Paper presented at Higher Education Close Up, an international conference from 6-8 July 1998 at University of Central Lancashire, Preston. This conference is jointly hosted by the Department of Educational Research, Lancaster University and the Department of Education Studies, University of Central Lancashire and is supported by the Society for Research into Higher Education

Copyright Jane Barnard

Abstract

The research described here investigates the factors which influence Further Education (FE) teachers' use of CAL, focussing on biology teachers in particular. This article outlines some of the most relevant literature and describes its influence on the structure and interpretation of the survey and interviews conducted so far. The article also indicates plans for future studies, namely classroom observations of teachers using CAL. The methodologies described here derive from studies in both schools (e.g. Brown and McIntyre 1993) and Higher Education (e.g. Prosser, Trigwell and Taylor 1994). It is hoped that the results from the research will be relevant for schools and Higher Education as well as FE.

INTRODUCTION

The Further Education (FE) sector is the main provider of post-16 education in England, currently enrolling over three million students per year (Higginson 1996). Since the late 1980s the sector has undergone considerable structural and curricular changes. During these changes computers have become an integral part of the administration, but their influence on the curriculum has been less extensive, despite FE's general responsiveness to work practices and despite many educationalists' advocacy for the potential of Computer Assisted Learning (CAL). This perceived under-usage has also been well-documented within schools (e.g. Hannafin and Savenye 1993) and Higher Education (e.g. Booth, Wilkie and Foster 1996).

The research described here investigates the nature of the factors which influence the uptake of CAL, and how these different factors interact.

RELEVANT LITERATURE

Investigations into factors which affect teachers' use of computers can be roughly divided into those which focus on non-users, and those which focus on effective or extensive users. The former tend to highlight computer anxiety or unfamiliarity as major obstacles to computer use (e.g. Dunn and Ridgway 1991a, Madsen and Sebastiani 1987). This focus is seen also in papers which suggest that teachers who are sceptical about the incorporation of technology within education are necessarily uninformed (e.g. Higginson 1996).

However, follow-up studies indicate that increased familiarity with, and decreased anxiety about, computers are not correlated with increased use of CAL (e.g. Dunn and Ridgway 1991b, Downes 1993). Thus it seems as though these factors represent the first, not the only, obstacle to computer use.

Studies on the effective/extensive user groups tend, by contrast, to stress the importance of factors such as resourcing, perceived usefulness of CAL, and the influence of colleagues (e.g. Becker 1994, Watson 1993). Overall they give more prominence to the teacher's environmental circumstances.

Case studies in this area (e.g. Cuban 1986, Kerr 1991) also acknowledge the importance of the teacher's working environment, but tend to switch the focus back to the teacher themselves. For example, Kerr 1991 notes that extensive technology users may have to undergo deep-seated changes in their personal philosophies about teaching and learning and

"most significantly, the look and feel of classrooms as the arenas where education takes place" (p132)

In general, the results from these studies indicate that the effective incorporation of technological innovations into the classroom require profound changes.

Brown and McIntyre (1993) provide a framework which might explain this. Following analysis of teacher interviews and observations they identify three main concepts which teachers use to make sense of their own teaching; these are described as the "normal desirable states of pupil activity" (NDS), "progress", and "actions".

They note that teachers explained what was happening in their classrooms in terms of what the student ought to be doing (i.e. the NDS) and how they were progressing. They found that teachers talked about their numerous actions chiefly in terms of maintaining or achieving the NDS, or attaining student progress.

Brown and McIntyre use this framework to address the issue of why educational innovations are generally under-utilised. They note that many such innovations are

"concerned with pupils' ways of working in classrooms..... Such innovations seek, in our terms, to define new 'normal desirable states of pupil activity'." (p116)

They emphasise the difficulty this causes when such an NDS is incompatible with the teachers' NDS and note that the innovation would have to prove itself far superior to established practices in order to justify the large scale shifts the teacher would need to make in order to incorporate it.

THE RESEARCH FRAMEWORK

So it seems that teachers who have become experienced users of classroom technology have moved through a series of barriers, some internal some external. This can be represented as follows:

However, progress is neither smooth nor linear, and perhaps a more apt metaphor would be a highly convoluted and sometimes recursive obstacle course.

As noted previously much of the literature suggests that general unfamiliarity and anxiety form the first major obstacle to computer use. However, a recent survey (Barnard 1997), described later, suggests that FE Biology teachers make extensive use of computers outside their classrooms and therefore many of them are over this first obstacle.

The second major obstacle appears to be resourcing, although this is so wide-ranging that scattered pieces of it are likely to be found throughout the obstacle course. Resourcing issues are highlighted within several major studies (e.g. Watson 1993, Becker 1994), and feature prominently in the results from the survey (Barnard 1997).

The final obstacle is the most convoluted of all, and includes such interwoven aspects as personal philosophies about teaching, learning and computing, as well as issues to do with the individual's teaching style and classroom management; these last two are described here under the umbrella term "classroom dynamics".

The studies described here include a survey and two sets of interviews. They aim to establish teachers' positions along the obstacle course by investigating their working environments, personal philosophies about teaching and learning and attitudes towards computers and CAL. All the names in the following account have been changed.

SURVEY

The survey was distributed to biology teachers at a total of sixty four FE Colleges within an eighty mile radius of London. Sixty eight replies were received, with a gender split of roughly 50:50. The respondent groups' teaching experience ranges from one to thirty six years, with roughly half the group having more than fifteen years' experience. The replies show that most of the teachers have daily access to computers both at home (80%) and at work (94%).

Most of the respondents use a variety of applications outside the classroom (e.g. word processing, spreadsheets, email, programming, experimental control), but overall use of CAL is very limited, with forty six percent never using it, twenty nine percent using it once or twice a year, and only twenty five percent using it on a monthly basis. There does not appear to be a link between the number of applications an individual uses and the frequency with which they use CAL.

Responses to an open-ended question revealed a high degree of enthusiasm and optimism about computers in education. The survey replies were sorted into four groups ("very positive", "positive", "negative", "very negative") depending upon the responses to this question and the "very positive"/"positive" groups accounted for eighty six percent of respondents.

Many positive comments were made about computers as teaching tools, for example in data handling, information access, simulations and experimental monitoring. There was considerable enthusiasm about CD-ROM technology, e.g.

"I am very enthusiastic about using computers - students love to research and investigate using CD-ROM, leaving me almost redundant!"

Word processing was singled out as being particularly useful for both students and teachers, e.g.

"Computers have revolutionised production of handouts, tests, assignments, homework, classlists etc. Word processor has changed my life far more than anything else to date"

Several comments were also made about the importance of integrating computers into education in order to reflect work-based practice, and about the potential of the Internet to change educational practice.

Where negative comments were made they focussed strongly on resourcing, with over seventy percent of respondents expressing concerns in this area. The comments often betray a deep frustration, e.g.

"Money has been spent on data collection boxes but college still to accept that modern computers are needed as well in order to run them"

"our only classroom computer in Biology at an FE college is a BBC! ...and the mice inside are getting tired!"

Other major areas of concern were the quality of software and the general pressures on staff. Interestingly, far fewer comments stressed the need for training than the need for

"time for staff to become familiar, confident and comfortable using this new technology in their teaching"

The emphasis on "time" rather than "training" may reflect the fact that most of the respondents have computer skills which are either self-taught, or acquired outside their work-place.

There does not appear to be a relationship between the degree of enthusiasm an individual is expressing about the use of computers in education and their actual use of CAL, or their general use of computers. In fact, aside from the comments made about the prohibitive nature of resourcing, the only factor which arose from the survey as impacting on CAL use was whether the individual had used computers as part of their Higher Education studies. Those who had not done so were far more likely not to use CAL, as shown overleaf:

This finding may concur with the findings from a study by Downes 1991 into factors which influenced whether trainee teachers would use computers in their teaching. The results from this emphasise the particular importance of not only the resource provision, but also the "computer-use climate" (p29). Downes notes that, despite varying levels of computer literacy, a first year trainee placed with a computer-using supervisor teacher is more likely to use the computer in the classroom than a third year trainee who is not. Thus it may be that those who have been, or are being, exposed to computers as an integral part of the educational workplace are far more comfortable in using them in this context. This feature may also explain why computer-using colleagues have such an influence on an individual's computer use.

The interviews aim to expand on some of the survey findings, and to carry out a closer examination of the factors which make up the third obstacle.

INTERVIEWS

Two sets of interviews were carried out with twenty of the survey respondents who had indicated a willingness to be involved in further research. Each interview lasted between forty-five minutes and two hours.

a) First interviews

The interviewees were asked about their resourcing levels and about their computer using colleagues in order to expand on the survey findings. They were also asked about their educational philosophies and what they wanted to see in CAL.

Resourcing

All of the interviewees were working in Colleges which had concentrated their hardware resources into large computing centres. Although these were generally acknowledged to be well equipped many of the teachers perceived their use to be problematical. This was sometimes because of access

"We do have excellent computer suites in the college, but there's so much use of them that it's very hard to book" (Laura)

"We can't book into the I.T. centre, it's the first come first served thing." (Maria)

but there was also a lot of stress on the politics and pedagogy of centralising the resources

Blockquote>"[Management] want to put [computers] in separately, they think this is somehow more efficient. Of course it isn't because students absolutely hate going up there, they just don't like trekking away from their curriculum base. They're just a good tool, they need to be under your fingers, like anything else." (Ally)

"[The Principal] is building an area for open access, because this is the way he feels FE is going, where the tutor will take a student to a bunch of computers, and students will interact with the screen, and the tutor will sort of swan around .. [Such a set up is difficult] even with fairly mature students .. So with our students.. it's going to be virtually impossible. This he won't accept." (Pam)

There is a marked contrast between computer suite and teaching area resourcing. Over half the interviewee group has access to just one computer in their usual classroom or laboratory. In one case this is a Pentium, in the other cases it is either a BBC, a 286 or a laptop; each class would have, typically, up to twenty students.

Only four of the twenty interviewees express satisfaction with their level of teaching area resourcing. These four have access to at least three multimedia machines in each of their classrooms. In all four cases the level of resourcing seems to have depended upon the efforts of one individual from within the department. Quite often the interviewees stress that getting computers into the classrooms involves

"considerable hard work and persuasion" (Pam)

There does not appear to be a clear link between resourcing level and frequency of CAL use. It seems as though many teachers will be prepared to use computers, even if these computers are old and in short supply, as long as they can run appropriate software. For example, many of the teachers still use BBCs, even if they have access to more sophisticated computers, because they consider the educational programs developed for the BBC to be effective and useful.

Influence of colleagues

Each interviewee was asked if any of their colleagues were using computers effectively as part of their teaching.

The answers to this question often reflected a general unfamiliarity with what other members of a department were doing, e.g.

"Ah? Have I seen somebody? … It's a bit difficult, not immediate you know" (Maria)

This was, however, not the case with the six interviewees who felt that they were aware of effective use. These six tended to express a clear awareness of what the other teachers in their department were doing in their teaching. Their accounts also suggested that effective use of computers in their department was driven, as with resourcing, by one individual, but supported by others in a very open and collaborative fashion e.g.

"Head of department, he's very enthusiastic, which is why we've got the science resource room, and he's good with the students in the classroom and he makes maximum use of it. That's why there's always been a good push towards using the software." (Leony)

"I probably use [computers] more than anybody else, .. It's me who looks after them .. There's a lot of exchange -- we're all on a learning curve and we all just accept that -we haven't got anyone who keeps information back - we all find out things for each other." (Graham)

Those who felt that their colleagues were not making effective use put this down to, variously, lack of good software, lack of hardware resourcing and lack of time.

There is some link demonstrated here between whether an individual's colleagues are using computers well and how much that individual uses CAL. The six who thought their colleagues were using computers effectively all made some use of CAL, whereas over half of the others made no use of it.

Educational philosophies

Much of the first interview concentrated on exploring the interviewees' personal philosophies about education. The structure of the relevant questions for this, and the interpretation of the answers derive from Prosser, Trigwell and Taylor's (1994) phenomenographic study of teachers at three Australian universities. In their study Prosser et al outline five conceptions of learning and six conceptions of teaching; these are shown in the summary tables overleaf. Each table is followed by brief examples showing how the classification system has been used in the current study.

Conceptions of learning

(adapted from Prosser, Trigwell and Taylor 1994)

The classifications range from teacher-centred (A) to more student-centred (E). The individual teacher is classified according to the most student-centred ideas they are expressing. So, for example in the following quote Jim expresses the ideas that the outcome of learning satisfies both external demands (i.e. the student knows they have learned something because they perform well in a test) and internal demands (i.e. the student knows they have learned something because such knowledge is intuitive); as such Jim's classification for conceptions of learning will be C or above.

How does the student know if they have learned something? "Um, I don't know, I think probably again they'd be looking at their marks that they got back from homeworks, tests, that sort of thing. But I think you do know if you know something - it's quite a, sort of, intuitive thing" (Jim, conception C)

Relatively few individuals described learning as satisfying only external demands, e.g.

"I suppose I'm rather an old-fashioned teacher in that I give quite a lot of tests ..[the students] know pretty well that they've learned something if they can answer" (Bill, conception A)

The most student centred teachers expressed the view that learning is concerned with the learner's personal conceptual development or change, e.g.

How would you know if a student had learned something? "Usually the traditional way, tests and so on, also conversations as well. But feeling comes into it as well, although how you assess gut feeling I haven't got a clue, but their whole pattern changes, their approach changes as well." (Mark conception E)
"I know this is getting into a really hippy thing, but they have a far more holistic approach to knowledge - it's when that light goes on in a student, it's then that you know that certain things have been achieved." (Graham, conception E)

Conceptions of Teaching (adapted from Prosser, Trigwell and Taylor 1994)

The six conceptions of teaching also lie on a continuum from teacher-centred (A) to more student-centred (F). Conception A is characterised by an absence of focus on the students' prior knowledge, and by a stress on syllabus or textbook concepts, e.g.

What is learning?
"First of all that they've got an understanding of what you're doing, the process that you're trying to .. get over .. it's understanding and acquiring skills" ....
What do you mean by teaching?
if you're teaching A-level students their goal is to get a good grade in the exams and it's obviously getting a body of knowledge and also techniques that they've got to learn and an understanding of processes." (Maria conception A)

More student-centred conceptions have a stress on the importance of prior knowledge, e.g.

What is learning? "it's a pyramid type thing. You start off learning a whole load of fundamentals and gradually the depth of your knowledge gets greater, and your experience" (J.W. conception C/D)

and a focus on the student's perspective, e.g.

"The temptation is always to access [students] into what is your way of learning, and it's quite hard, I think, to remember the alternatives." (Judy conception E)
"[Teaching] encompasses everything to do with developing students' abilities and their understanding.... developing the skills which are there already, academic skills and organisational skills" (Mark conception F)

Using the Prosser, Trigwell and Taylor scheme the classification of the twenty interviewees maps out as follows:

Although several teachers were recorded as having intermediate classifications (e.g. D/E) only one was recorded as having an uncertain classification. This is because she started her answers to the questions in a very natural fashion (which, for her, was student-centred), but moved into a more formulaic mode (which was more teacher-centred). This was one case in which the answers did not seem to reflect the individual's true orientation.

The relative absence of As and Bs may reflect the fact that FE has, over the past few years, undergone considerable curricular changes, many of which are very student-centred. Thus any FE sample group is likely to be very familiar with the terminology, and this was borne out by the occasional comment, such as

"What do I mean by teaching? Ah, I could give the usual, you know, facilitating learning." (J.W.)
"How would I know if a student had learned something? I could give you the set answers I would give somebody coming on an audit?" (Graham)

For the most part the teachers seemed keen to go beyond the standard terminology in order to communicate their sense of what teaching and learning was about. This classification is used in the remainder of the interview analysis.

Ideal CAL

The interviewees were asked what features their ideal CAL would have. Some major criticisms about currently available biological software emerged in the answers to this question. The main criticism was that the software failed to exploit the potential of computers to help students learn and often ended up being simply

"Books on a screen" (Ally)

The interviewees stressed that many software packages lack interactivity and are therefore often boring for students to use. Comments were also made about what was perceived as software designers'

"infatuation with the technology rather than the learning" (Sam)

However, there was considerable enthusiasm for the potential of computers within education, particularly when they could be used as tools to perform tasks which could not be performed using traditional resources. These included allowing students to

• access and manipulate up-to-date information sources
• present their work
• organise their thoughts
• practise skills
• set up experimental interfacing
• analyse data
• carry out simulations
• experiment with learning methods to find what suited them.

More teacher-centred individuals tended to stress the usefulness of simulations, and more student-centred individuals tended to stress the importance of data access and manipulation; other than this there was no clear link between educational philosophies and preference for different CAL applications.

Three of the teachers, Pam, Mick and Seth, came up with particularly detailed descriptions of the CAL packages they would like to see. In these cases it seemed as though they were focusing on current areas in their teaching where they perceived a problem which they thought could be overcome with a successful CAL application. For example Pam talked about the difficulties in running ecological investigations, where students need individual help on relatively mundane aspects of the investigation, such as identification of sites and specimens, choice of ecological techniques and construction of hypotheses. Pam felt that this help could be provided by a CAL package, which would allow the teacher to deal with more complex problems and prevent early parts of the exercise turning into a bottleneck.

A study by Draper (1997) into successful applications of CAL in Higher Education suggests that

"The best cases of applying CAL to improve learning will combine a) an identification of a real pedagogic problem; b) a pedagogic theory of how the educational intervention is a solution to the pedagogic problem; c) a neat bit of CAL design." (Draper 1997)

b) Second Interviews

During the second interviews the teachers were asked to select three pieces of biological software which they had chosen from a pool of fourteen. The pool was made up of programs which were judged to be affordable by FE biology departments, easily demonstrated on a laptop, and appropriate for, primarily, GCSE and A-level biology, or equivalent. The programs included simulations, tutorials, data logging and interpretation packages, and CD-ROMs. The teachers were asked to talk aloud, giving their initial impressions of the software and discussing how they might use it in their teaching.

The interviewees were particularly interested in the CD-ROMs; these included How Animals Move, Biodiversity (produced by TLTP), and Images of Biology (which was designed to accompany a well-known A-level text book). The next most popular choices for viewing were two tutorial packages, Mitosis and Meiosis (which briefly describes cell division) and Recombinant DNA (which discusses genetic engineering).

Each interaction between the interviewee and the software was classified according to whether:

• The interviewee would use the software in the classroom
• The interviewee would suggest student use the software in their own time
• The interviewee would not use the software at all

In three instances it was not possible to establish a classification.

Cases where the interviewee would not use the software at all

There were fourteen cases where the interviewee decided they would not use the software at all. The decision not to use a program seems to rest primarily on the following criteria:

• it does not fit the syllabus; this will go against a program even if all the other aspects are favourable
• the information quality is not good because it is misleading or inconsistent or does not fit with the teachers' pedagogical approach e.g.

"It should also be stressing the biological significance more, all it's doing is giving a load of facts, not the overview. It should be emphasising why this . is happening .. That's far more important than the actual mechanics" (Mark on Mitosis and Meiosis)

• the quality of the interaction between user and program is not good, e.g.

"It looked as though it was going to be a real chore to work your way through it .." (Mick on Recombinant DNA)

• it appears to be difficult to integrate into the curriculum, e.g.

"it would be lovely to have a system where we could say - we can trust you to go to the library and learn this topic. So how does this package fit into that? .. I don't think it would hit - I don't think students would know what they need to know." (Mick on Recombinant DNA)

• it represents no benefit over traditional resources e.g.

"Why bother putting that on a computer? ... You might as well just get it out of a book .." (Sam on Recombinant DNA)

Cases where the interviewee would use the software outside the classroom

There were nineteen cases where the interviewee said they would suggest the students used the program outside the classroom. In order for this to happen there seems to need to be

• a reasonable fit between the program and the syllabus, and
• an absence of concerns about the quality of the information.

Programs deemed suitable for outside use might still arouse concerns about the quality of the interaction, but these are less to do with how boring a program is and more to do with how much a student would really learn from it, e.g.

"I think an awful lot of students would use this and look as though they're doing something, but actually it would transpire that they're just playing with things" (Phyllis on How Animals Move)

Overall it seems as though the teachers will consider suggesting the students use a program outside the classroom either if it is useful for revision or reinforcement, but not quite useful enough to devote class time to it, or if it is of more use, but constrained by integration issues.

Integration issues were sometimes generic and sometimes specific to certain programs. They generally centred around the following:

• resourcing

"It's quite hard, isn't it? Again it's the whole idea of one CD-ROM machine, which is all you could ever hope to achieve in a classroom, and a minimum of 12 students, often, you know, 17, 20 students and how would you use one machine?" (Maria on How Animals Move)

• time

"I'm enjoying sort of fossicking through it, but, you know, there's always finite time." (J.W. on Darwin's Voyage - a tutorial package)

• inflexibility

Trouble is .. I want to be able to pick out questions on selection pressure, which this one is - the last one was formation of new species, well, you wouldn't do those two together you'd do them next to each other, but you'd want the questions there and then .. Limited, limited use in this format - it's too inflexible. (Maria on Swift-test - an A-level question practice program)

• and classroom management

"You'd either get people wanting to play on the machine, or you'd get some people hogging the machine. Or you'd get some people wanting to play on it, but you'd want them to do some basic things first." (Judy on GenScope - a genetics simulation program)

Cases where the interviewee would use the software inside the classroom

There were twenty four cases where the interviewee said they would use the software inside the classroom. In order for this to happen there seems to need to be

• a good fit between the program and the syllabus
• an absence of concerns about the quality of the information
• a major reduction in integration concerns
• a clearly defined pedagogical reason for using the program

Reasons for using a program appear to fall under three main areas. These are

• that it can add to a student's knowledge

• that it can aid conceptual grasp

"that's beautiful .. when you can see it moving like that it just clarifies so well" (Leony, How Animals Move)

• and that it can enhance student' learning experiences.

me doing drawings on the board and faffing around with OHPs and things like that can get to be a bit dull. This way they work through it at their own pace
(J.W. on Mitosis and Meiosis)

I just see it as an extra way to provide a bit of variety, to get them interested in the subject
(Bill on Biodiversity)

It's the fact that you can actually do something. It's your decision to suddenly magnify it - you can stop and say - right I want to see that bit again
(Lisa on Images of Biology)

But it's very nice because all this stuff can be very dry, and if you've actually got a nice bright picture and a voice and that sort of thing.
(Phyllis, Images of Biology)

Most of the positive comments that were made about the programs fall under the last category.

The overall degree of enthusiasm for the programs viewed here is quite striking, particularly after examination of the gap between what they provide and what the interviewees said they wanted CAL packages to. During the second interviews the most common reason given for using a program outside the classroom is for revision or reinforcement; only three out of the twenty interviewees mentioned using CAL for such purposes when talking about their ideal CAL. Similarly, the most common reason given for using CAL in the classroom relates to whether it enhances the students' learning experience. Such enhancement usually relies on the multimedia appeal of the package or the fact that it provides variety in the classroom. Once again these aspects received minimal attention when the interviewees were describing their ideal CAL.

Despite this disparity many of the teachers appear to be keen to integrate the software provided into their teaching. This could be because of their reluctance to offend the researcher, however, this seems unlikely since the interview stress was clearly on evaluation of software. A second reason could be that the software was actually provided for them and

a) was usually appropriate for the syllabuses they taught

b) worked on the hardware provided.

The corresponding ease of use may have made many of the teachers more prepared to adjust their demands accordingly. This second reason may also give an added explanation as to why there is increased use of CAL amongst those who believe their colleagues are using CAL effectively; if someone else is taking off the very large burden of supplying appropriate software and hardware then the teachers may be more prepared to consider using it.

The interviewees seemed to fall into two groups, based on their overall attitude towards software. One group found the the short-comings inherent in the programs to be prohibitive

"It should also be stressing the biological significance more, all it's doing is giving a load of facts, not the overview. It should be emphasising why this .. is happening .. That's far more important than the actual mechanics of what's going on. .. I wouldn't bother using it" (Mark on Mitosis and Meiosis)

whereas the other group seemed more prepared to work around any limitations

"It's a shame, ideally you'd want to see the whole process together with the text, .. but I'm perhaps being a bit greedy. It's a nice calibre of graphics and clear pictures. I want it to sing and dance I suppose." (Leony on Images of Biology)

It may be useful to relate this to Draper's (1997) idea of "niche-based success". The first group (to which Mark belongs) appear to have a more constrained notion of how software should fit into the niches in their curricula; this group is referred to as the 'niche group'. The second group (to which Leony belongs) seem to be more flexible about how software could be used; this group is referred to as the 'flexible group'.

Once the two groups are separated out, it becomes clear how the interviewees' educational philosophies impact on attitude towards CAL; in both groups

there is a shift to a more critical attitude towards software as the individuals become more student-centred.

The following tables show this shift. The software is ranked as follows

1 = a program which the interviewees say they would use in the classroom

2 = a program which the interviewees say they would use outside the classroom

3 = a program which the interviewees say they would not use at all.

In the table the teachers are sequenced according to how critical they are about software, starting with the least critical, for example, Bill would use two of the programs he looked at in the classroom and one outside, whereas Mark would use one outside and two not at all.

Educational Philosophies and Software Ranking - Niche Group (First Group)

* = uncertain software ranking

? = uncertain classification of philosophies

Educational Philosophies and Software Ranking - Flexible Group (Second Group)

The most student-centred members of both groups show a concern with the same software issues, i.e. quality and clarity of information, and how valuable and engaging the students would find the program. However, whereas the niche group appears to focus first on information issues and second on integration issues, the flexible group appears to combine these two. For example, the following three teachers are all talking about the same program, Images of Biology.

Mark belongs to the niche group and finds the information in the program incompatible with his 'functional' approach towards biology; he decides he would not use the program at all:

"This is very restricted in what it covers. .. and with biology nowadays it's more the functional approach, this is .. just showing slides .. No I'm not awfully impressed with this, I certainly wouldn't bother going out and buying it." (Mark)

By contrast, Judy, who also belongs to the niche group, likes the information but is concerned about integration issues; she decides she would use the program outside the classroom:

"It's very easy to miss out on the way in which things relate to one another. Once you understand how the 2D and the 3D fit together then it's OK. .. [Students] would be able to use [this program] in order to move back and forth and build a picture … But as soon as you put it into the classroom I think it's problematic .. what tends to happen is that it's left in the corner, and students don't go to use it." (Judy)

The third teacher, Graham, belongs to the flexible group. He has reservations about the program, but concludes that he could use it effectively in the classroom in a very teacher-directed fashion:

"[I think the program would benefit from] more of a 3D effect, because one of the biggest problems with students is they can look at this and they can look at a leaf, but how many of them .. can connect it to what is going on? .. [The program is] really an animated text book [but] I think it would be great for teaching, with the teacher using it, for actually using as a display. Whether you'd want lots and lots of these for students to look at - part of me thinks they would be better off with the textbook" (Graham)

Findings from the studies carried out so far reflect the complexity of issues concerning CAL use and the recursive nature of the obstacle course.

Information from both the survey and the interviews indicates that most of this sample group is past the first obstacle i.e. anxiety about and unfamiliarity with general computer use. The second obstacle, resourcing, emerges as a major problem throughout the studies, with many of the survey respondents stating that it is primarily responsible for their difficulties in using CAL. However, a more complex picture emerges from the interviews which suggests that it is not possible to judge whether someone has adequate resourcing without establishing exactly what they want to do with that resourcing; therefore, the resourcing obstacle is strongly influenced by classroom dynamics.

The survey showed that those who had used computers as part of their HE studies were far more likely to use CAL, and the interviews indicated that having computer-using colleagues was also likely to increase CAL use. Both these observations reflect the importance of exposure to a "computer-use environment" (Downes, 1993 p29) and stress the importance of having some specific classroom computer literacy, as opposed to general computer literacy.

The interviewee group all showed an enthusiasm for CAL, or a general perception of its usefulness, in their survey responses. Findings of the interviews indicated that in order for specific CAL programs to be seen as useful they needed to fit syllabus requirements and contain good quality information. Beyond this it seems as though the interviewee's specific requirements are, to some extent, negotiable; how negotiable depends upon the individual's approach, i.e. whether they have a niche approach or a flexible approach. In both cases there is a need for some match between the individual's educational philosophies and the educational philosophies implicit in the program. However, where they diverge is that the flexible group appears more willing to facilitate such a match by altering how the program is integrated into the classroom by altering classroom dynamics.

Classroom dynamics emerge from the interviews as having a major impact on all other areas of the obstacle course. In order to address this aspect classroom observations are currently being carried out in order to assess how far

"the key decisions about CAL are those made while teaching" (McIntyre 1997)

References

J. Barnard (1997) A survey on the use of computers by biology teachers in Further Education. CITE Report No. 231. Institute of Educational Technology, The Open University, Milton Keynes, MK7 6AA.

H.J. Becker (1994) How exemplary computer-using teachers differ from other teachers. Journal of Research on Computing in Education 26 (3) 291-321

J. Booth, Wilkie and Foster (1996) Staff attitudes to computer assisted learning in a university department. Unpublished

S. Brown and D. McIntyre (1993) Making sense of Teaching. Oxford University Press.

L. Cuban (1986) Teachers and Machines. Teachers College Press.

T. Downes (1993) Student-teachers' experiences in using computers during teaching practice. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 9 17-33

S. Draper (1997) Niche-based Success in CAL. CAL 97 International Conference WWW Proceedings CD-ROM, COTE@exeter.ac.uk

S. Dunn and J Ridgway (1991a) Computer use during primary school teaching practice. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 7 (1) 7-17

S. Dunn and J Ridgway (1991b) Naked into the world: IT experiences on a final primary school teaching practice. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 7 (4) 229 - 240

R.D. Hannafin and W.C. Savenye (1993) Technology in the classroom; the teacher's new role and resistance to it. Educational Technology, June 1993, 26-31

G. Higginson (1996) (chair) Report of the Learning and Technology Committee. Further Education Funding Council

S.T. Kerr (1991) Level and fulcrum: educational technology in teachers' thought and practice. Teachers College Record 93 (1) 114-136

J.M. Madsen and L.A. Sebastiani (1987) The effect of computer literacy instruction on teachers' knowledge of and attitudes toward microcomputers. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction 14 (2) 68 - 72

D. McIntyre (1996) personal correspondence

M. Prosser, K. Trigwell and P. Taylor (1994) A Phenomenographic study of academics conceptions of science learning and teaching. Learning and Instruction 4 217 - 231

D.M. Watson (editor), (1993) The Impact Report. Department for Education and King's College London

This document was added to the Education-line database 26 June 1998