Characteristics Of School Principals Feb 10 2008(yp)

Interaction between science teachers and school principals and its influence on technology implementation: A retrospective analysis Longitudinal Infusion Peled, Y., Kali, Y., & Dori, Y.J. Technion, Haifa 32000

Abstract This paper describes a longitudinal study, in which the interaction between junior-high school principals and science teachers is characterized, and its influence on technology implementation is explored. Thirteen 13 principals and 19 teachers who participated in a former study, which took place from 1998 to 2001, were re-interviewed and observed in between 2003 to and 2005. The teachers were classified into four types—initiator, follower, evader, and objector—based on the mode and extent to which the teachers used theseimplemented advanced educational technologies in their teaching. Additionally, pPrincipals were also classified into four categories— initiating, empowering, permitting, and resisting— withbased on respect to the way they motivated or discouraged their science teachers to incorporate educational technologies into their teaching, identified as initiating, empowering, permitting, or resisting. Findings indicate that the principals were fairly consistent in the type of support they provided to their teachers throughout the seven years of the study. Teachers, however, shifted inimproved their pedagogical use of technology the ways they used technology; they leveraged their pedagogical use of technology when they worked inwhile working in a supportive environment. The findings indicate that the principals’ longitudinal support or discouragement plays a crucial role in teachers’ ability and motivation to use incorporate educational technologytechnologies as an integral part of their teaching.

Introduction Educational reform processes are usually slow and often bring forth crisis and opposition (Bybee & Loucks-Horsley, 2000; Fullan & Stiegelbauer, 1991; Fessler, 1985). Educational technologies that embody pedagogical principles can make a significant

1

change in the learning environment. Changing Specifically, changing the teaching environment through the introduction of Web-based activities requires that the teachers modify their beliefs about their profession. This is a challenging adaptation process that needs to be assimilated within the school system with the encouragement of the school principal. As part of the 1990’s national reform (Harari, 1994), science teachers of Israeli junior high schools (grades 7-9) participated in continuing in-practice professional development programs at the Technion and other universities, in which they were prepared and encouraged to employ technology-based learning environments. Since then, academic instructors provided byfrom regional teacher centers and district instruction centers in Israel have been offering in-school support. In spite of these support activities, the level of incorporating technology and Web-based teaching and learning into junior high school has been lower than expected (Mioduser, 2001; Pelgrum, 2001; Judson, 2006). Despite greater access to computer equipment and software, the gap between the technology presence of educational technology and its use exploitation in high schools is still wide. - We have seen that the presence of technology alone seldom leads to widespread teacher and student use (Cuban et al., 2001). Key factors known as important for successful incorporation of Web-based learning in schools are:include a) teachers’ professional motivation (Krajcik, Marx, Blumenfeld, Fishman & Soloway, 2000; Dori, Tal & Peled, 2002), and b) teachers’ professional life cycle (Huberman, 1989). Environmental factors are as important as teachers' individual factors (Supovitz & Turner, 2000; O'Dwyer, Russell & Bebell 2005; Clausen, 2007). Teachers who reported higher levels of confidence in using technology were more likely to use technology for deliveringin their instruction. In addition, while teachers who reported having difficulty integrating technology into the curriculum were less likely to use technology it for content delivery in classroom (O'Dwyer, Russell & Bebell 2005). Levin & Wadmany, (2006) report that spending three years in a technology-rich learning environment produces substantive change in teachers’ educational beliefs and classroom practices.

One area of competence often suggested is the need for sSchool technology leaders need to have a vision for the role of educational technology in schools (ISTE, 2002). The NETS-A standards outline in Section 1 on “Leadership and Vision” outline how technology leaders need to develop a school-wide shared vision for technology and ensure that the resources, coordination, and climate are in place to realize it (National educational technology standards for administrators,

2002REF?) (ISTE, 2002).

‫ ולהוציא משם מאמר או שניים‬.‫לחפש את שם כתב העת של לין סרום‬ 2

In this research we have focused on Tthe organizational environment, as expressed by the school principal’s’ attitudes and involvement in leading or stalling this technological change processes and bringing about the a pedagogical reform, is crucial for incorporating computers that builds on educational technologies in junior high schools in schools, and is the focus of this paper. To present the context ofput this study in context, in what follows we briefly describe here athe brief history of a teacher professional development project which served as the basis for . Tthe current study. extents one of the aspects studied in that project. In a previous study, Dori and Herscovitz (2005) presented the a framework for a two-year long-term teacher professional development program that focused on casebased teaching and took into account teachers' prior knowledge. Their study partially overlaps the model of Bell and Gilbert (1996), which included three aspects of professional development model: social, professional, and personal development. Dori and Herscovitz initiated collaborative ways of working amongst 50 science teachers, empowering them and fostering development of new ideas and classroom practices. Later on, during the long-term professional development, they hadparticipating teachers developed their own case-based learning materials and used them in their own classrooms. Along the program, the participating teachers went through a major change in their abilities to design high-quality case studies and student-centered activities. Within this project, Aa focus on Web-based teaching in this project was described by Dori, Tal, and Peled (2002), who investigated the level of success in assimilating online activities developed by the teachers. The researchers found that the quality and cohesion of the school teachers’ team-work between the school’s teachers and the principal’s care and involvement were major factors affecting the implementation of educational Web-based learningtechnologiesy use in the classrooms. In a previous paper (Dori et al., 2002) we The researchers described in detail the design of our a comprehensive professional development program, which included incampus workshops, work groups meetings, and in-school support. We They followed these teachers, documented their beliefs regarding Web-based teaching, and analyzed the artifacts they had submitted. The teachers communicated using a specially designed

3

Website, and experienced team development of Web-based learning materials and their implementation in their own classrooms. In this paper we briefly discuss the characteristics of the science teachers and the four types of teachers based on their incorporation of Web-based teaching. We describe in detail characteristics of the principals, as documented at two points in time: (1) at the end of their professional development TPD program and again (2) after four years after the end of the professional development program. We then make an attempt The objective of the study is to understand and explain the long-term effect of the principal’s attitude on her/his teachers' motivation or discouragement to adopt and assimilate technological change processes. We also account forthe organizational factors, mainly the principals, such as budget constrains, and the approach of the Israeli Ministry of Education, Culture, and Sport that affect teachers' motivation or discouragement to adopt and assimilate the change process after a long period of time. The current study seeks to The study deepen our understanding of these factors. Specifically, this study concerns the characterizesation and classifiesication of juniorhigh school principals with respect to the way they motivated or discouraged their science teachers to incorporate Webtechnology-based learning environments and materials activities into their teaching. When implementing a new curriculum, teachers often tend to “water down” the innovation by transforming the curriculum new curricula to fit a more familiar, traditional way of teaching (Olson & Loucks-Horsley, 2000; Ball, 1990). ThereforeIn view of this phenomenon,, after about four years, we returned after about four years to the same schools where our original research took place in order to investigate the school status and learning environment in those schools from an educational technology infusion and Web-based teaching and learning perspectives.

Research Goals and Questions The goal of this retrospective research was to characterize the interaction between juniorhigh school principals and their science teachers, and to explore the longitudinal influences of this interaction on technology infusion and implementation in the schools. To meet this goal, we set out to answer the following research questions: 4



How and to what extent did teachers continue to implement technology in their classrooms four to five years after participating in a two-year long technologyoriented professional development program?



What characterized the principals’ attitudes and level of support toward technology implementation in each of the schools throughout the seven years of the longitudinal study?



What is the effect of the principals’ attitudes on teachers’ approach and level of educational technology implementation of technology?

Theoretical background A large body of literature has been devoted to the characteristics of principals who lead changes in their schools (Hall, Rutherford, Hord & Huling, 1984; Thomas, 1978) and to the role of schools as environments that encourage the teachers' professional growth (Cusack, 1992; Graves, 1996; Kleine-Kracht, 1995; Kowch & Schwier 1997; Lipton & Melameade, 1997; Shulman, 1997; Trimble, 1996, Quinn, 2002; Flanagan & Jacobsen 2003; Kelceoglu I 2006). As

many researchers (e.g., Blumenfeld et al., 2000; Cohen &

Ball, 1999: Fishman et al., 2001; Fullan & Miles, 1992; Fullan, 1993; Linn, 1998) have noted, the success of innovative approaches to education in general and of utilizing technology in classrooms in particular, is heavily dependent on the school’s environment and organization, and on the principal’s attitude towards the proposed change. The principal is now alsoincreasingly expected to be the "leader of technology" (Creighton, 2002) for his or her school. Baylor and Ritchie (2002) investigated the relative effect of the school’s technology planning, leadership, professional development, curriculum alignment, technology use, and openness to change on teacher technology skill, morale, and perceptions of technology’s effect on learning. They found that these outcomes were mainly predicted by the characteristics at of the teacher rather than the school level. An eExceptions was thatwere teacher morale, which was also predicted also by professional development, and technology’s effect on content acquisition, which was also predicted by the strength of leadership. 5

In a recent research, Quinn, (2002) has showed that there isfound a strong correlation between principal leadership behaviors and the principal’s instructional practice descriptors, which as a resource provider, an instructional resource, and a communicator. among them there are: (1) As a resource provider, the principal takes action to marshal personnel and resources within the building, district, and community to achieve the school's vision and goals. These resources may be seen as materials, information, or opportunities, with the principal acting as a brokenbroker. (2) As an instructional resource, the principal sets expectations for continual improvement of the instructional program and actively engages in staff development. Through this involvement, the principal participates in the improvement of classroom circumstances that enhance Active active Teachingteaching. (3) As a communicator, the principal models commitment to school goals, articulates a vision toward instructional goals and the means for integrating instructional planning and goal attainment, and sets and adheres to clear performance standards for instruction and teacher behavior. In a study which its aimsed were to determine the correlation between the principal’s leadership patterns and the extent of computer integration in Israeli schools, Sasson (1999), claims that, based on Bass (1985) claimed that the Transmitting principals’ leadership behaviors knowledge of Bass (1985) the principals can be divided into two major

groups:

Ttransformational

and

transactional

leadership

behaviors.

The

Transformational transformational Leaders leaders had strong motivation and set more goals in each component concerning computers integration. They displayed a desire to learn and become more acquainted with issues that needed to be addressed in order to integrate computers into school, while the transactional leaders merely addressed technical issues when those needed to be taken care of. Based on a study of school principals in New Zealand, Yee (1998) proposed five information technology leadership types from a study of school principals in New Zealand, namely,: technology entrepreneur, technology caretaker, technology trainer, technology modeler, and technology learner. In a qualitative

6

study of the principals in ten ICT-enriched schools in Canada, New Zealand, and United States of AmericaUSA, Yee (2000) further defined eight types of ICT leadership types, namely,: equitable providing, learning-focused envisioning, adventurous learning, patient teaching, protective enabling, constant monitoring, entrepreneurial networking, and careful challenging. Principals set up their priorities and preferences within their daily workload (Foster, Loving, Shumate, 2000). There are varying definitions for administrative styles (Hunter-Boykin & Virdin, 1995) and for change leading (Thomas 1978; Foster et al., 2000). The most successful systemic reform efforts are succeed where the local organization either invents or assumes ownership of the core ideas in the reform (Honey & McMillan-Culp, 2000). In these reforms, meaning principals often setting goals and directions rather then than receiving receive them from higher authority. A school that has successfully integrated computers and information technology into its learning environment can be characterized by (1) an educational approach that was decided upon by all the teachers (Yuen, Law & Wong 2003; Solomon, 2000), (2) intense pervasive support for conducting changes from the school’s administration, and most importantly, (3) the technology is incorporated into the pedagogical approach rather than the educational framework subverting itself to the technology (Solomon, 2000). When incorporating information technology into the educational framework, tThe school’s characteristics reflect those of its principal when incorporating information technology into the educational framework (Wiggins, 1970). Technology Leadership havehas considerable effect on the quality of the technology-supported learning environment. In addition, tTechnology leadership is also greatly influenced greatly by background factors, such as the type of school, and by infrastructural factors, but technology leadership has greater leverage on desired outcomes than does technology infrastructure and expenditures. This indicates that lLeaders’ involvement in a range of key technology leadership areas, (i.e., leadership and vision; learning and teaching; productivity and professional practice; support, management, and operations; and social, legal and ethical issues) is therefore very important for a successful technology use implementation in a school (Anderson &

7

Dexter 2005). Technology leadership areas include leadership and vision; learning and teaching; productivity and professional practice, support, management and operations, and social, legal and ethical issues,

O'Dwyer, Russell & and Bebell (2005) found that the amount of restrictive policies related to

technology in place within a school or district was negatively

associated with the frequency with which teachers’ directed students to create products using technology. Leithwood, Jantzi and Steibach (1999) summarized the latest leadership theories in education into six different approaches: instructional, transformational, moral, participative, managerial, and contingent. They also identified four dimensions of influence in relation to the six leadership approaches, each with its primary source of leadership influence: who exerts influence, sources of influence, purpose of influence, and outcomes of influence, and . each of the six approaches has its primary source of leadership influence. As Yuen, Law and Wong (2003) point out, sHence, successful implementation of change in educational ICT implementation is not about equipment or software but influencing and empowering teachers; it is not about acquiring computer skills, but supporting teachers in the ongoing engagement with students in their learning (Yuen, Law & Wong 2003). In many schools, informal leaders have emerged from classrooms, libraries and computer laboratories to take up the difficult task of planning for technology integration, and supporting distributed, and often- uncoordinated efforts by enthusiastic teachers (Flanagan & Jacobsen 2003). Yuen, et al., (2003) identified three clusters of characteristics related to the Implementation of ICT pertaining to three different models of change management. They eExploreding 18 Hong Kong schools which arethat were publicly recognized as schools with the most experienced in using ICT in teaching and learning, Yuen, et al., (2003)

8

identified three clusters of characteristics related to the implementation of ICT pertaining to three different models of change management in Hong Kong. They found that the key distinctions between these three models are the established vision and values of the school, the perceived role and impact of ICT in education and the established culture and reform history of the school:. The models are the technological adoption model, the catalytic integration model, and the cultural innovation model. TThe technological adoption model - Tis the most prevalent model of ICT implementation in schools. It conformsed to the managerial perspective in of technology planning and emphasized emphasizes on managing the adoption of technological infrastructure, organizational structure, and teachers’ technical skills. The catalytic integration model - ICT use in this second cluster of schools wais characterized by the deliberate integration incorporation of ICT into the teaching and learning process as an integral part of the curriculum. This model also required the principal to have a clear direction. CThe cultural innovation model - Within the sample of schools studied, there wereincluded two schools that embarked on the process of change in relation to ICT implementation in a relatively smooth manner without apparently causing serious conflicts or extra demands on teachers or the school leadership. The key distinctions between these three models are the established vision and values of the school, the perceived role and impact of ICT in education, and the established culture and reform history of the school. Langran, (2006) determinesd that although the National Educational Technology Standards for Administrators (ISTE, 2002) sets a set of guidelines indicating for what principals and other administrators should know and how they should make use of technology, it's it is mainly the principals’ duty (among others) to build "Technology Leadership" in their schools that is based ondriven by a teamwork of school technology leaders which consistscomprised of the principal and the technology coordinator. WUltimately, however, hen it comes to technology, teachers cannot deny the existence of technology in schools, yet how effectively and how often the technology is used and how the technology is used is heavily dependent upon individual teachers (Judson, 2006).

9

In the previous research (Dori, et al., 2002), which served as the basis of this study, we laid out a theoretical framework for professional development of science and technology teachers who incorporate educational technologies and especially Web-based learning into their teaching. The framework encourages adapting familiar subject matter to a Web-based environment, thereby strengthening the confidence of the teachers in the technology. The framework has been applied to about 67 science teachers from in 16 schools. They, who were classified into four basic types of science teachers: (1) The initiator and path-finder, who is an autodidact, and can find ways to cope with technical and organizational difficulties to apply technology-based instruction; (2) The follower and conformist, who will applyies technology when it is convenient; (3) The avoider, who will uses technology only when required; and (4) The antagonist, who will would not use technology-based instruction under any condition. The research has also indicated that the extent of technology assimilation and continued teacher’s professional development depended on the messages that were transmitted by the school’s principal. In order to examine the extent of the effect of the school management environment on teachers’ attitude toward technology adoptions, additional data collection was carried out, and as a result, four types of principals were identified: (1) The initiating principle, who defines and leads change processes and mentors the required organizational changes; (2) The empowering principal, who seeks to apply technology-based instruction and supports various teacher initiatives in this direction, but does not lead the required pedagogical reforms; (3) The permitting yet preventing principal, who theoretically approves technology-based instruction, but does not support the organizational infrastructures that are required for successful application; and (3) The resisting principal, who, for various reasons, objects any element of technology-based instruction.

Methodology

10

Our research is longitudinal in nature, spanning a seven year period between 1998 and 2005. The current retrospective study involved two rounds of interviews with selected teachers and principals.

Methodological Approach .‫לספר את הסיפור של איך עבדנו‬ .‫ השענות על מחקר קודם כדי להגיע לחזרתיות‬+ ‫שני סבבי ראיונות‬: trustworthiness :‫יהודית‬ ‫) הצהרה‬1 :‫ טרינאנגולציה של מדידת ההתפתחות המקצועית של המורה‬:‫דרך נוספת לחזרתיות‬ .‫) ניתוח תוצרים מבוססי מחשב‬3 ,‫) הצהרת מנהל‬2 ,‫עצמית‬ ‫ (יעל תשלח) – לשלוח תשובה של יעל שהרבני ולהגיד משהו על מחקרי אורך (או‬:‫יהודית‬ .)‫רטרוספקטיבי‬ chi ,‫ כימות של מידע איכותני – מטריצת המורים‬:‫יעל‬ .)‫ – לשלוח ליהודית‬roth ‫ שילוב של מחקר כמותי עם איכותי (מאמר חדש של‬:‫יעל‬

Sample Thirteen principals out of the original sample of 16 principals (who took part in the initial study, 1998-2001), were interviewed twice again, once in 2003 and once in 2005, to determine their attitudes toward incorporating technology into the school. In addition, 19 of the originally researched teachers who were still employed in these Thirteenten schools participated in the retrospective research. ‫ התבצע אחריהם‬.‫ מורים הוגדרו לטיפוסים שונים‬67 ‫ מתוכם‬.‫ מורים‬100 ‫במחקר המקורי השתפו‬ )1998-2001( ‫מעקב לאורך כל התקופה הראשונה‬ ‫ לבדוק שוב את המספרים‬+ ‫ הסבר‬+ )‫תיאור אוכלוסיית המחקר המקורית (איור העיגולים‬

11

Figure 1: The containment relationship among the research groups 16 Science teachers who took part in the extended PD program

Target group – 6 teachers who incorporated Webbased inquiry activities in their classes

16 junior high schools

67 science teachers who took part in four different PD programs

The research involved 67 science teachers from sixteen junior high schools in the northern part of Israel who took part in four different teacher professional development programs. The research groups are described in Figure 1 as four concentric circles. The outer circle represents the principals of the nine junior high schools, who were interviewed. The next circle represents the 67 teachers, of whom 57 were female and 10 were male. A group of 16 science teachers who took part in the extended teacher education program is represented in the next-to-innermost circle. Finally, the inner circle represents the target group – six teachers who incorporated Web-based inquiry activities and were later followed in their classes. The six target teachers were a subset of these 16 teachers.

Tools and analysis ‫ לתאר את הכלי של המטריצה מהמאמר הקודם (כולל גם את טבלת אפיון מורים וגם‬:‫יהודית‬ Matrix ‫ נקרא לו‬.)‫את טבלת אפיון מנהלים‬ ‫ לתאר כלי של ניתוח אתרים‬:‫יעל‬

12

13

Table 1: Types of teachers who incorporate Web-based activities in their teaching

Type

Type 1 The initiator and the pathfinder

Type 2 The follower -conformist

Description

Will apply Webbased inquiry teaching in any and all instances

Will apply Webbased teaching when it is convenient

Type 3 The avoider

Will only use Webbased teaching if required

Type 4 The objector antagonist

Will not use Webbased teaching under any conditions.

Characteristics •1Autodidactic and internally motivated to study the Web capabilities •2Realizes the potential found in Web-based teaching, uses email and discussion forums to communicate with her students, and constructs class homepage with the help of the students •3Finds its own way to improve her teaching skills and incorporate Web-based inquiry activities in her class •4Will find the way to deal with technical, organizational and other difficulties when they occur. •1Participates in courses about Web-based teaching and is exposed to such activities •2Willing to use components of Web-based inquiry teaching. When the conditions are suitable he will use it in a minor way •3He participates in discussion groups, allocates articles on the net and prints them as working pages •4Web-based inquiry learning is not viewed by him as a milestone or extremely relevant to students. •7Has participated in technology-based PD programs or been exposed to online activity •8Appears to be willing to use Web-based teaching •9Has agreed to utilize some aspects of Web-based teaching but will not initiate anything in her school in order to do so •10Will incorporate some components of Web-based teaching only if required. •12Rarely uses computers for minor tasks at home. Some of these teachers are intimidated by computers (technophobia) •13Has "her reasons" for not utilizing computers or the internet and

Teachers' citations •5The teacher T. Z. from school 1 “I was looking for means to improve my use of the internet and the computer. I learned the basics from my son. I am constantly learning in different PD programs. I am a member of several Web-based development groups and I developed a Website with inquiry activities for my science class. I continue to improve and advance in developing these activities for my students enjoyment and interest." •6The teacher D. H. from school 2 “I have no problem devoting the time for the development of new learning materials as I always have. However, it is a fact that currently I am devoting even more of my time to prepare Web-based activities. I have a sense of satisfaction but I am not sure that the rewards suit the effort." •11The teacher M.S. from school 3 explained why he was not eager to use Web-based teaching in his science classes: “the organizational and technical problems I have to face are so huge and it leaves me unmotivated." •16The teacher Y. A. from school 4, “I am not sure I have the financial capabilities to buy a computer for home. In school it is always in use and therefore I will never learn how to use it."

14

Type

Description

Characteristics •14Unfamiliar with advances in information technology (mostly tenured teachers toward their retirement) •15Resists incorporating Web-based activities into the science classroom.

Teachers' citations

15

Table 2: Types of schools principals by their approach to Web-based teaching

Type

Description

The initiating principal

The principal leads the process of change, identifies the need, defines it, and mentors the required organizational changes.

The empowering principal

The principal is interested in change of teaching methods and would like new endeavors, including Webbased teaching. The principal allows teachers to proceed with their initiatives. However, since the school management does not have a clear view about teaching strategies, the different initiatives do not serve the school’s goal and sometimes they even contradict each other.

The permitting yet preventing principal

The resisting principal

The school principal seems to support Web-based teaching initiatives, but persists in his conservative policy as to school’s timetable, lesson structure and curriculum.

The school principal knowingly objects any teaching method that involves Web-based elements of any kind. The reasons may differ, but by and large they are linked to religion and tradition.

Examples "Nothing will happen without dedicated visionaries. We need to cooperate and organize work teams and put the right people in the right positions. I look for ways to extend the timetable and make it possible for every student and teacher to work according to their own plans." (Principal O.M.) "Our school has not recognized Webbased teaching as a school enterprise, but the website that the teacher T.Z. had built received the support of the school’s administration. At some point we had nine different projects, which were not coordinated." (Principal K.L.)

"No one said that Web-based teaching is not welcome. I was frustrated because I did not receive the financial support." (Principal S.H.) "People are only talking but nothing really happens. None of the teachers wants to really advance and make a meaningful action… The school principal has neither the ability nor the willpower to move in the right direction." (Teacher A.A., in S.H.'s school) In K.A.'s School all the computers are linked to the Internet via one server. Accessible Internet sites are strictly filtered due to religious reasons: "Even though ours is a technological school, I object free access to the Internet because we must educate our students for values and religion." (Principal D.B.)

16

A detailed analysis of the collected data provided the basis for re-categorization of the principals and teachers into “types” according to the framework described above, which was developed in the former study. This re-examination enabled us to examine the influence of the principals on teachers’ practices in a longitudinal perspective.

17

‫‪Findings‬‬ ‫להציג כך‪:‬‬ ‫‪)1‬ניתוח מורים‬ ‫‪)2‬ניתוח מנהלים‬ ‫‪)3‬טבלא שמעבדת את הניתוחים באמצעות כימות‬ ‫‪Table 3:‬‬

‫‪Retrospective‬‬ ‫‪3‬‬ ‫‪5‬‬ ‫‪3‬‬ ‫‪2‬‬

‫‪Principles‬‬ ‫‪Original‬‬ ‫‪3‬‬ ‫‪5‬‬ ‫‪3‬‬ ‫‪2‬‬

‫‪Type‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪2‬‬ ‫‪3‬‬ ‫‪4‬‬

‫‪Retrospective‬‬ ‫‪7‬‬ ‫‪8‬‬ ‫‪2‬‬ ‫‪2‬‬

‫‪Teachers‬‬ ‫‪Original‬‬ ‫‪8‬‬ ‫‪7‬‬ ‫‪3‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬

‫‪Type‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪2‬‬ ‫‪3‬‬ ‫‪4‬‬

‫יש לציין שלא שהנתונים האלה מייצגים ספירה של מורים ומנהלים שהיו בכל קטגוריה‪ .‬אי אפשר‬ ‫לראות בטבלא הזו את התנודות של כל מורה באופן ספציפי‪ ,‬לכן אנחנו מציגים את הממצאים‬ ‫באמצעות מטריצת הניתוח‬ ‫‪ )4‬ניתוח האתרים והתוצרים (חיזוק הממצאים)‬ ‫כדי להראות את הקשר בין השינוי שעבור המורים וסוג המנהל‪ ,‬זה גם מראה יותר טוב מהטבלא‬ ‫למעלה את השינוי שחל אצל מורים‪ .‬נציג את איור מס' ‪( 1‬מטריצת מורים מנהלים עם חיצים)‪.‬‬ ‫מטריצה (ממצא עיקרי)‪.‬‬ ‫‪Using the The follow-up interviews with principals have indicated that after five‬‬ ‫‪years, the approach toward technology of all of the thirteen principals remained the same.‬‬ ‫‪Hence, each principal was classified to the same category as before (Figure 1).‬‬ ‫‪Figure 1: Distribution into types of principals 1998-2005‬‬

‫להציג את שבעת המסכים שמציגים את המטריצה לפי טיפוסי מורים ‪ +‬ההשוואה של‬ ‫מנהל ‪ Empowering‬עמ' ‪ .25-32‬איורים עם הסברים כנהוג‪ .‬להעתיק הטקסט שמופיע בשקופית‬ ‫‪ +‬הסבר נוסף בעברית‪ .‬להוסיף את המלל של שקף הסיכום של המצגת‪)33( .‬‬

‫סדרת האיורים הבאים (‪ )Figure 5 ;Figure 4 ;Figure 3 ;Figure 2‬מראים את השפעת טיפוסי‬ ‫המנהלים על טיפוסי המורים השונים‪ .‬החיצים מראים את כיוון התפתחותו של המורה‪,‬‬ ‫התפתחות זו יכולה להיות "התפתחות מתקדמת" או "התפתחות נסוגה" (יהודית נראה לי שיש‬ ‫לנו כאן מושג חדש שאנחנו יכולים להציע)‪ .‬המספרים על החיצים (‪ )X1,2,3‬מציינים את מספר‬

‫‪18‬‬ ‫)‪VIII (x1‬‬

‫המורים המתועדים כטיפוסים השונים‪ .‬חץ מרובע מציין מורה שלא מראה התפתחות מתקדמת‬ ‫או נסוגה‪.‬‬

‫‪Figure 2: Teachers and school principal types - mutual effect on incorporating‬‬ ‫‪technology in teaching 2003-2005: The effect on the Follower type‬‬

‫‪ Figure 2‬מראה את השפעת טיפוסי המנהלים על מורה מטיפוס ‪ .Follower‬מורה מטיפוס זה‬ ‫שפועל בבית ספר בהנהלתו של מנהל מטיפוס ‪ ,Initiating & Empowering‬יאמץ מודל שילוב‬ ‫בתקשוב בהוראה של מורה מטיפוס ‪ .initiator‬מורים המלמדים בבית ספר בהנהלת מנהל‬ ‫מטיפוס ‪ ,Permitting yet preventing & resisting‬יאמצו עם הזמן דפוס שילוב תקשוב בהוראה‬ ‫של מורה מטיפוס ‪.Evader‬‬

‫‪19‬‬

‫‪Figure 3: Teachers and school principal types - mutual effect on incorporating‬‬ ‫‪technology in teaching 2003-2005: The effect on the Initiator type‬‬

‫‪ Figure 3‬מראה את השפעת טיפוסי המנהלים על מורה מטיפוס ‪ .Initiator‬מורה מטיפוס זה‬ ‫שפועל בבית ספר בהנהלתו של מנהל מטיפוס ‪ ,Initiating & Empowering‬ימשיך להתפתח‬ ‫כמורה מטיפוס ‪ ,initiator‬יאמץ טכניקות חדשות וכלים חדשים שעשויים לדעתו לשפר את‬ ‫ההוראה והלמידה‪ .‬מורים המלמדים בבית ספר בהנהלת מנהל מטיפוס ‪Permitting yet‬‬ ‫‪ ,preventing & resisting‬יאמצו עם הזמן דפוס שילוב תקשוב בהוראה של מורה מטיפוס‬ ‫‪.Follower‬‬

‫‪20‬‬

‫‪Figure 4: Teachers and school principal types - mutual effect on incorporating‬‬ ‫‪technology in teaching 2003-2005: The effect on the Evador type‬‬

‫‪ Figure 4‬מראה את השפעת טיפוסי המנהלים על מורה מטיפוס ‪ .Evader‬מורה מטיפוס זה‬ ‫שפועל בבית ספר בהנהלתו של מנהל מטיפוס ‪ ,Initiating & Empowering‬יאמץ מודל שילוב‬ ‫בתקשוב בהוראה של מורה מטיפוס ‪ .Follower‬מורים המלמדים בבית ספר בהנהלת מנהל‬ ‫מטיפוס ‪ ,Permitting yet preventing & resisting‬יאמצו עם הזמן דפוס שילוב תקשוב בהוראה‬ ‫של מורה מטיפוס ‪.Objector‬‬

‫‪21‬‬

‫‪Figure 5: Teachers and school principal types - mutual effect on incorporating‬‬ ‫‪technology in teaching 2003-2005: The effect on the Objector type‬‬

‫‪ Figure 5‬מראה את השפעת טיפוסי המנהלים על מורה מטיפוס ‪ .Objector‬מורה מטיפוס זה‬ ‫שפועל בבית ספר בהנהלתו של מנהל מטיפוס ‪ ,Initiating & Empowering‬יאמץ מודל שילוב‬ ‫בתקשוב בהוראה של מורה מטיפוס ‪ .Evader‬אין בידינו תיעוד של מורים מטיפוס ‪Objector‬‬ ‫שמלמדים בבית ספר בהנהלת מנהל מטיפוס ‪.Permitting yet preventing & resisting‬‬

‫השוואה בהשפעת המנהל מטיפוס ‪ Empowering‬על המורים במהלך השנים ‪ 1998-2001‬ו‪-‬‬ ‫‪( 2003-2005‬ראה ‪ Figure 6‬ו‪ )Figure 7 -‬מראה הבדלים בהתפתחות המורים לאורך זמן‪ .‬בין‬ ‫השנים ‪ 1998-2001‬חלק קטן בלבד מהמורים עבר התפתחות חיובית‪ ,‬כלומר אימץ התנהלות‬ ‫תיקשובית של מורה מטיפוס "גבוה" ממנו‪ ,‬חלק מהמורים לא עבר כל שינוי (מוצג על ידי חץ‬ ‫מרובע) ואילו חלק ניכר מהמורים עבר התפתחות שלילית (ראה ‪ .)Figure 6‬התפתחות המורים‬ ‫שפעלו תחת מנהל מטיפוס ‪ Empowering‬בשנים ‪ ,2003-2005‬כולה חיובית (ראה ‪.)Figure 7‬‬

‫‪22‬‬

Figure 6: Teachers and school principal types - mutual effect on incorporating technology in teaching 2003-2005

23

Figure 7: Teachers and school principal types - mutual effect on incorporating tecnology in teaching 1998-2001

Summary of mutual effect on incorporating technology in teaching 1998-2001 : 2003-2005 

External influences on teachers in an “Empowering” school  Computer at home,  Critical mass of materials in Hebrew on the web,  Increase in number of teachers using IT at school,  Peer and inspectorate pressure to utilize IT,  Rise in IT experience due to accumulation of working time with the computer including e-mail and basic research literacy.

In a number of cases, the approach of the principals became somewhat more extreme. For instance, In one case, a principal (O. M.) who had been defined as an initiator in the former study became even more supportive during the five years of the study. O.M who introduced the use of computers for teaching and learning in her school seven years ago,

24

claimed in an interview in 2001 that although she believes technology should be integrated into all teaching and learning activities in school, she does not hold a personal computer on her desk . In a follow-up interview in 2005, there was a personal computer on her desk. O. M. explained, that in time, the demand to answer teachers’ emails, and respond to students’ postings on the school website, forced her "to join forces with the teachers and take part in the fun... ..Once that happened, I was encouraged that the process I was leading is the right one" O.M. also explained how technology became an integral part of the school activities. She mentioned that a person who was hired to lead the process under her supervision was necessary only at beginning stages and that after he(?) retired, the process naturally continued in the school"… the concept of using computers in everyday school- life was so deeply rooted, that the teachers just carried on with their work … Through the years a new generation of teachers who used technology as a pedagogical tool and could mentor other teachers developed". In another case, a resisting principal became more confident in his resistance to incorporating technology into his school. Y.E. is the principal at a junior high school (?) for girls. The technology facilities in the school include a computer-lab, and an additional computer in the science class. An example of Y.E.’s discomfort from technology is represented in the following excerpt from an interview in 2005: "The computers here haven't been upgraded since 1999, there's no money for it from the municipality…. ….now, even if I had the money I will not spend it on computers as I did years ago when I was persuaded to accept computers from the ministry of education. That was a mistake. We can do much better without them. There are other instructional tools much less dangerous than computers…" Unlike the principals, the teachers’ approach to technology-based instruction changed considerably during these seven years as can be seen in Figure 2 ‫ כאן צריך‬,‫יהודית‬ ‫ ?להחליט לאן להפנות את הקורא האם למטריצה המרוכזת‬and Table 1. Analysis of the interviews and observations indicates that with the encouragement, support and vision provided by an initiating principal, teachers which were categorized in the former research as followers, evaders, and even objectors, changed their attitudes toward teaching with technology to a more positive one during the five years of study. ‫ כל המלל הקשור אליו‬+ ‫להוריד הגרף‬

25

represents the effect of the type of principal type on the type of teacher, as categorized with the rubric presented above. The arrows in the table indicate the direction and extent of the change teachers went through in their approach to incorporating technology into their teaching as were derived from the two interviews with teachers and the one with the principal. A dotted arrow denotes findings based on the principal’s interview solely (and not on direct interviews with the teachers). The Arabic number inside each arrow denotes the number of interviewed teachers who went through the indicated change, while the Roman numeral is used for reference in the sequel. Examining Table 1 reveals that the initiating and the empowering principals (first two rows in the table), caused their teachers to advance to higher level types of educational technology implementation, while the permitting yet preventing and the resisting principals (row 3 and 4 in the table) caused their teachers to regress to lower level types. To illustrate these shifts we describe below ten (?) examples delineated by roman letters in table 1. Arrow I shifting. Teachers who were described as initiators and taught in schools with an initiating principal continued to develop and benefited from the school’s attitude toward technology use in the classroom, as is expressed in the following excerpt from J.G. “The school supported all my computer-based activities… the support included flexible class hours, and enabling me to use non- traditional evaluation methods”. Another example for an arrow X shift is from P.D, a teacher who is in charge of science instruction at the same (?) her school. When interviewed in 1999, P.D. was somewhat hesitant about the principal’s (O.M., described above as an initiator type of principal) vision for technology use in school. In the current study she says: “…”Now, after so many years of consistent efforts on behalf of the principal to lead the school to where she believes is ought to go, I can say that there’s a definite change in teachers’ attitudes toward incorporating technology. For myself I can say that the school’s attitude enables me to explore new ways of teaching and enables me to invest time in developing curricular materials that make a good use of the technology available for teaching Science and Technology”.

26

Arrow IA shifting. Another example of leveraging teachers’ use of technology is indicated in Table 1 by arrow IA, when working with an empowering principal, a teacher who was initially categorized as a follower (conformist) became an initiator: D.H., a science teacher working with the principal D. A, (an Initiator type of principal). D.H. was characterized during the 1998-2002 research as a Follower type of teacher. Her participation in the teacher professional development program at the Technion was enforced by D.A. who demanded that all teachers will acquire basic know-how of computer use for teaching. “I wasn’t much interested then in computers, I had other things on my mind then… D.A. the principal insisted that I’ll attend the course...” “… Implementing what I’ve acquired in the workshop was not easy, but I received support all along the way. During the first few months after the course, my mentor from the Technion, came into school regularly to work with me, he was available through mail and telephone. The most important element for me in those months was school attitude, which was determined by the principal. He made it clear to all the staff, that ‘school has to make sure that teachers will have all the support needed to implement educational technology into their teaching’. This attitude allowed me to gain confidence in this new environment. In time I became more and more competent - today I’m an expert. I conduct regular interactions with my students through my forum, I run schools’ science and Technology web site…” Arrow II shifting. S.A., teaches high-school biology and junior-high-school level science and technology. S.A is highly respected by the principal who according to our classification, is an empowering principal. The principal describes S.A. as an “… Initiative, optimistic and most positive… ….She’s good for school… …anything that S.A. asks for is taken care of”. S.A. feels that she has a lot of support from the school:. “During the last few years, this positive environment allowed me to pursue new curricular activities and programs, designed to enhance motivation for learning. The use of computers was part of it, It is not ’my heart and soul’ but I have the knowledge and capabilities to utilize it as needed.” Although we did not categorize S.A.’s use of technology as an initiator type, we do see enhancement, especially in her attitude towards technology uses.

27

Arrow III shifting. . Y. H. represents an “avoider” type of teachers, who became a “follower”when working with an Empowering principal. In the follow-up interview Y.H. claims that during the last few years the school’s attitude toward incorporating educational technology has not changed, but that the environment has changed and brought him to incorporate more technology uses to his teaching: “...Computers are everywhere...” “… The students are computer literate…” “As head of the environmental studies at school, it’s my responsibility to lead changes, including the use of new teaching techniques, new curricular materials…” “… There are regional and international projects which are very attractive; they are all Web-Based activities…” “ We acquired a computerized meteorological station…” “We compete for awards and grants from the Ministry of Environment and education, which means writing papers, building presentations..” “…All in all I found myself working with the computer as part of my daily routine… and it’s not bad…” Arrow IV shifting. Teachers who were classified as “objectors” were difficult to move, even when they worked with empowering and initiating principles. An example is one teacher who was originally defined as objector showed slight changes in his attitude (indicated by arrow IV), but was still categorized as an objector. The opposite effect, in which teachers decreased their use of technology when working with the permitting-yet-preventing and the resisting principals, is illustrated by arrows V to X. To illustrate this effect we describe the case of arrow X: )Arrow X shifting ‫)להוריד את כל הקטעים הבאים עד‬ L.G. the principal of R middle school who’s a permitting yet preventing type of principal one teacher as indicated in Table 1 by arrow V moved from being an initiator to a follower. One teacher as indicated by arrow VI moved from being a follower to an Evader. One teacher as indicated by arrow VII moved from being an Evader to a Resistor. Another moved down in her characteristics within the definition of a follower.

28

A different example can be seen in the E.A Junior High School. Although the principal R.L. is categorized as an empowering principal, the person responsible for the computer labs, school web site etc. is described by M.E. a science teacher as “hard and unbearable, she’ll makes life difficult for everybody, so my policy is just to get away from her… ..I rather not do then encounter with that lady…” so M.E. was indicated as working under the leadership of a preventing type of principal (indicated in Table 1 by arrow IX. Arrow X shifting. In a school whose principal resists introduction of technology, even an initiating teacher is likely to gradually lose the drive to be an initiator and make extra efforts, feeling like she or he are "fighting windmills”. For example, one teacher, originally classified as an initiator, was demoted to a follower, We first met Y.B. in 1997 in a 336 hours workshop, which objective was to retrain teachers who taught a specific scientific subject (biology, chemistry, geography, physics, technology etc.) to “Science and Technology” teachers as part of a new department of education initiative which was called “Tomorrow 98”. In 1999 when Y.B participated in another workshop at the Technion, she was clearly an Initiator type of teacher. Y. B. works in a school with principal which we categorized as a “resisting” type. In an interview conducted at 2005 Y.B. claimed that she is regressing, all her efforts to incorporate computers into the Environmental studies are “shattering against the wall of objection” “... There are no sufficient facilities, years ago the principal disconnected the computers from the Internet, he said there’s no money to pay the bills…” “..I’m very frustrated and angry. You already heard that from me two years ago, but then I believed that in time the principal’s attitude will change… now I just know it will not...” “... I do not commit myself to anything new. I have no more energy…” We found one exception of a teacher who continued to act as an initiator even though the principal acted as a permitting-yet-preventing manner, as indicated in by arrow VIII.. In both interviews with A.A, it was evident that she is a strong persong who has got her own agenda concerning the way her teaching is done. “I do not care if the teachers lead the principal by the nose. They do not want to work hard. Incorporating

29

technology into teaching is hard work, so the current situation in school is that teacher’s lounge determine school s agenda – that is not me and the principal knows that. He knows I’m stubborn, he appreciates me as a professional, he knows that when I make up my mind about something I will do it, so he allows me to teach the way I want. He even found the money to purchase Computerized Labs-kits for me…” “…I’m determined to continue fighting for what I believe in. Currently I need the principal to allow me to teach in small groups, I’ll maneuver the principal to the position from where he’ll have no choice but agree to split my class into small groups so they’ll be able to work in the computer Lab and make a good use of the kits.”

30

Matrix 1: Teachers and school principal types - mutual effect on incorporating technology in teaching 2003-2005 The Initiator

Teacher

Principal

The Follower )Conformist(

Studies and develops his own initiatives Will apply Webbased inquiry teaching in any and all instances

Will do what is expected of him Will apply Webbased teaching when it is convenient

The Evader

The Objector

Will do the minimum according to the pressure that is placed upon. Will only use Webbased teaching if required

Rarely uses computers for minor tasks at home. Will not use Web-based teaching under any conditions

The initiating principal The principal leads the process of change, identifies the need, defines it, and III mentors the required organizational changes.

3

I

aI I

2

1

IV

The empowering principal

The principal is interested III 2 in change of teaching methods and would like new endeavors, including Web-based II 2 teaching. allows teachers to proceed with their initiatives.

IV

11

The permitting yet

Vpreventing principal

1

VIII 1

The school principal seems to support Web-based 1 initiatives, but VI teaching persists in his conservative policy as to school’s 2 IX structure, 1 timetable, lesson and curriculum.

VII

The resisting principal

1

The school principal knowingly objects any teaching method1 that involves Web-based elements of any kind. The X reasons may differ, but by and large, they are linked to religion and tradition.

31

Matrix 2: Teachers and principal types - mutual effect on incorporating technology in teaching 1998-2001

Teacher Principal

The Initiator

The Follower )Conformist(

The Evader

The Objector

The initiating principal

The empowering principal

The permitting yet preventing principal

The resisting principal

Matrix 2 demonstrates the effect of school types on teachers' incorporating technology in teaching as was determined at the initial research taken place during the years 1998-2001. Comparing the 1998-2001 matrix with the 2003-2005 matrix, Reveal differences in the way teachers responded to principal types. The difference is most apparent when the principal type is the empowering principal. As indicated in Table 2, the Empowering Principal, although he is interested in change of teaching methods and would like new endeavors, including Web-based teaching and allows teachers to proceed with their initiatives, the school management does not have a clear view about teaching strategies, the different initiatives do not serve the school’s goal and sometimes they even contradict each other. That situation has caused the teachers during their initial attempt at implement technology in teaching to react as indicated in Matrix 2. As time passed, the teachers has gained experience and confidence in incorporating technology in their teaching. Further more: there are number of peripheral aspects to account for:

32

1. 2. 3. 4.

New computers at homes, Windows 98 and XP are easier to utilize e-mail becomes a main stream communication tool There is a huge increase in relevant materials in Hebrew on the web. Since the Freedom of Information act was past in 1998 all bureaus and government offices and agencies must supply all their services and information through the web. The implication of that is that a citizen who does not want to waist a lot of time standing in queue, can fill forms, pay bills, apply for services directly on the web. 5. In most of the Junior High schools teacher have to report their student's achievement digitally directly to the schools data base These aspects indicate that the teachers' general computer literacy has increased during the period 2001-2005. Their competence and confidence has increased during that time. The teachers reports during the follow up interviews (2003-2005) indicates that they are over the initial stage of "survival" in their PD (Sandholtz, Ringstaff & Dwyer, 1997 ).

33

‫השוואת ניתוח פעילויות של שלוש מורות המוגדרות כטיפוס ‪( 1‬פורצות דרך)‪ ,‬לממצאים העולים מהשוואת מורים‬ ‫‪.‬מתחילים ומורים מובילי תקשוב על ידי תמר שמיר‬ ‫להל"ן טבלת ריכוז ניתוח פעילויות המורות לפי המחוון של תמר שמיר (טבלה ‪ ,)1‬הממצאים עברו דיון נוסף והתאמה‬ ‫על ידי יהודה ותמר (הערה‪ :‬מימד מידת השיתופיות לא מופיע במחוון המקורי ולכן לא עבר תיקוף על ידי גורם נוסף)‬

‫טבלה ‪ :1‬ריכוז ניתוח פעילויות מקוונות של טיפוס ‪ - 1‬מורים פורצי דרך‬

‫המימד‬ ‫ניצול הערך הטכנולוגי‬ ‫רמת חשיבה נדרשת‬ ‫מידת השיתופיות‬ ‫קרוב התכנים לעולמו של הלומד‬ ‫הבניית משימות פתוחות ‪Scaffolding‬‬ ‫שילוב הערכה כחלק מהנחיות המטלה‬

‫שם הפעילות‪/‬‬ ‫הערכת האפיון‬ ‫אפיון גבוה (‪)3‬‬ ‫אפיון בינוני (‪)2‬‬ ‫אפיון נמוך (‪)1‬‬ ‫אפיון גבוה (‪)3‬‬ ‫אפיון בינוני (‪)2‬‬ ‫אפיון נמוך (‪)1‬‬ ‫אפיון גבוה (‪)3‬‬ ‫אפיון בינוני (‪)2‬‬ ‫אפיון נמוך (‪)1‬‬ ‫אפיון גבוה (‪)3‬‬ ‫אפיון בינוני (‪)2‬‬ ‫אפיון נמוך (‪)1‬‬ ‫אפיון גבוה (‪)3‬‬ ‫אפיון בינוני (‪)2‬‬ ‫אפיון נמוך (‪)1‬‬ ‫אפיון גבוה (‪)3‬‬ ‫אפיון בינוני (‪)2‬‬ ‫אפיון נמוך (‪)1‬‬

‫איילת שמולה‬

‫שולי קפון‬

‫שרית ארגמן‬

‫ממוצע‬

‫‪3‬‬

‫‪1‬‬

‫‪3‬‬

‫‪2.33‬‬

‫‪3‬‬

‫‪3‬‬

‫‪3‬‬

‫‪3‬‬

‫‪3‬‬

‫‪1‬‬

‫‪3‬‬

‫‪2.33‬‬

‫‪3‬‬

‫‪3‬‬

‫‪2‬‬

‫‪2.67‬‬

‫‪3‬‬

‫‪1‬‬

‫‪2‬‬

‫‪2‬‬

‫‪2‬‬

‫‪1‬‬

‫‪1‬‬

‫‪1.33‬‬

‫‪2.83‬‬

‫‪34‬‬

‫‪1.67‬‬

‫‪2.33‬‬

Discussion Assimilating Web-based learning in science classes depends on the level of the principal’s support and involvement. This study supports the findings of Foster, Loving and Shumate (2000) that a change in a school, which is managed by a principal who does not cooperate or lead the process will seldom succeed. Sasson (1999) showed that principals who lead computer integration in their schools can be identified according to a set of characteristics as showed by our findings. Flanagan & Jacobsen (2003) claims that the arrival of digital technologies in schools has impacted the roles and responsibilities of principals in significant ways. ICT has triggered demands for systemic changes in public schools necessitated by the shift from the industrial age to the knowledge economy. Inevitably, teachers and principals feel the pressure to change, and must find ways of implementing and sustaining technological innovations in classrooms. Salomon (2000) claimed that for a project to succeed there is a need for supportive school’s climate. Our findings also support the work of Quinn, (2002) who showed that principals must create an atmosphere of trust and patience. Teachers need to know that their efforts are valued and appreciated. Teachers need to know that they are free to take risks without fear of penalty. Principals need to model the value of continual learning and the ongoing pursuit of success. Teachers need opportunities to collaborate and learn from each other routinely and informally. Principals need to promote teacher participation and leadership in staff development. The findings of this research are supported by O'Dwyer, Russell & Bebell (2005) who found that the ability of a school or district to manipulate or alter all of the factors related to technology use in schools has implications for the school and district policies, practices, and leadership characteristics that may influence how, and the extent to which teachers use technology for a variety of purposes. Specifically, increasing availability of technology, providing line item funding for technology, altering restrictive policies related to technology, considering technology use as part of teacher evaluations, and providing easy access to a variety of professional development opportunities all have the potential to impact on one or more ways in which teachers use technology to support their teaching.

35

Kelceoglu (2006) in a current research showed that Although the school principal was very supportive of first year teachers who would like to integrate technology in their teaching, the utilization of technology was a personal choice of individual teachers. Since it was an individual decision, the teacher thus, chose not to focus on the utilization of technology in her teaching. These findings contradict Mumtaz's, who claims based on extensive literature review that teacher factors far outweighed the institutional or school factors. claims that despite essential technical support provided by the school and a positive attitude to IT from the school principal, the teacher factors that involved beliefs about the way the subject should be taught and skills associated with competence in managing classroom activities and computer-handling technical skills were the most influential in teachers’ use of computers, for schools can go only so far to encourage ICT use; actual take-up depends largely on teachers’ personal feelings, skills and attitudes to IT in general (Mumtaz, 2000). Our findings shows that in the long run it will be schools characteristics which will determine long term implementing of IT in teaching. Our findings support a current research of Angers & Krisanna, (2005) of three middle school science teachers who successfully integrate technology into their class room. They found that at the school level the teachers are given release time to attend trainings and conferences. These teachers are encouraged to take a leadership role and are invited to share their ideas about instruction with colleagues at faculty meetings and state conferences. Other teachers are encouraged to observe how these teachers have implemented their student-centered and student-directed visions within realistic environments in which technology is one component. Wozney et al (2006) found that Teachers need to believe that they can successfully implement technology within their own context; if not, they may neither take the initial risk nor continue to persevere in implementing it. (Wozney, Vivek and Philip, 2006).

36

Our findings that show higher use of Web-based teaching where the principal is involved and encourages teachers, are also supported by Hodas (1993), Supovitz and Turner (2000). The types of principals identified and characterized in this research provide a basis for predicting teachers' implementation of technological innovations in general, and Web-based teaching in particular, into their classes. Having identified the various principal types, we went on to explore the combinations of the different types of teachers and principals and the pattern of how the principal's type affected the teachers' types. The data we obtained indicated that under the influence of the initiating principal, a teacher is often promoted to a more "advanced" type. This may be due to the principal's encouragement and support as found in a research of how middle school teachers integrated wireless laptops in the initial stages of implementation which shows that the participating teachers who were not computer savvy, relied on the school's principals "leading the project" (p. 367) thus supporting the teachers. (Burns and Joseph, 2006) The follower, who used to do what is expected of him, will be "upgraded" to an initiator, who suggests changes and improvements and presents ways for implementation. Likewise, an avoider, who was willing to occasionally cooperate with a team, now fully cooperates with her team, and may suggest changes or improvements. Encouraged by an initiator principal, the initiator and pathfinder teacher types will utilize her skills and bring her initiative to complete fruition. Under the leadership of an initiating principal, a follower (conformist) teacher may become an initiator. The same type of teacher will abandon any initiative of introducing new technology into a school whose principal discourages such activities. Finally, an antagonist teacher will show almost no signs of initiation, regardless of whether she has the principal's support. The other three principal types were shown to cause the opposite effect—they demote the type of a teacher to a less "advanced" type. Moreover, a resisting principal discourages initiator or follower teachers and therefore they might become antagonist because of the environment he/she induces, which suppresses any teacher's initiative and good intention. In a school whose principal resists the introduction of technology, even an initiator teacher will gradually lose his drive and desire to put in extra effort

37

as he feels like "fighting windmills”. He will undergo a process in which he will cease to be an initiator and continue to teach without any, or very little drive.

References • • • • • •

•

Anderson, R. E. & Dexter, S. (2005). School Technology Leadership: An Empirical Investigation of Prevalence and Effect. Educational Administration Quarterly. 41(1). 49-82. Angers, J. & Machtmes, K. (2005). An Ethnographic Case Study of Beliefs, Context Factors, and Practices of Teachers Integrating Technology. The Qualitative Report 10(4). 771-794. (retrieved 26 July 2006 from http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR10-4/angers.pdf) Baylor, A., L.,& Ritchie, D. (2002). What factors facilitate teacher skill, teacher morale, and perceived student learning in technology-using classrooms? Computers & Education, 39, 395414. Bell, B. (1998). Teacher development in science education. In: B Fraser & K. Tobin (eds.) International handbook of science education. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 681-693. Bell, B., & Gilbert, J. (1996). Teacher Development: A Model from Science Education. Falmer Press, London. Blumenfeld, P., Fishman, B. J., Krajcik, J., Marx, R. W., & Soloway, E. (2000). Creating usable innovations in systemic reform: Scaling up technology-embedded project-based science in urban schools. Educational Psychologist, 35(3), 149-164. Burns, K and Joseph, P. (2006) The impact of ubiquitous computing in the Internet age: how middle school teachers integrated wireless laptops in the initial stages of implementation. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education 14(2 ). 363-386.

•

Bybee, R. W., & Loucks-Horsley, S. (2000). Supporting Change Through Professional development, 41-48. In Resch, B. (ed.) Making Sense of Integrated Science; A Guide for High Schools. BSCS.

•

Clausen J., M. (2007). Beginning Teachers' Technology Use: First Year Teacher Development and the Institutional Context's affect on New Teachers' Instructional Technology Use with Students. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 35(3), 245-261 Cohen, D. K., & Ball, D. L. (1999). Instruction, capacity, and improvement (CPRE Research Report Creighton, T. (2002). The principal as technology leader. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Cuban, L., Kirkpatrick, H. and Peck, C. (2001), "High access and low use of technologies in high school classrooms: explaining an apparent paradox", American Educational Research Journal, Vol. 38 No. 4, pp. 813 Cusack, M. S. (1995). Does building a classroom community facilitate learning? Teaching Pre K-8, 26(3), 64-65. Dori, J. Y., Tal,T. R. and Y. Peled (2002). Characteristics of Science Teachers Who Incorporate Web-Based Teaching. Research in Science Education. 32 (4), 511-547. Dori, Y.J. & Herscovitz, O. (2005). Case-based long-term professional development of science teachers. International Journal of Science Education, 27(12), 1413–1446.

• • • • • •

•

Fessler, R. (1985). Teacher Career Stages. In Burke, P.J., & Heideman, R. (Eds), Career Long Teacher Education, Springfield, Thomas.

•

Fishman, B.J., Gomez, L.M., & Soloway, E. (2001). New technologies and the challenge for school leadership. A white paper for the Joyce Foundation Wingspread Meeting: Technology’s Role in Urban School Reform: Achieving Equity and Quality. Flanagan, L. & Jacobsen, M. (2003). Technology leadership for the twenty-first century

•

38

• •

principal. Journal of Educational Administration. 2003. 41(2). 124-143 Fullan, M. (1993), Change Forces: Probing the Depth of Educational Reform, Falmer Press, London.

•

Fullan, M. G., & Stiegelbauer, S. (1991). The New Meaning of Educational Change (2nd ed.) New York: Teachers college Press.

•

Fullan, M.G. & Miles, M.B. (1992). Getting reform right: What works and what doesn't. Phi Delta Kappan, 73(10), 745-752. Graves, L. M. (1992). Cooperative learning communities: Context for a new vision of education and society. Journal of Education, 174(2), 57-79. Hall, G., Rutherford, W. L., Hord, S. M., & Huling, L. L. (1984), Effects of three principal styles on school improvement. Educational Leadership, 41(5). 22-29. Harari, H. (1994). Tomorrow 98: report of the superior committee on science, mathematics and technology education of Israel. Jerusalem: State of Israel, Ministry of Education, Culture and Sport. Honey, M., & McMillan-Culp, K. (2000). Scale and localization: The challenge of implementing what works. In M. Honey & C. Shookhoff (Eds.), The Wingspread Conference on Technology’s Role in Urban School Reform: Achieving Equity and Quality (pp. 41–46). Racine, WI: The Joyce Foundation, The Johnson Foundation, and the EDC Center for Children and Technology. Huberman, M. (1989). Research on teachers’ professional lives. International Journal of Educational Research, 3(4), 347-361. International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE). (2002). National educational technology standards for administrators. (http://cnets.iste.org/tssa/pdf/tssa.pdf. retrieved July 23, 2006) International Society for technology in Education (ISTE). (2002). National educational technology standards for administrators. Eugene, OR:ISTE. Judson, E. (2006). How teachers integrate technology and their beliefs about learning: is there a connection?. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education 14(3). 581-598. Kelceoglu I (2006). Understanding Institutional Factors Affecting First-Year Teachers’ Utilization of Technology. NECC 2006. San Diego July 5-7, 2006. Retrieved 19 July 2006 from http://center.uoregon.edu/ISTE/NECC2006/program/search_results_details.p hp?sessionid=13371439 Kleine-Kracht, P.A. (1993). The principal in a learning community. Journal of School Leadership, 3(4), 1-99. Kowch, E., & Schwier, R. (1997). Building learning communities with technology. ED405857. Paper presented at the second national congress on rural education. Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. Krajcik, J., Marx, R. W., Blumenfeld, P., Fishman, B., & Soloway, E. (2000). Inquiry based science supported by technology: Achievement among urban middle school students. Paper presented at the AERA meeting, New Orleans, April. Available at: http://www.personal.umich.edu/`krajcik/AERA.outcomes.pdf Langran, E. (2006). Technology Leadership: Principals and Technology Coordinators Working Together. In Crawford, C., Willis, D., Carlsen, R., Gibson, I., McFerrin, K., Price, J., & Weber, R. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference 2006 (pp. 2108-2113). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.

• • • •

•

• • •

•

• •

•

•

•

Leithwood, K., Jantzi, D. and Steibach, R. (1999), Changing Leadership for Changing Times, Open University Press, London.

•

Levin, T. and Wadmany, R. (2006). Teachers’ Beliefs and Practices in Technology-based Classrooms: A Developmental View. Journal of Research on Technology in Education , 39(2), 157–181 Lipton, L. & Melamede, R. (1997). Organizational learning - the essential journey. In Costa, A. L., & Liebmann, R. M (eds). The process - centered school, sustaining a renaissance community, Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. pp. 30-53.

•

39

•

• • • •

• • • •

• •

• • • •

• • • •

Mioduser, D. (2001). Internet-in-education in Israel: Issues and trends. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 49(1), 74-83. Mumtaz, S. (2000). Factors Affecting Teachers’ Use of Information and Communications Technology: a review of the literature. Journal of Information Technology for Teacher Education, Vol. 9, No. 3, 319-341 O'Dwyer, L., Russell, M. & Bebell, D. (2005). Identifying Teacher, School, and District Characteristics Associated With Middle and High School Teachers' Use of Technology: A Multilevel Perspective. Journal of Educational Computing Research. 33(4). 369 – 393 Olson, O., & Loucks-Horsley, S. (Eds.). (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards. A guide for teaching and learning. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Pelgrum, W. J. (2001). Obstacles to the integration of ICT in education: Results from a worldwide educational assessment. Computers & Education, 37(1), 163-178. Quinn D.M. (2002). The impact of principal leadership behaviors on instructional practice and student engagement. Journal of Educational Administration, 40 (5), 447-467. Sandholtz, J.H., Ringstaff, C., & Dwyer, D. (1997). Teaching with technology: Creating student centered classrooms. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University. Sasson, H. (1999) The Correlation between Leadership, The Principal’s Orientation with Computers and the Extent of Computer Integration in School. M.A. Thesis Tel Aviv university, Faculty of Humanities, School of Education. Series No. RR-043). Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Consortium for Policy Research in Education. Retrieved December 26, 2005, from http://www.cpre.org/Publications/rr43.pdf Shulman, S. S. (1997). Communities of learners & communities of teachers. The Mandel Institute, Jerusalem. Slowinski, J. (2003). Becoming a technologically savvy administrator. Teacher Librarian. 30(5), pg. 25 Supovitz, J.A., & Turner, H.M. (2000). The effects of professional development on science teaching practices and classroom culture. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 963980. Thomas, M. W. (1978). A Study of alternatives in American education, Vol II: The role of the Principal. Santa Monica: Rand Corporation. Trimble, K. (1996). Building learning communities. Equity and excellence in education, 29(1), 37-40. Wozney, L., Vivek V. and Philip C., A. (2006). Implementing computer technologies: teachers' perceptions and practices. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education 14(1). 173(35) Yee, D. (1998), “IT in educational leadership: NZ perspectives”, available at: www.ucalgary.ca/~dlyee/itenz.html Yee, D. (2000), “Images of school principals’ information and communications technology leadership”. Journal of Information Technology for Teacher Education. 9(3), 287-302. Yuen A.H.K.; Law N.; Wong K.C. (2003). ICT implementation and school leadership: Case studies of ICT integration in teaching and learning. Journal of Educational Administration. 41(2), 158-170

JRTE—Journal of Research on Technology in Education ... Journal of Research on Technology in Education. Edited by Dr. Lynne Schrum, George Mason University ...

40

41

Table 4 : Types of schools principals by their approach to Web-based teaching – Retrospect

‫טבלה רלוונטית‬ Type The initiating principal

Description The principal leads the process of change, identifies the need, defines it, and mentors the required organizational changes. This type of school has three characteristics:

Characteristic The first characteristic: The principal identifies and defines the need

The second characteristic: The principal leads the process of introducing change

42

Examples 1998-2001 During a personal interview in his school, the principal, D. A., presented his personal creed relating to the introduction of information technology in his school: We are living in an era of technological developments. These are characterized by large and rapid changes. It is my personal belief that one of a school’s responsibilities is to prepare its pupils to deal with the real world and provide tools to cope with the changes that are sure to come. Therefore I want as many of my pupils as possible to become familiar with computers in as many areas as possible. (June 2001) “My role is to provide technical and material support for the principal that is leading the process of introducing a change in the school by determining objectives and dealing with a broad range of matters that are connected to the process. I work with the teaching teams. I have been an amount of professional flexibility

Examples 2003-2005 During a telephone interview, the principal, D. A., described his schools long term pedagogical agenda “We (me and my program director) believe that every year we must introduce some innovation into school and implement it, if you do not renew you step back. We introduced CMC into school some years back. We understood then that implementing CMC into school’s every day life will be different then other initiatives….” (May 2005)

…Now, after so many years, all school computers are connected to the net and available to students and teachers at all times, that means that the computer labs. Are open at all school hours …” (Principal, D. A. of O.D, May 2005) “In the mid 90’s I participated as

Type

Description

Characteristic

The third characteristic: The principal enables the organizational changes that are necessary to assimilate information technology into the school

43

Examples 1998-2001 to determine my actions by the principal…We are in full cooperation, this is the only way… Each of us complements the other but we both acknowledge that A. M. is the leader that determines the principles and ideas involved in the process. Y. R. is the person in charge of assimilating information technology and the process of change, in a personal interview at the end of the 2001 school year I create an environment that nurtures and advances teacher. I make sure that every teacher participates in an ongoing learning program that is suited to his needs and has been designed by both of us (each teacher with the principal). This helps the teachers arrive promptly at their ability to utilize information technology in their teaching and it is a continuous process requiring endurance, flexibility, and the ability to assess any situation at a given moment. I removed (fired) two teachers that were incapable of adjusting to computer usage. It is inconceivable today that we will teach as we did 15 years ago. I assist teachers that continue their studies. I reduce their instructional load and guarantee that they can return to their previous position when they

Examples 2003-2005 principal in a PD workshop for computer teachers. I wanted to understand in details the fullest meaning of implementing the computer into school… After that I knew exactly what I’m asking my teachers to do in regard to implementing CMC into their teaching..” E. N. principal of O. school “… All schoolteachers participated in a series of PD workshops. They all know what is expected of them. In each team there’s at least one highly computer literate teacher who support those who need support… …. There is the technical aspect, which I took care of, As many computers for students as I could afford, the same in the teachers room, all these available and accessible at all school hours. User friendly web based working environments for the teachers which includes forums, mail, and lessons.” (O .M. principal of V school March 2005) … There’s a tech person available during all school hours… …I fired teachers who exhibit negative attitude to implementing

Type

The empowering principal

Description

the principal will cooperate and suggest. He will express favorable views about the change in teaching methods including incorporating computers and information technology. He will enable and encourage teachers that show initiative to lead various initiatives but there is no orderly leadership of the change

Characteristic

Examples 1998-2001 complete their studies. The school framework will be adjusted to enable teachers to study and advance themselves if they are willing to study a subject that will advance the school’s objectives. (D. A. Principal of the D. A. School in a personal interview).

The first characteristic: The principal will enable and encourage teachers that show initiative to lead various initiatives. The school is often likely to simultaneously have many projects that do not necessarily serve the school’s objectives.

44

There will never be enough computers to answer all of the school’s needs. It is easy to hide behind this statement and do nothing. I chose to act. Part of my responsibility as principal is to enable the needed change. Therefore I enlisted the parents’ help, the local authority and spread the school’s resources to best meet its requirements. The secret is flexibility in planning and keeping a finger on the pulse. (A. M. the school principal in a personal interview 1.04.01) T. Z. is the principal of the Z. S. School. He supports and encourages every educational initiative. Teachers and teams that initiate something receive support and encouragement. Adjusting the school’s schedule sometimes backs this. R. A. the vice principal “There is an excellent atmosphere in the school that encourages teachers at all levels to initiate, to renew an to introduce

Examples 2003-2005 CMC…” (May 2005)

A.Z. is the program director of Z.S school. “..Things hasn’t changed much, there is more awareness among the teachers to the potential of CMC in teaching, and more teachers utilize CMC into their teaching…” (July 2005) Sh .K. is the principal of the H. school “ … In the last ten years we constantly invest in computer hardware… We allow teachers to

Type

The permitting yet preventing principal

Description process. The school is often likely to simultaneously have many projects that have nothing to do with each other. This type of school has two characteristics:

The permitting yet preventing principal appears to support new initiatives such as integrating computers and information technology in education. In fact he remains conservative regarding the structure of the curriculum and new educational

Characteristic

Examples 1998-2001 change. The principal will assist if there is a need particularly with the paperwork to enlist financial assistance or to receive the necessary documents from the Ministry of Education. The teams of some of the projects are provided with work hours from those available in the school. (From a personal interview).

Examples 2003-2005 participate in workshops during teaching hours… I support teachers initiatives concerning the implementation of CMC..”

The second characteristic: The school does not have a doctrine regarding its objectives in integrating information technology.

The C. H. School does not have a clear policy regarding the school’s use of information technology in instruction. The school allows teachers to study but their personal development depends solely on themselves and their connection with the teaching staff in their field of expertise. “The science teachers decided how they would integrate computers into their instruction in an organized effort. There is no general direction or guidance from the school regarding this issue” (T. Z. from the C. H. School).

… There is no school direction as to the pedagogical implementation of CMC… …Those who do, do it on their own accord..” (A.Z. the program director of Z.S school. July 2005)

The first characteristic: The principal claims he is interested in integrating information technology into the school’s instruction.

T. P. is the principal of the G. T. School. He emphasizes the importance of information technology in education a states his desire for the teachers to learn and develop in this subject. “… It is my vision that additional science teachers and teachers from other disciplines

45

Sh .K. is the principal of the H. school “My vision is that every student leaving school after 12 years will be computer literate.. S.K , A veteran Physics teacher at the H. School. “…. Sh. K. does not have a vision, maybe she has one but it’s not part of school agenda, yes, she’s very supportive…” T. P. is the principal of the G. T. School. “We’re a leading school in integrating chemistry computer Labs. We have invested a lot of money in it.”” To my question about integrating CMC into school, “I’m very interested. I encourage my teachers

Type

Description programs. He conveys in this fashion a clear, albeit hidden message, that he is not really prepared to assimilate information technology into the school. The school has three characteristics:

Characteristic

Examples 1998-2001 will develop a school community and they will join together with others to form a large community containing all of the teachers and pupils (The researcher’s diary documenting a working meeting in the school at the establishment of an internal information technology system). The B. L. School declares that it has a pedagogical approach to combining information technology to advance its educational goals by designing hardware and by the teachers developing a site dedicated to a subject and accompanied by their lessons. The school’s rationale is to organize the knowledge, strengthen values, reflection, and cooperation in knowledge (from the school’s internet site).

Examples 2003-2005 to participate in workshops, but it seems that incorporating CMC into their teaching is not important to them” (June 2005).

The second characteristic: The curriculum and school scheduling demonstrate inflexibility and conservatism.

I received a negative answer when I requested the use of the computers to conduct a science project on air pollution. The person in charge of scheduling claimed that it was difficult to change the schedule however I know that the change could be accomplished with a slight effort and an amount of flexibility. The school has enough computers (in an interview with R. P. from the R. school). The principal was glad when I told

“Last year I have sent two teachers to participate in the ‘Wise City’ initiative. The teachers did integrate the program into their teaching during the 2004 school year” to my question about this year she replied: “My intention this year was to widen the circle of participants in the program, but, alas, my teachers were ordered by the school inspector to participate in a different workshop. So unfortunately the initiative stopped”

46

Type

Description

Characteristic

The third characteristic has two possibilities: The Characteristic 3A: The school does not support or assist teachers’ initiatives.

47

Examples 1998-2001 him that I wanted to introduce changes in the way I taught science in the 9th grade (Water was the subject matter). I planned to conduct an online experiment as we learned in our studies with you (the present researcher). The computers in our school are designated for the pupils that are learning computers for their matriculation examinations. This prevents me from conducting an online experiment with my pupils. (The pupils) agreed that I could enter the computer room once after the 12th graders had taken their matriculation exams. (A. H., a teacher in the M. T. School). “The principal gave me her blessing when I applied to study a course that would prepare me for teaching math online. She also said that this school need new ideas and initiatives”. The principal refused to put the learning material in the school’s Internet site. I never received any assistance from her though I returned and requested several times. The only assistance that I needed was technical assistance in installing the software “The school has a two year old web site. Its objective is to impress and since its creation, nothing has developed. If the school was truly interested, it could assist me in operating it” (In a

Examples 2003-2005 “My budget was cut down by the municipality. The comp. Technician comes in only twice a week, so there are a lot of malfunctions” “There are only 20 computers in each lab. It means that in order to have a lesson take place in a computer lab. The class has to be divided into two, you can understand that these days with all this budget constrains, that’s merely impossible” (L.G. principal of R. M.S March 2005)

“Last year I participated in a PD workshop ‘Wise City’ This year I asked the principal to send few teachers to the workshop so there will a bunch of us at school utilizing this program. She refused because of some administrative constrains” (A.S Science teacher at R school. April 2005)

Type

Description

Characteristic

Examples 1998-2001 personal interview with S. H. at the B. L. School 27 July, 2001). N. B. offered to moderate her school’s pupils that are studying the environment while they conduct research, some of it online, as she learned when studying at the Technion. Her offer was immediately refused. The reasons for the refusal were: lack of funding, unwillingness to lessen the number of formal meetings between pupils and teachers, inequality between pupils, pupils without computers at home (A personal interview with the teacher N. B. or the S. School).

Examples 2003-2005

The Characteristic 3B: The school principal is incapable of overcoming the conservatism of part of his staff and the internal opposition that currently exists.

I am the school principal and although I can give orders to install changes but it is worthwhile to work with the staff in order to introduce changes. There is a need to examine who is compatible to work with the desired change and they must exert a continuous mild pressure. The work to teachers that are already implementing information technology should be presented so that its advantages can be seen and to develop an appetite. I believe that every teacher in my school will find reasons to establish his own community within five to ten years (T. P., The principal of the G. T. school

"Five years ago I believed that the school can go through a major change, CMC was part of the change, the problem is that teachers are reluctant to implement CMC, they claim it demands too much of them, they've no time for they have to prepare their students to pass the Matriculation tests" (T.P principal of G. T. school. June 2005).

48

Type

Description

Characteristic

Examples 1998-2001 in a personal interview concluding a first year of assimilating online instruction of ecology in her school).

Examples 2003-2005

The resisting type of principal

This type of school has computers and some of them are connected to the Internet. There may be limited Internet access on a limited number of computers. Either there is no information technology based education or it is extremely limited. When there is information technology based instruction, it is very limited and under strict supervision. The principal clearly opposes information technology based education and has stated that very clearly. His resistance is usually based on religious grounds. This type of school has two characteristics:

The first characteristic: Internet access is limited to specific sites.

We cannot allow pupils to conduct online research in their biology research projects until the computer the limits access to undesirable sites is repaired (P. A. the vice principal of the K. A. School in a private interview) There was a period of time when we had computers connected to the Internet…pupils visited sites that we considered detrimental to their good…that was the reasoning behind limiting their access to the Internet… they can use the Internet only when a teacher is present and only visit sites that he has listed. (From a personal interview with J. Z. from the H. M. School).

…There are few good site where girls can ask their spiritual leaders a guiding question, other than that I do not allow them to just surf… (Y. E. principal of Z. A. March 2005)

The second characteristic: The school principal is opposed to utilizing information technology in education.

Y. E is the principal of the Z. A. School and has a well formed vision regarding the school’s role in developing its young pupils. We are responsible for our pupils’ philosophical world. We are charged with developing their sets of social and communal values. Information technology has failed in education. It creates difficulties and places

"…CMC is not an educational tool, it's a tool for teaching. It's only A tool. Here in this school we educate our students. When we balance our preferences, we come to the conclusion that time spent looking for so called useful information on the web, can be spent much better on learning and debating moral issues…" (Y. E. principal of Z. A.

49

Type

Description

Characteristic

Examples 1998-2001 temptations in pupils’ paths. Therefore, as school principal I eliminated it from my list of preferences. (Y. the principal of the Z. A. School). Z. G. the school principal presented his position after the researcher suggested connecting the school’s teaching staff to an information technology network that would enable teachers and pupils to interact as the teachers had learned in their studies and pupils would be able to ask questions of experts regarding their research questions: “You must understand that this is not the spirit that we want to have in our school network. Though this is a technological tool, it is preferable that the relationship between our pupils and their teachers remain as it is today. The lessons progress according to our curriculum. I see no reason, and even object to our pupils receiving free access to such a network (Z. G. the principal of the C. A. School in a personal interview 09.09.09). “I am presently looking for contributions to enlarge the synagogue and build rooms for a boarding school. These are my priorities”. (Y. Principal of the Z. A. School). He explains: “I do not have

50

Examples 2003-2005 March 2005)

Type

Description

Characteristic

Examples 1998-2001 a personal creed regarding computers. However, if I look back upon how computers have been introduced into schools, I can say that the process has ceased and is in retreat. The introduction of computers into the school system has been a failure.”(Y. Principal of the Z. A. School).

Examples 2003-2005

Table 5 1 : Types of Teachers by their approach to Web-based teaching -– Retrospective analysis Examples 2003-2005 Type

Description

Type 1 The initiator and the path-finder

Appliesy Webbased inquiry teaching in any and all instances

Type 2

Will apply Web-

Characteristics •17Autodidactic and internally motivated to study the Web capabilities •18Realizes the potential found in Web-based teaching, uses email and discussion forums to communicate with her students, and constructs class homepage with the help of the students •19Finds its own way to improve her teaching skills and incorporate Web-based inquiry activities in her class •20Will find the way to deal with technical, organizational and other difficulties when they occur. •21Participates in courses about Web-based

Examples 1998-2001 The teacher T. Z. “I was looking for means to improve my use of the internet and the computer. I learned the basics from my son. I am constantly learning in different PD programs. I am a member of several Web-based development groups and I developed a Website with inquiry activities for my science class. I continue to improve and advance in developing these activities for my students enjoyment and interest."

The teacher D. H. was “upgraded” to an Initiator type of teacher. “The principal created a very supportive environment which allowed me the time necessary to gain confidence in utilizing CMC as best as possible. Now, I do not need any one to tell me what’s good for my students… I’m on the look for new ways and technologies all the time…”

The teacher D. H. “I have no

The teacher Y. H. was

51

Examples 2003-2005 Type

The follower -conformist

Type 3 The avoider

Type 4 The antagonist

Description

based teaching when it is convenient

Will only use Web-based teaching if required

Will not use Web-based teaching under any conditions.

Characteristics teaching and is exposed to such activities •22Willing to use components of Web-based inquiry teaching. When the conditions are suitable he will use it in a minor way •23He participates in discussion groups, allocates articles on the net and prints them as working pages •24Web-based inquiry learning is not viewed by him as a milestone or extremely relevant to students.

•25Has participated in technology-based PD programs or been exposed to online activity •26Appears to be willing to use Web-based teaching •27Has agreed to utilize some aspects of Webbased teaching but will not initiate anything in her school in order to do so •28Will incorporate some components of Webbased teaching only if required. •29Rarely uses computers for minor tasks at home. Some of these teachers are intimidated by computers (technophobia) •30Has "her reasons" for not utilizing computers or the internet and •31Unfamiliar with advances in information technology (mostly tenured teachers toward their retirement) •32Resists incorporating Web-based activities into the science classroom.

Examples 1998-2001 problem devoting the time for the development of new learning materials as I always have. However, it is a fact that currently I am devoting even more of my time to prepare Webbased activities. I have a sense of satisfaction but I am not sure that the rewards suit the effort."

The teacher M.S. explained why he was not eager to use Webbased teaching in his science classes: “the organizational and technical problems I have to face are so huge and it leaves me unmotivated." The teacher Y. A. “I am not sure I have the financial capabilities to buy a computer for home. In school it is always in use and therefore I will never learn how to use it."

52

“upgraded” to a Follower type of teacher. “It took me some time comprehend that there is no way of avoiding the computer. Now I use the computer much more then I did 3 years ago”. The teacher D. A. is a Follower type of teacher. “I’ have much more experience and knowledge in computers. I surf the web to look for teaching materials, I use the computer for personal things much more then before” The teacher P. A. regressed to an Avoider type of teacher. “It’s impossible to utilize CMC into teaching any more… The size of learning groups was doubled… there’s no way of getting with students into the computer lab. … I’m fed up with it all… I’m back to black board and chalk..” The teacher Y. A. “There is no need for me to use the computer in my teaching. The textbooks are good. I prepare my students to succeed in the matriculation exams…”

53