There have been numerous attempts to substantiate the claims about the potential of computers to enhance the learning process. Despite efforts to demonstrate empirically the positive effects of new computer technology on student achievement, the research findings
remain equivocal (e.g., Hattie, Biggs & Purdie, 1 996). By and large, the benefits of
standalone computers-let alone networked machines-have yet to be shown on a large scale in the regular classroom. As Bracey ( 1 992) aptly wrote a number of years ago, the jury is still out on the research. Put more straightforwardly, there are still many more questions than
answers (Beynon & Mackay, 1993).
On the other hand, the computer is not a monolithic system where research findings can be transferred from one setting and one learning environment to another. Generalizations of the research literature are problematic as the contribution of new computer technology is highly dependent on the context in which it is used in the classroom (Salomon, 1 990a). This is a point often overlooked by the technophiles and technophobes alike in the technology debate. Throughout the literature, there is a tendency to give too much weight to the technology and not enough attention to the surrounding educational context. Consequently, meta-analyses of the research literature (e.g., Jones & Paolucci, 1 998; Schacter, 1 999; Thompson, Simonson
& Hargrave, 1996) have limited value, as these conceal many methodological weaknesses and are insensitive to the context of computer use. The research is rarely persuasive as the effects of educational technology can be attributed to many factors. In short, the judicious answer to the question of whether computers enhance learning is: "it depends".
While many mutually dependent variables combine to affect learning, the teacher matters most (Lai, 1999). It is abundantly clear that teachers have an important bearing on how a new educational technology shapes and influences learning outcomes. Teachers make a difference ! As LaFrenz and Friedman ( 1 989) once wrote, 'Computers don't change education, teachers do ! ' (p.222). Hativa ( 1 994) confirms this truism after an exhaustive analysis of six years of qualitative and quantitative research in which the weight of evidence led to the conclusion that 'the teacher has a crucial role' to play (p. 108). S urprisingly, even the CEO Forum ( 1 999) and the Software Publishers Association with their vested interests concur with this assessment. The latter group found after an analysis and review of 133 research articles that:
These studies underscore the importance of the teacher's role in creating an
effective, technology-based learning environment (Sivin-Kachala & Bialo, 1995, p.25).
This conclusion shifts the attention away from the technology itself to the people effects and the social practices. As Fulton (1997) argues :
Effective use of technology is the result of many factors, chief of which is the teacher's competence and ability to shape technology-based learning activities to meet students ' needs (p.ll).
Above all, therefore, one kind of result consistently appears in the literature. That is, the teacher is a key figure in the success or failure of an educational technology initiative. At the same time, giving mediocre teachers the latest technology is not a recipe for promoting active and meaningful learning (Abi-Raad, 1997). As Collis ( 1996) points out this does not happen by chance:
Good teachers are associated with good examples of computer use. There is no evidence that the computer use made these teachers into good teachers. A good teacher see possibilities in a powerful technology, see ways to realize them in his or her own situation, and has the energy and persistence to implement them, usually at personal cost (p.23).
The lesson is that if the goal is to promote creative, innovative and talented students, then creative, innovative and talented teachers are needed. Having said that, to cultivate good teachers the right tools for the job have to be provided. There is an implicit assumption throughout the policy discourse that these tools include access to new computer technology. Putting aside the relative importance for the moment of educational technology to the art,
craft and science of good teaching, it is generally believed that teachers should be confident and competent at using the Internet in their professional work. However, technical know how on its own will not alter classroom practice. In order to harness the educational potential of the Internet new technical skill and knowledge must be linked to new pedagogical beliefs. Fullan ( 1993a) shows that the success of any educational innovation is highly dependent on the beliefs and values of the teacher. The message is that for lasting educational transformations to occur, beliefs about teaching and technology must change together.
Importance of Teacher's Beliefs
The benefits of studying the teacher are self-evident but there is still a need for more in-depth research. Despite the rise of ICT in the policy discourse, the teacher remains a neglected voice in the study of this latest educational technology wave (Collis, 1996). Without doubt, teachers have a lot to contribute in helping to understand how the Internet can be used to create conditions for better learning. We must take greater account of their views. In the past, there has been a shortage of good quality research on what teachers think about the impact of educational technology on their lives and work culture-for better and worse. As Cochran Smith ( 1991) states:
Most important, perhaps, is research that investigates how teachers in various settings and with various goals in mind interpret computer technology over relatively long periods of time and what influences their interpretations have
on students' opportunities to learn (p.123.).
This gap in the research still exists. It is widely accepted that more attention should be directed towards studying teachers' beliefs (Kagan, 1992). According to Shulman ( 1 986; cited in Fang, 1996), the study of teacher beliefs is the missing paradigm in the research. Lai (1993) makes the point that the success of any computer technology is influenced by the teacher' s belief system. A clear link is seen between teacher's pedagogical beliefs and their classroom practice (Miller & Olsen, 1 994). How teachers teach, and what they teach usually reflects their conception of the world and how they view the purposes of education. Arguably, teacher beliefs are the best indicators of the actions and decisions they make in the classroom (pajares, 1992). A key distinction is made here between beliefs, perceptions and opinions. Beliefs are deep-seated understandings that underpin the practice of teachers, whereas perceptions and opinions are somewhat fluid interpretations of everyday experiences, which are notoriously unreliable. Yet, few studies of teachers' beliefs appear in the literature. There is still a need for research that will yield insight into how teachers filter and mediate educational technology as they modify learning experiences to fit their beliefs.
Why Study Good Computer- Using Teachers ?
The importance of studying the beliefs of early adopters and experienced computer-using teachers is that they are likely to influence how other teachers use the Internet for pedagogical purposes. They are important opinion leaders in convincing other people of the advantages (and disadvantages) of adopting a new educational technology. By studying good teachers, we may unlock some of the determinant factors that lead to the successful adoption and implementation of the Internet in schools. This line of inquiry may also provide valuable information relevant to preservice and inservice teacher education as up-to-date skill and knowledge of ICf is now an expectation of the teaching profession. In 1997, the Green Paper on teacher education concluded:
In the New Zealand context, quality teachers can be seen as having .. . the ability to use information and communications technologies effectively as an aid to teaching (Ministry of Education, 1997, p.21).
While this Report failed to shed any light on how teachers should be using leT in the context of their work, The Education Review Office (ERG) ( 1 998) agreed that a "capable teacher" needs to demonstrate informed professional knowledge of 'appropriate technology and resources' (p. 1 1 ). Amongst other things, teachers are expected to:
• use a range of resources and technology that demonstrates informed knowledge of what is available in the school and the wider community; • use resources and technology in a planned and relevant way to contribute
to the achievement of learning objectives;
• demonstrate willingness to extend skills in using information technology (ERO, 1998).
Davy (1998, p . 1 02) rightly questions whether 'being a techno whiz is one of the most important qualities of a good teacher' but regardless of this there is a lot to learn from the wisdom embodied in teachers' beliefs and practices. We may be able to ascertain the relative weight or importance of extending skills in ICT in relation to some of the other dimensions of the capable teacher. After all, a good computer-using teacher will not only know how to use the technology but also is likely to have the pedagogical knowledge of how to promote active and meaningful learning in the classroom. Such learning is not synonymous with the Internet, as it requires good teachers. Accordingly, this type of research may help to unpack the interplay between technical and pedagogical knowledge in the mix of what constitutes good teaching in the context of the Internet. It may also help to defend the pedagogical rationale for computers in schools against a future neo-conservative backlash.
As Weinstein ( 1 99 1 ) posits, when a teacher first uses a new computer technology there are innumerable questions they ask themselves: What are computers good for? How do computers fit into the social organisation of the classroom? How does the computer relate to existing curriculum goals? Is the computer congruous with my current approach to teaching? Teachers' answers to these questions determine the level of adoption and the role computers will play in the classroom. The benefits of studying teachers who have considerable wisdom at using computer technology for pedagogical purposes is to understand their responses to these questions and how they are derived and operationalised in their teaching practice. Such an approach may allow an illuminative analysis of the true value of good teachers and encourage greater debate on the attributes of the so-called capable teacher.
In the last decade, the study of good computer-using teachers has become an increasingly fruitful area of research. A growing number of studies have sought to identity the distinctive practices of such teachers. There has been an emphasis on how good computer-using teachers differ from their colleagues in an attempt to better realize the potential of new educational technologies. In pursuing this objective, there have been various studies of successful, accomplished, effective, competent, and exemplary computer-using teachers. The remainder of this section offers a critical review of the research on good computer-using teachers with particular emphasis on the methodologies adopted and the variety of sample selection techniques applied.
Successful Computer- Using Teachers
The first attempt to study the beliefs and practices of teachers deemed successful at using computers was undertaken by Shavelson, et al. ( 1 984). In the mid 1980s, 60 primary and secondary teachers were identified as exponents of good practice and observed in the context of their work. In addition, some of these teachers were interviewed to elicit data on their teaching methods and their perceptions of the computer as a pedagogical tool. It was found that successful teachers:
. . . stressed both cognitive and basic-skill goals, as well as microcomputer use as a goal in and of itself, used a variety of instructional modes to meet these goals; (o o.) they integrated the content of microcomputer-based instruction with the on-going curriculum, and coordinated microcomputer activities with other instructional activities (Shavelson et al., 1984, p.vii).
The teachers were considered adaptive experts in that they changed their use of computers in the classroom according to the objective and feedback from the students. Although the research provided a seed for further work, the study itself was limited to mathematics and science instruction and its wider value was restricted by the conception of what success entailed at that time.
A ccomplished Computer- Using Teachers
In the late 1 980s, a nationwide survey of grade 4- 1 2 teachers in the US investigated the experiences and patterns of practice among accomplished computer-using teachers (Sheingold & Hadley, 1990). The research was notable for its use of a nomination technique in the sample selection process. A range of strategies was employed to obtain the sample, including letters and telephone contacts to local and state directors of educational technology, hardware and software industry personnel, professional organisations, and leading educators and researchers in the field. In addition, an advertisement was placed in a magazine which invited teacher self-nominations. This search process resulted in a database of over 1 ,200 names including teachers from every state and major city.
The nomination process did not define in advance specific criteria for the selection of teachers but rather accepted recommendations on face value. With the benefit of hindsight,
this was a major strength of the research as it sidestepped the problematic definition of good
teaching and allowed people to define what constituted an accomplished teacher for themselves. From the researchers' perspective, accomplishment was regarded as teachers who integrate the computer as a tool into their everyday classroom and use educational
software to encourage more self-directed learning on the part of students (Hadley &
Sheingold, 1993). However, the failure to justify the implicit definition of accomplishment along with the lack of explicit selection criteria left a number of issues unresolved. At best, the sample involved a selection of nominated or perceived accomplished computer-using teachers. This is a subtle but important distinction that few people acknowledge when interpreting the results.
Added to this, only about half (n=608) of the original nominated sample agreed to complete the questionnaire, which brings into question what is missing from the responses. The questionnaire itself was comprehensive seeking data on: (a) the demographics of the teachers, (b) the teachers' training and experience with computers, (c) the teachers' current practice, (d) ratings on barriers to computer integration, and, (e) ratings of incentives to integration (Sheingold & Hadley, 1 990). It was found using factor analysis and multi-variant segmentation techniques that few differences existed between teachers in conventional demographic variables. The sample consisted of 42% men and 58% women who taught in educational settings with an unusually high level of access to computers compared to most typical US schools. In most instances, teachers had been using computers for instruction for four years or more. Hadley and Sheingold (1993) offered the following profile:
The teachers in the sample were on average, a mature and experienced group,
more than half between 40 and 49 years old, and three-quarters having been
teachers for 13 years or more (p.268).
As many as 80% of the teachers had access to a home computer and most indicated that they were to some degree self-taught The teachers were considered eager consumers of information about computers. Up to 90% of the participants reported they used software catalogues, computer magazines, conference proceedings and educational workshops for gathering information. Teachers pursued a range of professional learning opportunities about computers with many of them completing courses in their own time. Together, these characteristics contributed to the very high level of comfort that teachers reported about using the computer as a tool for their own work.
According to Hadley and Sheingold ( 1993), one of the most striking features was that the computer was not a single-use machine, but rather a multi-purpose tool used in many different ways. While the teachers utilized a range of content specific and tool software, word processing was by far the most popular and versatile computer application. It was used by 90% of teachers, at all grade levels, and reported to be the 'most productive and interesting use of the computer in the curriculum' (Hadley & Sheingold, 1993, p.27 1) . Instructional software, including drill and practice, tutorial and problem solving programs,
were a close second with respect to the number of teachers who used them. This software was most common in mathematics and remedial work, but was not used to the same extent or as frequently as the word processor. When teachers were asked to report the three most frequently used computer applications the responses were clear cut, with 75% of the participants ranking the word processor first, followed by 37% with drill and practice and 24% tutorial programs.
A high percentage (88%) of the teachers indicated that the computer made a positive difference to their teaching practice. Three main types of changes were reported. First, there were changes to the teacher's expectations about the amount and complexity of student work. The students were thought to grasp more difficult concepts and cope with higher levels of thinking as a consequence of computer use. Second, there were perceived changes in the ability to individualise student work. The computer was reported to permit greater individualization of the curriculum. The third and most significant change was the perceived tendency to transform a teacher-centred classroom into a student-centred classroom. As one teacher is quoted:
It has enabled me to change from a teacher centred classroom to a student centred classroom. It has also led to a more open approach to problem solving, rather than the pursuit of one correct answer (Hadley & Sheingold, 1993, p.277).
Such comments gave the researchers the confidence to conclude that teachers were using computers in ways that deeply affected their teaching and their students' learning. They deduced that teachers were now teaching differently and more effectively than they did in the past. Of course, whether a survey technique can elicit teacher beliefs is a matter of some debate. This conclusion would have more validity if Sheingold and Hadley ( 1990) had conversed with the teachers. Equally, the statement that teachers were creating ' . . . conditions for deep, engaged and meaningful learning' is rather difficult to defend without direct observations of classroom practice (Hadley & Sheingold, 1 993, p.278). Hence, the authors
are guilty of reading too much into their data given the tenuous nature of the supporting evidence.
Above all else, the amount of experience that teachers have with computers is identified as the key determinant of accomplished practice. According to Sheingold and Hadley (1990), as teachers gain more experience they become more comfortable and expert at integrating the computer into the classroom. They propose that with experience teachers gradually manage more expansive uses of the computer, and this, in turn, engenders new approaches to the curriculum itself.
Once again, this is a highly speculative claim based on the results of a single written questionnaire. Nonetheless, Hadley and Sheingold (1993) present three interesting conclusions about the features of accomplished computer-using teachers. The distinguishing characteristics are summarised as: Ca) teachers with a high level of motivation and commitment to their students and their own development; (b) teachers with strong support and collegiality for the integration of computers into the classroom; and, Cc) teachers with