunities for discussion and collaboration amongteachers when beginning to plan goals for the year. They may alsobe encouraged to start with manageable goals and simple programsas they gain familiarity and until routines are established, beforemoving into more complex applications related to graphics, wordprocessing and simulations. Fullan (1991) cautions, though, that:"Simple changes may be easier to carry out, but they may not makemuch of a difference. Complex changes promise to accomplish more...but they also demand more effort, and failure takes a greater toll."(p. 71) Before attempting more complex changes, teachers may needto break the innovation into "components and to implement them ina divisible and/or incrementable manner." (p. 71) The computerhelping teacher can aid in this process by being involved at the earlyplanning stages, facilitating a school-wide plan and requestingproactive help from district support staff (who may be able to supplyarticles on computer implemenation, provide demonstration lessonswith students, and facilitate professional development planningsessions).Second, the computer helping teacher can encourage ongoingrecognition that complex uses may precipitate more unanticipatedimpacts upon classroom routines and purposes. Through suchawareness, teachers can then anticipate, recognize and deal withimpacts effectively. However, teachers cannot simply be encouragedto monitor impacts on their routines and modify accordingly. Theymay need support through inservice of various types (i.e., training,classroom observation) to become proactive about planning for151152changes in practice brought about by computer use.^They couldbenefit from setting aside some time to learn the programs byrunning them with colleagues, while being willing to let studentshelp them get better acquainted with software. (Often students havespent time getting to know their favorite programs intimately andare pleased to share this knowledge.) Regular support groups ofteachers may include those who have experience implementing aclassroom computer. Computer helping teachers can facilitate thefunctioning of these groups by listening carefully to their concernsand responding to requests.Third, an obvious point is that in order to help teachers becomeaware of purposes and impacts, and to facilitate school-basedsupport systems, the computer helping teacher must have time to dothis adequately. Time is needed not only for maintenance ofequipment, but for school-wide and classroom planning. In thisstudy, teachers called for more support, not only in using computersand accompanying software, but in integrating the computer into thedaily classroom curriculum. Unfortunately, the helping teacher hadlittle or no time to fulfill his role. He needed specific time away fromother duties to be able to support teachers as they progressedthrough the process of implemenation.While computer helping teachers could be effective in aidingimplementation, they should be cautious about becoming distractedby the technology. For in the end, it is teachers, not technology, thatare important to the improvement of learning. As Olson says: "Thecomputer on its own is not going to create improved educationalopportunities in schools... Improvement will come as teachers seehow computers can help them reform their practice and as they seehow this can be done in actual and imperfect school systems." (1988,p. 55)Further ResearchUntil the values and the problematics of classroom routines aretaken more seriously, until the ideas and assumptions ofsoftware are made more transparent, and until illusions aboutcomputers are punctured, it will be difficult for innovators andresearchers to converse. Action research into these issues byteachers and outsiders is called for - inquiry which is sensitiveto their complexity. (Olson, 1988, p. 124)This study focused on teachers' perceptions rather than classroomobservations. The difficulty with the former is that teachers are notexperienced in articulating the effects of unanticipated impacts upontheir classroom routines. Research of an observational nature wouldallow for assessment of the pervasiveness of these effects ofunanticipated impacts of computer use upon classroom routines. Inparticular, the Trojan Horse may be different in the intermediate asopposed to the primary classroom because of different routines fororganizing students, time, space, and subject matter; research in theintermediate grades may therefore be justified.153REFERENCES Amarel, M. (1983). Classrooms and computers as instructionalsettings. Theory into Practice, 22, 260-266.Argyris, C. and Schon, D. (1974). Theory into practice. San Fransisco:Josey-Bass.Bork, Alfred. (1985). Computers and information technology as alearning aid. Education and Computing.  1 (1), 25-35.Bluhm, H. (1987). Administrative uses of computers in the schools.New York: Prentice-Hall.Campbell, Patricia B. (1984). The computer revolution: Guess who'sleft out? Interracial Books for Children. 15, (3), 3-6.Carmichael, H., (1985). Computers. children and classrooms: Amultisite evaluation of the creative use of microcomputers byelementary school children. Toronto: OISE Press.Cheever, D. et al. (1986). School administrator's guide to computers ineducation. New York: Addison-Wesley.Collis, B. (1988). Computers. curriculum, and whole-class instruction: Issues and ideas. Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing.LeCompte, M. & Goetz, J. (1982). Problems of reliability and validityin ethnographic research. Review of Educational Research. 52, (1),3 1 -60.Considine, David. (1985). Media, technology, and teaching: What'swrong and why? School Library Media Quarterly. la, (3-4), 173-18 2.Cory, S. (1983). A four-stage model of development forimplementation of computers for instruction in a school system.The Computing Teacher.  (November), 11 - 16.Cummings, C. (1983). Managing to teach. Edmonds, WA: SnohomishPublishing.154Donnelly, D., ed. (1985). The computer culture: A symposium toexplore the computer's impact on society. Toronto: AssociatedUniversity Presses.Doyle, W. (1986). Classroom organization and management. In M.Whittrock, ( Ed.), Handbook of Research on Teaching, (ThirdEdition), New York: Macmillan.Doyle, W. and Ponder, G. (1978). The practicality ethic in teacherdecision-making. Interchange.  B., 1-12.Dreyfus, H. & Dreyfus, S. (1986). Mind over machine. New York: FreePress.Dwyer, D., Ringstaff, C., & Sandhlotz, J. (1990). The evolution ofteachers beliefs and practices in high access to technology classrooms. Apple Classrooms of Tomorrow (ACOT). Boston: AERA.Eisner, E. (1979). Reliability, validity, generalization, and othermatters of inference. In: The educational imagination. New York:Macmillan.Everett, C. (1986). Computers:^Their place in schools. A policystatement. Oxford: Independent Schools' Microelectronics Centre.Fetterman, D. (ed.) (1988). Qualitative approaches to evaluatingeducation: The silent scientific revolution. New York: Praeger.Forman, G. & Pufall, P., eds. (1988). Constructivism in the computerage. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Fullan, M. (1982). The meaning of educational change. Toronto: OISEPress.Fullan, M. (1985). Change processes and strategies at the local level.Elementary School Journal. 85, 391-421.Giroux, Henry A. (1981). Toward a new sociology of curriculum, inGiroux, Henry A., Penna, Anthony N., Pinar, William F. (eds.)Curriculum and Instruction. Berkely, California: McCutchanPublishing.155Goetz, J. & Allen, J. (eds.) (1988). Qualitative research in education: Substance, methods, experience. Georgia: College of EducationPress.Goodlad, J. (1983). A study of schooling: Some findings andhypotheses. Phi Delta Kappan, (March), 465-470.Goodlad, J. (1983). A Study of schooling: Some implications forimprovement. Phi Delta Kappan, (April), 552-558.Goodson, I. & Mangan, J., eds. (1991). Qualitative educational researchstudies: Methodologies in transition. London, Ontario: RUCCUCOccasional Papers, 1. .Hawkins, J. & Shiengold K. (1986). The beginning of a story:Computers and the organization of learning in classrooms. InCuthbertson, J. & Cunningham, L., Microcomputers and Education.Chicago: University Press.Halkes, R. & Olson, J. (eds.) (1984). Teacher thinking:^a newperspective on persisting problems in education. Lisse: Swets andZeitlinger.Heap, James L. (1987). Organizational features of collaborativeediting activities at a computer. Washington, D.C.: AmericanEducational Research Association, (April).He1ft, Philip D. and Levine, Lawrence H. (1986). Computerterminology: familiarity vs. understanding. Journal of EducationalTechnology Systems.. 14 , (3), 203-16.Hoot, J., ed. (1986). Computers in early childhood education: Issuesand practices. New York: Prentice Hall.Johnson, David W., Roger T. Johnson, and Judy Bartlett. (1984).Cooperation and computers, in structuring cooperative learning.Minnesota: Interaction Books Publications.Kantor, K. (1981). Research in context: ethnographic studies in englisheducation. Research in the Teaching of English, 15, (4), 293-309.Kirk, J. and Miller, M. (1986). Reliability and validity in qualitativeresearch. London: Sage Publications.156Knupfer, N. (1988). Teachers' beliefs about instructional computers:Implications for instructional designers. Journal of InstructionalDevelopment. 11, (4), 29-38.Kurth, Ruth J. (1987). Using word processing to enhance revisionstrategies during student writing activities. Ed uc a ti on alTechnology, (January).Kurth, R. J., and Kurth, L. M. (1987). A comparison of writinginstruction using word processing. word processing with voicesynthesis. and no word processing in kindergarten and first grade.Washington D. C.: American Educational Research Association.Larter, S. (1987). Writing with microcomputers in the elementarygrades: process. roles, attitudes, and products. Ontario: OISEPress.Leinhardt, G., Weiman, C., & Hammond, K. (1987). Introduction ofclassroom routines by expert teachers. Curriculum Inquiry, 17, (2)13 5-17 6.Lockard, J., Abrams, P., & Many, W. (1990). Microcomputers foreducation. Second Edition. Harper Collins: Northern IllinoisUniversity Press.Lortie, D. (1975). Schoolteacher: A socialogical study. Chicago: TheUniversity of Chicago Press.McCarthy, R. (1988). Making the future work. Electronic Learning.(Sept.) 42-46.McCorduck, P. and Russell, A. (1986). From drill sergeant tointellectual assistant: Computers in schools. Principal, 66. (2), 16-21.Merrill, P., Tolman, M., Christensen, L., Hammons, K., Vincent, B., &Reynolds, P. (1986). Computers in education. Englewood Cliffs,New Jersey: Prentice Hall.Murray, J. (1986). Word processing in elementary schools: Seven casestudies. Ontario: OISE Press.157158Olson, J. (1988). Schoolworlds/Microworlds:^Computers and theculture of the classroom. Kingston: Pergamon Press.O'Neill, D. (1988). Research update on school culture. Ministry ofEducation Update. Victoria, B. C.: Queen's Printer.Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms - Children, computers, and powerfulideas. New York: Basic Books.Papert, S. (1980). Computer-based microworlds, in The computer inthe school: Tutor, tool, tutee. Robert P. Taylor, editor. New York:Teachers College Press.Parker, Janet. (1985). A five-step process to help educators decidehow to use computers in schools. NASSP Bulletin, 69 , (480), 2-8.Patterson, J., Purkey, S., and Parker, J. (1986). Productive sc hoolsystems for a nonrational world. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.Preskill, H. (1988). Teachers and computers: A staff developmentchallenge. Educational Technology, (March), 24-26.Reincke, I. (1982). Micro invaders. Australia: Penguin.Roszak, T. (1986). The cult of information : The folklore of computersand the true art of thinking. New York: Pantheon.Russ-Eft, D. and McLaughlin, D. (1983). Ideas for courseware inreading, writing, and communication skills. Computers, Readingand Language Arts, L. (3), 27-33.Schon, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals thinkin action. New York: Basic Books.Schwartz, H. (1987). Planning and running a computer lab forwriting: A survival manual.  ADE Bulletin, (86).Schwartz, H. (1985). Interactive Writing: Composing with a WordProcessor. New York: Holt.Shallis, M. (1984). The silicon idol: The micro revolution and itssocial implications. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Sheingold, K. (1987). Preparing urban teachers for the technologicalfuture. In R. Pea, E. Ablex & K. Sheingold, (Eds.), Mirrors of minds: Patterns of experience in educational computing.  Norwood, N. J.:Ablex Publishing.Sieghart, P., ed. (1982). Microchips with everything: T h econsequences of information technology. London: Comedia Press.Simmons, H. (ed.) (1980). Towards a science of the singular.University of East Anglia. Center for Applied Research inEducation. CARE Occasional Publications. (10).Simmons, W.(1987). Beyond basic skills: Literacy and technology forminority schools. In R. Pea, E. Ablex & K. Sheingold, (Eds.), Mirrorsof minds: Patterns of experience in educational computing.Norwood, N. J.: Ablex Publishing.Stake, R. (1978). The case study method in social inquiry. EducationalResearcher, 7, 2, 5-8Sudman, S. & Bradburn, N. (1983). Asking questions. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass Publishers.Sullivan, B. (1988). A Legacy for Learners: The Report of the RoyalCommission on Education. British Columbia: Queen's Printers.Trumbull, D. (1989). Computer-generated challenges to schoolculture: One teacher's story. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 21 (5),457-469.Turkle, S. (1984). The second self: Computers and the human spirit.New York: Simon & Schuster.Werner, W. (1991). Curriculum integration and school cultures.Occasional Paper #6. Burnaby, B. C.: Tri-University IntegrationProject.Werner, W. and Case, R. (1988). Factors affecting implementation ofissues-related innovations. Occasional Paper #15. Vancouver, B.C.: Canadian International Development Agency.159Werner, W. and Case, R. (1988). Assessing school improvementprojects. Vancouver, B. C.: Centre for the Study of Curriculum andInstruction.Weizenbaum, J. (1980). Technological intoxification. in Faith andscience in an unjust world.  R. L. Shinn (ed.) Geneva: WCC.Wilson, S. (1977). The use of ethnographic techniques in educationalresearch. Review of Educational Research, 4j, (1), 245-265.Yin, R. (1984). Case study research:^Design and methods. SagePublications: London.Yinger, R. (1979). Routines in teacher planning. Theory into Practice,17, (3), 163-169.Yinger, R. J. (1980). A study of teacher planning. The ElementarySchool Journal, 80 (3), 107-127.160Appendix APILOT TEACHER SURVEY (JUNE. 1991)These questions refer to the use of the computer in your classroom over thecourse of the past year. Do not put your name on this sheet. Responses areannonymous.Male__^ Female___^Grade(s)_'How many years have you been using the computer with students?__1. List the two most important instructional purposes that you were trying toachieve with the computer in your classroom this year.Most important:Second most important:2. List the two major difficulties you encountered in achieving these purposes.Most important difficulty:Second most important difficulty:3. Placing a computer in the classroom may cause unexpected (surprising,unplanned) things to happen:a) List the two major unexpected difficulties of computer use in your classroomover the course of this year. (e.g., organization of time, space, students,subject; teacher planning; instructional style; management procedures;student social relationships, etc.)First unexpected difficulty:Second unexpected difficulty:b) List the two major unexpected benefits of computer use in your classroomover the course of this year. (e.g., organization of time, space, students,subject; teacher planning; instructional style; management procedures;student social relationships, etc.)First unexpected benefit:Second unexpected benefit:161Thanks for your time and effort in answering the questions.Appendix BPILOT TEACHER INTERVIEWS (JUNE. 1991)B ackground  Information- What is your teaching experience?- What hardware do you currently have in your classroom?- What software are you using?- How is this software organized/accessed?1. What were the two most important instructional purposes that you weretrying to achieve with the computer in your classroom this year?- For what purposes and how did you plan to use the computer?- What routines to accommodate these purposes have been set up over thecourse of the year?2. What were the two major difficulties in achieving these purposes?- What did you do to respond to these difficulties?- What routines for computer use have been most difficult to set up andmaintain over the course of the year?3. What were the major unexpected difficulties of computer use on yourinstructional and management routines over the course of the year. (Forexample, organization of time, space, students, subjects; instructional style;management procedures such as attention and transition control.)- How did the use of the computer interfere with existing classroominstructional routines?- How did the use of the computer interfere with existing classroommanagement routines?How did you change (modify/add/delete) your instructional ormanagement routines in order to implement the computer in yourroom?Were there any other unexpected adverse effects?4. What were the major unexpected benefits of computer use on yourinstructional and management routines over the course of the year.^(Forexample, organization of time, space, students, subjects; instructional style;management procedures such as attention and transition control.)- How has computer use enhanced instructional and managementroutines?5. How did these unexpected impacts affect implementation of the computer inyour classroom?- How were these difficulties related to your planned instructionalpurposes?- Have you been surprised by other benefits that have arisen from usingthe computer?162Appendix CUNANTICIPATED IMPACTS ON ROUTINES AND INSTRUCTIONALPURPOSES Pilot Study (June (1991)Impacts^onManagementRoutinesA B C D^TotalAccess X X X X 4Calling X 1AttentionManagementof^MaterialsX X 2Seeking X 1AssistanceImpacts^onInstructionalRoutinesStudent X X 2CooperationGiving X X 2InstructionsFinishing X 1EarlyTutoring X 1Accessing X X 2SoftwareA = Gr. 1/2 Female B = Gr. 2/3 Female C = Gr. 6 Female D = Gr. 7 Male163Appendix DTEACHER SURVEY (SEPTEMBER, 1991)These questions seek your purposes for the computer in yourclassroom over the course of this year. Refer only to your classroom.Do not put your name on this sheet, as responses are anonymous.Male__^Female___^Grade(s)___How many years have you been using the computer withstudents?___List the three most important instructional purposes that you intendto achieve with the computer in your classroom this year.Most important purpose:Second most important purpose:Third most important purpose:164Thanks for your time and effort in answering the questions.Appendix EINSTRUCTIONAL PURPOSES FOR COMPUTER USESURVEY RESULTS N= 12 (SEPTEMBER. 1991)1651st Choice 2nd Choice 3rd Choice Total1 2 3 61 2 1 43 3 2 87 2 92 3 51 2 31 112 12 12 36PurposeLiteracyFamiliarizing studentswith hardware andsoftware.MotivationEncouraging students tocomplete assignmentsquickly and efficiently.Skill BuildingDrill and practice andgames in math, language,and reading.Word ProcessingWriting stories andjournals^and printingthem out on the printer.GraphicsUsing technologyto draw pictures andillustrate stories.Thinking SkillsExploring softwareto help students becomebetter problem solvers.OtherTo aid a specialneeds studentTotalAppendix FFIRST TEACHER INTERVIEW QUESTIONS (SEPTEMBER, 1991) 1. Background Information- What is your teaching background?- What experience/training with computers have you previouslyhad?- What hardware do you currently have in your classroom?- What software are you using?- How is this software organized/accessed?2. What are the most important instructional and managementroutines that you have begun to establish with your students?Why are they important?(For example, instructional routines may be related toquestioning, monitoring, reviewing, instructing, demonstrating,giving instructions, evaluating, disciplining. Managementroutines may include calling for attention, establishing smoothtransitions between activities, distributing materials, beginningor ending the day, leaving the room finishing assigned workearly, or accessing resources.)- How do you establish these routines? (e.g., overt teaching,modelling, reinforcing correct behaviour.)3. What are the most important instructional purposes that youintend to achieve with the computer in your classroom this year?For what purposes and how do you plan to use the computer?Note: These questions were used to focus the one-hour discussionwith each teacher.166Appendix GONGOING INTERVIEW QUESTIONS (SEPTEMBER - DECEMBER. 1991)1. What impacts on your classroom have occurred to date as aresult of adding the computer?- What impacts upon instructional and management routines haveoccurred?2. Were any of these impacts on routines unanticipated orsurprising?- Why did you find them surprising?3 How have unanticipated impacts affected your use of thecomputer?- Have you added/refined/dropped any routines specificallyaround the computer- Have any of your purposes for computer use beenrefined/dropped/added?- Have you decided to use different software because of theseimpacts? If so, why?How did unexpected impacts affect instructional andmanagement routines?4. You said you intended to use the computer for- What difficulties, if any, have you encountered in trying toachieve these purposes?- What benefits, if any, have you encountered in trying to achievethese purposes?5. How are your questions about computer use dealt with?- Have you talked to other teachers or the school computerhelping teacher?- Have you observed other teachers and students usingcomputers?Note: As each interview was completed, the researcher examined thedata in order to identify vague or unclear responses. These werepursued in subsequent interviews in order clarify information anddeepen understanding of the implementation.167Appendix HADMINISTRATOR INTERVIEW(DECEMBER. 1991) What school policies for computer use have been developed? (i.e.,agreed upon rules of use, goals, etc. What were the reasons fordecentralizing the computers?)What documents have been produced? ( i.e., handbooks, writtenpolicies, rules for software distrbution, meeting minutes, newsletters,staff bulletins, etc.)What kinds of school-based support have been offered for computeruse this year? (i.e., release time, inservice, etc.)168Note: The computer helping teacher/vice-principal was asked thesequestions.

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0054732/manifest

Comment

Related Items