J. EDUCATIONAL COMPUTING RESEARCH, Vol.

22(4) 455-472, 2000

BARRIERS TO ADOPTING EMERGING

TECHNOLOGIES IN EDUCATION*

PATRICIA L. ROGERS
Bemidji State University

ABSTRACT
The purpose of this article is to examine barriers to technology adoption based
on the literature and on data from two studies (the first with K-12 teachers and
the second with higher education faculty in a state system). A product of this
examination is a visual representation, a model of the interactions and the
interdependence of elements that contribute to the construction of barriers to
technology adoption. It is intended that the model will clarify internal and
external obstacles, and serve as an aid to pre-service and in-service teacher
education curriculum designers and developers as they plan for the successful
infusion of newer technologies in the curriculum.

Whether one is excited, challenged, or terrified by the influx of technology

in schools, the fact remains that emerging technologies are increasingly being
infused in school cultures and do have a major effect on teaching and learning.
We can debate the degree of specific educational influences, advantages and
disadvantages of using electronic instructional media, and the underlying socio-
political nuances later. Right now, emerging technologies, particularly those that
are computer-based, raise issues and eyebrows in schools across the country.
In the landmark report A Nation at Risk [1], recommendations were made to
consider educational computing a necessary basic skill if American children were
to be competitive in the global community. Since then, studies have attempted to
ascertain the impact of computers in education on a larger scale. Often, such

*The first study is funded in part by the Getty Education Institute for the Arts. The second study is
funded by the Office of Instructional Technology within the MnSCU (Minnesota State Colleges and
Universities) system.

455
Ó 2000, Baywood Publishing Co., Inc.
456 / ROGERS

studies have simply counted the number of computers in the schools without
assessing their importance in the school curriculum, or, at a more basic level,
whether or not the units were functioning [2].
Despite the dire predictions and warnings of A Nation at Risk, entire faculties at
some schools and individual teachers in others avoid the use of computer-based
technologies. Many teachers in teacher education programs at universities across
the country shy away from developing courses on teaching with technology. Why?
One might assume that the cause is economic, that the under-utilization of new
technologies is directly linked to limited technology funds allocated to schools and
universities. Or one might point to a lack of time in a teacher’s day for course
development, inadequate additional training in the use of newer technologies, or
the need for technical support personnel. While lack of funding is a harsh reality
for many schools and a teacher’s time is always at a premium, there appear to be
other conditions that, considered in combination, slow or even halt the process of
adopting emerging technologies in education.
To understand what is happening in schools and universities, something beyond
a review of existing literature is needed. This article documents two recent
studies (the first with K-12 teachers and the second with higher education faculty
in a state system) to provide a solid context for an examination of barriers
to adopting technology in education. The underlying purpose of both studies is to
“ . . . understand teachers’ models of daily classroom activity, what place tech-
nology has in those models, and what meaning technology has in the context of the
constraints and uncertainties with which teachers must deal” [3, p. 10]. While the
studies were not specifically designed to focus on barriers to technology adoption,
barriers did emerge from teachers’ descriptions of daily activities, perceptions,
and attitudes.
The purpose of this article is to examine barriers to technology adoption based
on literature and on data from the two studies described above. A product of this
examination is a visual representation, a model, of the interactions and the
interdependence of elements that contribute to the construction of barriers. It is
intended that the model will clarify internal and external obstacles, and to serve as
an aid to pre-service and in-service teacher education curriculum designers and
developers as they plan for the successful infusion of newer technologies in the
curriculum.

A HIERARCHY OF TECHNOLOGY ADOPTION

I wonder if there is some kind of “gestation” period for technology integration

into the classroom. Our administration has been very active in ongoing staff
development but outside of the Middle School we still have so far to go [4].

Change is never easy. Teachers at all levels will readily admit to wanting a few
things in their daily teaching lives to remain the same from year to year or even
 BARRIERS TO ADOPTING EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES / 457

month to month. But the introduction of new technologies in the classroom forces
all of us to assimilate and accommodate new strategies and instructional media
very rapidly. Since these changes happen continuously, it is useful to reflect on
what happens during the process.
A five-step hierarchical model of adoption of technology in the classroom is
proposed by Rieber and Welliver [5] and Hooper and Reiber [6]. This model,
briefly discussed below, describes the “gestation period” and stages of growth
associated with infusing a new technology in teaching and learning. The dis-
cussion focuses specifically on the adoption of computer-based instructional tech-
nologies, though the discussion could easily include examples from other disci-
plines and educational technologies such as word processing, cooperative
learning, motivational strategies [6], and so on.

Familiarization

The Familiarization level represents the base-line exposure to a technology.

Familiarization may be a light exposure such as a vendor’s booth at a conven-
tion or a museum show on computer-generated art. A slightly deeper level of
familiarization might be an in-service workshop or summer institute offered by the
school or professional organization. In either instance, once the workshop or
convention is over, many computer-based technologies are dismissed at this level
of adoption. Teachers may not see the relevance or usefulness of the product and
technology. Or perhaps, accessibility to the technology is beyond the teacher’s
means: some schools deny access to the computer lab for projects other than
math or science.

Utilization

Utilization occurs when teachers try the technology. A good example is “The
Curriculum Navigator” program [7]. This HyperCard stack is essentially a design
tool specifically programmed for curriculum development in art education. Many
teachers at the 1995 annual National Art Education Association convention took
the diskette back to their home schools as “an excuse to try out the Mac” in their
media labs [8]. Teachers at the utilization phase have at least used the technology
once or twice, but may never return to it after this initial trial. They may have an
idea about the usefulness of the technology and can see its relevance to their
classroom, but would abandon it should the computer “freeze” or the diskette
malfunction. Or perhaps they use the technology for minor routine functions, such
as record keeping, but do not integrate the technology into the curriculum. Hooper
and Reiber describe this as the highest level most teachers usually reach with
computer-based technologies [6].
458 / ROGERS

Integration
The Integration level marks the beginning of appropriate uses for computer-
based technologies, particularly in delivering and developing instruction.
Teachers at this level do not use the computer for the sake of using a computer, but
have made a choice about instructional delivery that is most appropriately handled
by a computer. Should the computer be taken away at this point, teachers at the
integration phase would have a hard time reworking their lessons to accommodate
some other delivery system.
Often, technology adoption stops here [9], though there is less danger of
teachers abandoning the technology due to a malfunction or software problem.
Teachers who continue to use computer-based technologies at the integration
phase find that the technologies provide an opportunity to re-examine the entire
learning environment [10]. That is, at some point during the integration of any
educational technology, the approach to teaching and learning may be influenced
by the opportunities afforded by the technology, which leads rapidly to the
next level.

Reorientation
Reorientation “. . . requires that educators reconsider and reconceptualize
the purpose and function of the classroom” [6]. Interestingly, at this phase the
emphasis is on the learner and in how the teacher may best facilitate learning,
rather than on which software or hardware is in vogue. Computer-based tech-
nologies become a part of the learning context, as an extension of the learner,
teacher, and learning experience [10]. The technology is considered in terms of
a systemic enrichment of the learning context, rather than as a discrete application
of the technology to learning.

Evolution
The final phase, Evolution, is the continued ability to grow and change as the
needs of the learner and the learning context change. Teachers achieve this phase
in technology adoption when they are willing to change methods and media as
necessary to facilitate learning [11]. A prime example of a teachers’ use of a
technology at this phase is an art teacher’s relationship to the camera and film [12].
Where once the camera was discounted as a legitimate art medium, photography is
now studied as fine art. Where the camera and film were considered mainly for
utilitarian industrial purposes, teachers now discuss film as fine art and use slide
film as the presentation technology of choice in many art-related classrooms.
Understanding where teachers are in terms of their level of technology adoption
is a necessary first step in understanding barriers to technology adoption. Each
level on the hierarchy discussed above requires a different set of support services,
funding, time, and administrative and student expectations. Mismatches in a
 BARRIERS TO ADOPTING EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES / 459

teacher’s level of technology adoption with certain internal or external sources of

potential barriers provide an almost certain failure to adopt a technology in
the classroom.

BARRIERS TO TECHNOLOGY ADOPTION

What stops a teacher or a student from using a new technology? Those working
in school staff development positions would say it is a combination of several
factors: socio-cultural factors (e.g., economics and location) [13], “personological
variables” [14] of the teacher (e.g., age, gender, attitudes and beliefs or teaching
philosophy), and exposure to and adoption of emerging technologies [5, 6, 15, 16]
within the practice of teaching (e.g., levels of technology acceptance and adoption)
that are included in the “. . . whole ‘cloud of correlated variables’—technology,
activity, goal setting, teacher’s role, culture—exerting the combined effect” [10,
p. 8] on success or failure to adopt a new technology. Table 1 illustrates major
topics presented in several recent articles on barriers to technology adoption.
Barriers to successful technology adoption appear to have internal and external
sources. Internal barriers may be summarized as “teacher attitude” or “percep-
tions” about a technology, in addition to a person’s actual competency level
with any technology. External sources include the availability and accessibility
of necessary hardware and software, the presence of technical personnel and
institutional support, and a program for staff development and skill building.
Barriers that cross internal and external sources are lack of time and funding and
the unique culture of the institution.
Schieman and Fiordo discuss a sociological model of a normal distribution of
technology adoption patterns linked to internal barriers of attitude and perception:
innovators (about 3% of any population), early adopters (about 14%), early
majority (34%), late majority (34%), and laggards (about 14%) [17]. Harvey and
Purnell suggest that “teacher anxieties” or attitudes contribute to a teacher’s
position as an innovator or early adopter [18]:

While technology tools are what is new about professional development,

teachers see little benefit in it for themselves. The result is the “17 percent
problem,” i.e., the technicians and visionaries who make up 17 percent of the
population “see” a potential for technology and begin using it. But the
majority are not interested until they see some practical benefits. (p. 2)

Barriers from external sources may be categorized under three general head-
ings: availability and accessibility, institutional and technical support, and stake-
holder development.
The availability and accessibility category of barriers includes limited access to
useful, relevant, and appropriate hardware and software. Respondents in studies
discussed in seven of the eight articles identified in Table 1 focus on the need for
 460 / ROGERS
Table 1. A Summary of Research on Barriers to Technology Adoption
Appalacia Quality Edu-
Educational Lab Byers Harvey Hope cational Data, Ray Schieman Spotts
Barrier Category Items (1991) (1996) (1995) (1995) Inc. (1995) (1991) (1990) (1993)
1. Availability and quality X X X X X X X
of hardware/software

2. Faculty role models X X X X

(early adapters)

3. Funding X X X X X

4. Institutional support X X X X X X X

5. Models for using X X

technology in instruction

6. Staff development X X X X X X

7. Student learning X X

8. Teacher attitudes X X X X X X X X

9. Technical support X X X X X

10. Time to learn to use X X X X X

technology (personal or
release time)
 BARRIERS TO ADOPTING EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES / 461

access to hardware that can handle particular software [19, 20], the availability of
the hardware or software to teachers [17, 21], and the quality of the hardware or
software [20-23].
Technical support (Table 1, item 9) in the form of user services or media
specialists who assist staff in using and maintaining different technologies, and
institutional support (Table 1, item 4) may be grouped together as a second general
category of external barriers. Employing a limited number of technical support
staff in a school, district, or university severely hinders technology adoption.
Those who are employed as technical support personnel may lack appropriate
technical support expertise (i.e., the personnel do not have technical skills to meet
the needs of the faculty).
Lack of institutional support, from encouragement by administration to try new
technologies, to provide funding specifically for technical support and technology
purchases, becomes a major barrier to the infusion of new technologies in an
institution [18-22, 24]. Institutional and technical support are inseparable due to
the administrative privilege of hiring personnel.
The third general category of external barriers, stakeholder development,
appears in six of the eight articles [18-22, 24]. The term “stakeholder” is used here
to include faculty, staff, and students.
Lack of time to develop new courseware, new skills, or advanced applications
becomes a barrier at an individual level and at an institutional level. Personal
time needed to build skills or create new teaching materials is considerable,
particularly for teachers just beginning to use newer technologies. The panic that
sets in (internal source), often called the “fear factor,” stops many teachers from
successful infusion of technology in their teaching.
Lack of time as a barrier from an external or institutional source is often related
to a need for release time for courseware and staff development. State and
institutional mandates concerning contact hours in both P-12 and higher education
institutions create barriers for teachers and administrators. If release time is not
available, and if personal time is too fragmented or limited, teachers cannot learn
new skills and develop new materials.
Funding issues may also contribute to both internal and external sources for
barriers. Certainly, a lack of funding for hardware and software or hiring technical
support personnel is a serious external barrier. However, lack of adequate or
appropriate funding may be traced to individual choices for allocating funds to
certain disciplines, programs, or schools. For example, the choice to fund a
computer lab may depend upon a key individual’s attitude toward technology,
rather than on student needs.
The recitation on the intricacies of barriers and how they interrelate could easily
take up the remainder of this article. Anecdotal evidence and justification for
avoiding technology adoption is abundant in any teachers’ lounge one might
visit. Developing a real understanding of how internal and external barriers to
technology adoption actually impact the daily lives of teachers in P-12 and
462 / ROGERS

post-secondary institutions is a matter for serious research. The two studies

described below provide a snapshot of the experiences of teachers as they infuse
technology into the curriculum. Though short term studies such as surveys and
interviews do not provide a desirable ongoing report on the shifting patterns of
technology adoption in schools, we can begin to gain some insight into how
barriers are constructed and what might be done to overcome them by listening to
teachers at various stages of adopting newer technologies.

TECHNOLOGY ADOPTION IN K-12 EDUCATION

In the first study [25], one thousand art teachers were randomly selected from
a cohort of approximately 10,000 which was defined by years of teaching exper-
ience, membership in two professional organizations, and a school address in the
United States. Preprimary teachers were not included in the study. Though the data
gathered on teaching strategies from a domain-specific group of teachers such as
art teachers or mathematicians may be somewhat different from the data from
teachers across all disciplines, reports on issues, concerns, and barriers appear to
be common to all teachers. Domain-specific barriers, while important, do not seem
to add or detract from barriers reported by teachers across all disciplines.
Each teacher selected for this study was sent an extensive survey that gathered
both quantitative and qualitative data. The purpose of the survey was to: 1) ascer-
tain the current levels of technology adoption among art teachers: 2) characterize
the teaching strategies used for learning in computer-based technology art class-
rooms; 3) identify barriers to computer-based technology adoption; and 4) propose
an instructional model, based on current practices in art education with computer-
based technology and on Disciplined Based Art Education (DBAE). Data from
507 eligible respondents are included in the results of this study.
Survey data are typically analyzed in terms of frequencies and percentages,
however, this study included a triangulated methodology that allowed more
in-depth analyses. Data from the respondents were first analyzed using descriptive
methods, cross-tabulations, and regressions. During the in-depth reading of the
questionnaires, parameters for each level of technology adoption (described
above) were used to set an adoption level code for each respondent. The in-depth
reading of written responses and comments and the completion of teaching
strategy questions provided key information that matched the parameters of
each adoption level. Logic checks were performed between the assigned adop-
tion level and the data from other questions on teaching strategies to determine
any discrepancies between assigned adoption level and reported practice. Before
proceeding with in-depth analysis, each respondent’s level of technology
adoption was determined based on the adoption hierarchy described above and
was validated by a regression method. Below are short written responses typical of
respondents at each adoption level.
 BARRIERS TO ADOPTING EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES / 463

Familiarization: I do not have access to a computer at school or at home. I am

interested in computer technology. I know there is something out there that I
am missing (Respondent H12809).

Utilization: I have been a strong advocate of computers in the classroom.

However, because art is a low priority in education, I was the last to get a
computer. . . . I have purchased my own software to use at school, because the
“bundle” purchased . . . was dreary and unimaginative. My computer setup at
home is much superior to what I have at school. I suspect my students have a
similar circumstance (Respondent H99999).

Integration: During work on my Ph.D. I absolutely lived on the Internet. I

believe this more or less started my obsession for computers and I hope to pass
this on to my students. I have 8 computers in my classroom all on-line to
Internet and I encourage hourly/daily usage (Respondent H15840).

Reorganization: For the best part of three years I have taught Computer
Graphic Design and Computer Painting. My students and I designed the path
these courses would follow and have enjoyed building a unique curriculum
[italics added]. We’ve discovered the satisfaction of using the computer as
another medium with which to produce art projects. We have also crossed the
curriculum because of our computers. For example, we design playbills
for Drama, illustrate writing for Creative Writing, enhance Statistics with
artistic graphics, probe the Internet for Social Studies, etc. I have approached
teaching Computer Art from the role of facilitator and coach [italics added].
The students enjoy interacting with their computer at their own speed with
little assistance from me (Respondent H13106).

Tables of frequencies were made for certain questions and cross-tabulations

were made on selected variables (i.e., age and level of technology adoption).
Answers to open-ended questions and spontaneous comments were key-word
coded and categorized [26], then combined with the quantitative survey data [27].
Next, quantitative and qualitative data were organized into factors: demographic
factors, environmental factors, attitudes factors, exposure and use factors, and
reported practice factors. Categories of key words and questions in the survey were
analyzed as a set to determine the particular factor’s influence on teachers’ levels
of technology adoption. For purposes of this article, only those sets of data
concerned with barriers to technology adoption are presented.

Discussion

Table 2 illustrates the key findings with respect to barriers faced by teachers
in this study. Note that the number of respondents at each level follows the
distribution of innovators to laggards discussed by Schieman and Fiordo [17].
Thus, respondents in this study are a good representation of teachers facing newer
technology challenges.
464 / ROGERS

Table 2. Barriers to Technology Adoption at the

Elementary and Secondary Level
Technology Adoption Levels (%)
Barrier Category Familiarization Utilization Integration Reorganization
Availability and 24.08 18.26 2.17 0.00
accessibility

Technical and 22.86 14.81 6.52 16.66

institutional suport

Stakeholder 27.76 11.55 6.52 16.66

development

No barrier discussed 25.30 55.38 84.78 66.66

Percent of total 27.84 66.25 5.23 0.68

responses at each
level

Previous studies [17-24] have identified barriers to technology adoption and

have suggested some interactions between them. The need for technical support,
funding, staff development, more time in the day, and a host of other complaints
are often cited as the major causes for the lack of computers in a school or office.
From these observations and from the responses from teachers in this study.
Several conclusions may be made:

1. Responses that fall in external categories of Availability and Accessibility,

Technical and Institutional Support, and Stakeholder Development were reported
mainly by the teachers who were at a familiarization (about 28% of the total
respondents) and utilization level (about 66%) of technology adoption (see
Table 2). That is, those with less experience using technology in instruction
were more likely to report barriers. Responses from those at the integration and
reorganization levels reported fewer barriers, though there were proportionately
fewer respondents at these levels.
Limited technical support, staff development opportunities, and hardware and
software were reported as barriers as in previous studies, but the qualitative
analysis in this study suggested that the quality of these services and materials also
contributes to barriers. Technicians who have limited training, inadequate staff
development activities, and aging hardware and software were reported in the
open-ended portions of the survey. If the survey had only asked whether such
services and materials were available, our understanding of the reality of what is
happening in schools would be biased. How the questions are asked is absolutely
critical [2].
 BARRIERS TO ADOPTING EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES / 465

2. As teachers become more comfortable with technology (illustrated by those

at higher levels of technology adoption in Table 2), their focus on barriers
decreases. Note that the percentage of the responses for “no barrier discussed”
increases as the level of technology adoption increases.
3. There appears to be a strong interaction and interdependence among the
three external barrier categories (Availability and Accessibility, Technical and
Institutional Support, and Stakeholder Development). Teachers report complex
relationships among the three major barrier categories. Such connections have
been suggested in previous studies (see Table 1), but few have considered the
correlation among barriers.

The results of this study suggest that external barriers are most likely to affect
those teachers who are at the beginning stages of technology adoption. As staff
(stakeholder) development needs become less demanding (as individuals become
more comfortable with using the technology), barriers of access and availability
and technical support become more critical. Lack of technical support at an
advanced level and the need for additional in-depth stakeholder development
becomes a barrier for those at the highest level of technology adoption. This
barrier may be due in part to their willingness to integrate technologies into their
teaching to the point of actually changing the context of teaching and learning.

TECHNOLOGY ADOPTION IN HIGHER EDUCATION

The second study [28] was designed to gather information from instructional
technology coordinators on the impact of a large scale initiative (the Electronic
Academy) implemented at two-year and four-year institutions in a Midwestern
state post-secondary system. The goals of the Electronic Academy are: 1) to
develop and deliver electronically complete technical, associate, bachelor and
masters degree programs to students around the state; 2) to enhance existing
courses by using multimedia, network and Internet capability; 3) to provide online
services to students: registration, financial aid, business office, e-mail, and library
access; 4) to give students access to leased computers; 5) to partner with private
telecommunications firms to pilot new technology and market new educational
products; and 6) to evaluate student satisfaction and learning outcomes achieved
by the Electronic Academy.
To accomplish the goals of the initiative, the first year of funding included
extensive staff development in computer skills and instructional design, as well
as large-scale hardware and software purchases. Technology coordinators and
their colleagues continue to provide basic and advanced staff development oppor-
tunities as more faculty infuse technology into their teaching. While staff develop-
ment efforts in the Electronic Academy are not focused solely on teacher edu-
cation programs, we will consider this study in terms of in-service teachers in
higher education.
466 / ROGERS

Twenty-eight of the thirty-six technical coordinators participated in the study,

representing 78 percent of the system’s institutions (some of which have multiple
campuses). The purpose of this study was: 1) to examine the impact of the
Electronic Academy across the system; 2) to serve as a basis for reports to the state
legislature on how the funds were expended; and 3) to learn what the needs
and expectations are for future funding from this initiative. Data were gathered
from each coordinator through a loosely structured interview conducted on the
telephone or in-person. Five questions were sent to each coordinator prior to the
interview. This qualitative design provided an overview of the impact of the
initiative in the system and a better understanding of barriers to its success. Table 3
summarizes barriers identified by the coordinators.

Discussion

Many of the coordinators gave multiple responses to each question, which made
reporting the results difficult (see Table 3). A frequency count is provided for
responses that generally fall within the indicated items. Also provided is the
percentage of coordinators who included a particular item in their response to a
question. For example, in item 1 of Table 3, eleven coordinators from two-year
institutions (technical and community colleges) and six from four-year institutions
(state universities) included “need technical support staff” in their responses.
These response frequencies represent 52 percent of two-year coordinators and
86 percent of four-year coordinators who participated in the study, and 61 percent
of all participating institutions.

Table 3. Barriers to Technology Adoption at the

Post-Secondary Level
Technical and State
Community Universities Total
Interviews Completed: 28 Colleges (21) (7) (28)
1. Need technical support 11 (52%) 6 (86%) 17 (61%)
staff

2. Need release time and time 11 (52%) 3 (43%) 14 (50%)

for training faculty and staff

3. Funds not specified for 13 (62%) 6 (86%) 19 (68%)

technology-related needs

4. Lack of sharing best 14 (67%) 3 (43%) 17 (61%)

practices across system.
 BARRIERS TO ADOPTING EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES / 467

Items 2 and 4 are concerned with additional opportunities for stakeholder

development and sharing of best practices among the institutions in the system.
Coordinators consider stakeholder development (faculty, staff, and students) to be
a continuing primary focus of the Electronic Academy. Items 2 and 3 (lack of time
and appropriate funding) may be identified as external barriers, though some
coordinators suggested that lack of funding and time (as internal barriers) could be
relieved by changing the attitude of key administrators at individual institutions.

UNDERSTANDING BARRIERS TO TECHNOLOGY ADOPTION

The results of both studies suggest that barriers to technology adoption in
schools create a complex balance and counter-balance of several components.
Attitudes toward technology and its uses in education as well as attitudes toward
the level of institutional support available plays a substantial role in determining
what will and will not be considered. Attitudes and perceptions of key individuals
may become the major barrier to adopting any technology. Once past this com-
ponent, potential barriers cluster within three major categories: availability and
accessibility of hardware and software, appropriate stakeholder development
opportunities for teachers at all levels of technology adoption, and appropriate and
adequate technical and institutional support to initiate and maintain technology
adoption in teaching and learning.
Figure 1 suggests how barriers to adopting emerging technologies are depen-
dent upon a variety of circumstances and relationships. For example, many
schools purchased a computer for every classroom in the late 1980s but did not
provide technical support or staff development opportunities [2, 29]. Computers
were available and accessible, but useless to teachers because of a lack of technical
support and training. Or consider how issues of funding may cross all categories of
the identified barriers. Without institutional, community, and legislative support,
schools are unable to purchase hardware, software, technical services, or create
release time for staff development.
Recent exchanges on a listserv devoted to staff development clearly illustrates
that teachers and staff development professionals sense the interdependence and
complexity of barriers to technology adoption suggested by Figure 1. One message
effectively tells the story of how this complexity manifests in a school setting:
Yes, schools now have access to the Internet. But no, it has not produced
increased use. Why? because [sic] staff have not been adequately trained and
supported in their use of technology [italics added]. Most districts have spent
all of their money on the technology and not the people using it. Districts
believe that they make a one time purchase, connect the school, give a brief, if
any inservice to teachers and expect them to use it. What is the result? A
handful of innovative teachers see this as exciting and want to jump in and use
it. They are willing to spend their free time to learn how to incorporate
technology use into their curriculum. The end result is that the equipment is
468 / ROGERS

Figure 1. The relationship among internal and external sources

of barriers to technology adoption.

used to its potential by a few people. Parents and administrators say why
should we spend more money on technology used by so few people.
Another reason for the lack of use is the availability issue [italics added]. For
example, in our elementary school of 840 students, we have one 50 minute
period scheduled in our computer lab every six days. We also have only one
networked computer in our classrooms. This really makes it difficult to
complete any project in a reasonable period of time. Our high schools have
3 labs, but 2500 students. Scheduling time is a headache. So teachers often
don’t even attempt it.
My biggest concern is the lack of commitment to professional development
[italics added] in this area. The districts with the most success with technology
 BARRIERS TO ADOPTING EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES / 469

are the ones who knew they had to save money to spend on the professional
development piece of the equation. Without commitment to this need, districts
might as well not spend their money on hardware and software. It would be
better spent elsewhere [30].

Coordinators in the Electronic Academy study identify barriers in a similar

fashion:
[A barrier is the] timeline that I have. Tech support is a major issue. Training
and staff development. Need more funds to get classes and teachers set up to
do the training. Electronic Academy is a great incentive to DO this: it gets
faculty paid to do the extra work. Three major areas of need in future:
technical staff, more [system]-based training classes, and [system]-wide
contracts for hardware/software. We really need more hands-on training,
someone who relates to faculty and staff. [consider] release time for the
trainers [italics added] (D. Knutson in [28]).

Notice how barriers are reported as overlapping issues and needs. Personnel
needs are tied to staff development needs that are in turn dependent upon avail-
able time and equipment. The almost circular conversations among teachers,
technology coordinators, and staff development professionals provide strong
evidence for the inter-relatedness of barriers. It is not accident that the model of
barriers (Figure 1) suggests a circular motion.
As designers and developers at elementary, secondary, and post-secondary
institutions begin to infuse technology into the curriculum, planning for tech-
nology becomes increasingly necessary. The most successful technology plans
include input from all stakeholders concerned as well as those who may be
hired specifically to develop technology plans. Graphic representations such as
the model presented in this article, help designers and developers visualize the
components of technology plans and focus on what is needed for success.
Several recommendations for technology planning can be made from this
examination of barriers to technology adoption. This list is by no means
exhaustive, considering how many different components and delicate contin-
gencies are represented by the model. However, some broad recommendations
can be listed to aid in the development of electronically enhanced curriculum
development:
1. Determine the goals of teaching and learning first. No technology plan
should be developed without a clear understanding of the mission of the school,
the needs of its learners, and some consideration of the institution’s future.
Technology plans that center on technology rather than teaching and learning
create more barriers than they prevent.
2. Assess the level of technology adoption of the stakeholders, particularly
the faculty and staff. An understanding of where each faculty member stands
in terms of the adoption of technology will guide the selection of technical
support and sophistication of equipment needed. Those at lower levels of
470 / ROGERS

technology adoption require more staff development time and basic technical
support (e.g., someone to call when the computer “freezes” ). Those at higher
levels, particularly those innovators who reach a reorientation stage, require
more sophisticated technical support and staff development opportunities
(e.g., attending Authorware courses and creating CD-ROMs). Technology plans
in P-12 and higher education should consider designing phases of both stake-
holder development and technical support. Basic courses and in-services could be
handled in a large group setting, while more difficult or detailed courses could
be handled in small group or one-on-one situations. Technical support for basic
needs might best be handled by talented students and more difficult problems
handled by a media specialist. Use focus groups, anonymous surveys, or
individual interviews with key stakeholders to ascertain levels of technology
adoption.
3. Assess the attitudes of stakeholders toward technology in education. Indi-
vidual and institutional attitudes and perceptions are critical considerations when
confronting barriers. Technology planning should include some strategies for
changing attitudes and addressing the “fear factor.” Use focus groups, anonymous
surveys, or individual interviews with key stakeholders to ascertain attitudes
toward technology.
4. Consider three categories of barriers to technology adoption (availability
and accessibility, institutional and technical support, and stakeholder develop-
ment) simultaneously. It is of little use to purchase high-end computers with-
out also providing technical support and appropriate stakeholder development
opportunities. Providing in-depth classes on video conferencing for teachers who
do not have basic computer equipment is a waste of valuable time and funding.
Technicians who have appropriate skills in maintaining such high-end equipment
and who can answer detailed questions must be available and accessible to
teachers.
5. Technology plans must include a consideration of time and funding issues.
Teachers need time to develop new course materials, time to learn new skills, and
time to adjust their attitude toward the role technology holds in teaching and
learning. Teachers at lower levels of the technology adoption hierarchy need more
time than do teachers who are at higher levels of technology adoption. Technology
plans must accommodate such differences in teachers’ needs if the plan is to be
successful for all concerned.
Funding is often the major focus of technology planning. Again, consider
the needs of the institution in terms of teaching and learning first, then deter-
mine what technologies can support those educational goals. Funding that is
inappropriately allocated (e.g., that is used only for hardware purchases and not for
personnel or training) is wasted. Such waste contributes to negative attitudes
toward technology, which ultimately is represented as the first major barrier to
technology adoption.
And so the vicious cycle goes.
 BARRIERS TO ADOPTING EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES / 471

REFERENCES
1. A Nation at Risk, online: http://www.ED.gov/pubs/NatAtRisk/Risk.html, 1983.
2. J. Borrell, America’s Shame: How We’ve Abandoned Our Children’s Future,
Macworld, pp. 25-30, September, 1992.
3. S. T. Kerr, Technology, Teachers, and the Search for School Reform, Educational
Technology Research and Development, 37:4, pp. 5-17, 1990.
4. G. Witte, CCStaff Development RE: Technology Adoption. [electronic listserv]. Available
e-mail: [email protected] Message: Subscribe CCStaff Development
CDTLGWWJPL, December 1998.
5. L. P. Rieber and P. W. Welliver, Infusing Educational Technology into Mainstream
Educational Computing, International Journal of Instructional Media, 16:1, pp. 21-32,
1989.
6. S. Hooper and L. P. Rieber, Teaching with Technology, Teaching: Theory into
Practice, A. Ornstein (ed.), Allyn and Bacon, Boston, Massachusetts, 1995.
7. P. C. Dunn, The Curriculum Navigator (Version Sample Disk) [computer program],
Dale Seymour Publications, Palo Alto, California, 1995.
8. Unidentified Teacher, Personal Communication at the Annual National Art Education
Association Convention, Houston, Texas, 1995.
9. H. R. Marcinkiewicz and T. K. Wittman, Tracking Teachers’ Personal Variables and
Computer Use: Phase Two, Paper presented at the National Convention of the Asso-
ciation for Educational Communications and Technology, Anaheim, California, 1995.
10. G. Salomon, D. N. Perkins and T. Globerson, Partners in Cognition: Extending Human
Intelligence with Intelligent Technologies, Educational Researcher, 20:3, pp. 2-9, 1991.
11. D. H. Jonassen, J. P. Campbell, and M. E. Davidson, Learning with Media: Restruc-
turing the Debate, Educational Technology Research and Development, 42:2,
pp. 31-39, 1994.
12. M. Lovejoy, Postmodern Currents: Art and Artists in the Age of Electronic Media,
Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, 1992.
13. C. Bereiter, Constructivism, Socioculturalism, and Popper’s World 3, Educational
Researcher, 23:7, pp. 21-23, 1994.
14. H. R. Marcinkiewicz and B. Grabowski, The Relationship of Personological Variables
to Computer Use by Elementary School Teachers: Report of Phase One—Baseline
Data (IR015748), in Proceedings of Selected Research and Development Presen-
tations at the Convention of the Association for Educational Communications and
Technology, Research, and Theory Division, ERIC Document Reproduction Service
No. ED348011, 1992.
15. R. E. Anderson (ed.), Computers in American Schools 1992: An Overview, IEA
Computers in Education Study, Minneapolis, Minnesota, 1993.
16. H. J. Becker, Top-Down versus Grass Roots Decision Making about Computer Acqui-
sition and Use in American Schools, paper presented at the Annual Conference of the
American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, California, 1986.
17. E. Schieman and R. Fiordo, Barriers to Adoption of Instructional Communications
Technology in Higher Education, paper presented at the Australian Communications
Conference, Melbourne, Australia, July 1990.
18. J. Harvey and S. Purnell, Technology and Teacher Professional Development, Depart-
ment of Education, Washington, D.C., ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.
ED 343 580, 1995.
472 / ROGERS

19. Appalachia Educational Lab and Tennessee Education Association, Bits, Bytes, and
Barriers: Tennessee Teachers’ Use of Technology, ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED 343 580, 1991.
20. Quality Education Data, Inc., Malarkey-Taylor Associates, Education Technology
Survey, 1995, ERIC Reproduction Service No. ED 387 124, 1995.
21. T. H. Spotts and M. A. Bowman, Increasing Faculty Use of Instructional Technology:
Barriers and Incentives, Educational Media International, 30:4, pp. 199-204, 1993.
22. W. C. Hope, Microcomputer Technology: Its Impact on Teachers in an Elementary
School, unpublished doctoral dissertation, Florida State University, 1995.
23. D. Ray, Technology and Restructuring—Part II: New Organizational Directions,
The Computing Teacher, 18:7, pp, 8-12, 1991.
24. A. Byers, Communities Address Barriers to Connectivity, Rural Clearinghouse for
Lifelong Education, Kansas State University, Kansas, ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED 343 580, 1996.
25. P. L. Rogers, Adoption of Computer-Based Technologies among Art Educators: Impli-
cations for Instructional Design in Art Education, unpublished doctoral dissertation,
University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, 1997.
26. M. Lundy-Dobbert, R. A. Eisikovits, and M. A. Pitman, Observing Learning in
Everyday Settings: A Guide to the Holistic Study of Cultural Transmission/Acquisition
in the Daily Lives of Children and Youth, A Field Guide Produced for the Culture
Acquisition Research and Policy Consortium, 1994.
27. M. B. Miles and A. M. Huberman, Qualitative Data Analysis, Sage Publications, Inc.,
Thousand Oaks, 1994.
28. P. L. Rogers, A System-Wide Examination of the Electronic Academy, Minnesota State
Colleges and Universities, St. Paul, Minnesota , 1998.
29. C. Piller, Separate Realities (The Creation of the Technological Underclass in
America’s Public Schools), Macworld, pp. 218-236, September 1992.
30. C. Menas, CCStaff Development RE: Technology Adoption, [electronic listserv].
Available e-mail: [email protected] Message: Subscribe CCStaff
Development CDTLGWWJPL, December 1998.

Direct reprint requests to:

Dr. Patricia L. Rogers
Department of Professional Studies
Bemidji State University
Room 343 Education Arts Building
1500 Birchmont Drive
Bemidji, MN 56601