GENERAL ARTICLES

Feng Wang
Thomas C. Reeves

Why Do Teachers Need to Use

Technology in Their Classrooms?
Issues, Problems, and Solutions

ABSTRACT. Will computers repeat the failure that older technologies

(e.g., film, radio, and television) experienced concerning educational
applications of technology? A simple question seems to be helpful for
us to gain more insight on this issue: “Why do teachers need to use
technology in their classrooms?” To answer this question, first of all,
the general expectations that people have for computers in education
are examined. Then, a summary of the failures regarding educational
uses of technologies are provided and analyzed. Next, the question of
whether computers can escape the same fate as film, radio, and televi-
sion is examined. Finally, a conclusion is presented that computers can
bring great changes to classrooms in the next decade, but improper en-
thusiasm must be discouraged. To a great extent, the passion for com-
puters can be managed by a more realistic research agenda. The paper

FENG WANG is a doctoral student, Department of Instructional Technology, The Univer-

sity of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602-7144 (E-mail: [email protected]).
THOMAS C. REEVES is Professor, Department of Instructional Technology, The Uni-
versity of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602-7144 (E-mail: [email protected]).

Computers in the Schools, Vol. 20(4) 2003

http://www.haworthpress.com/web/CITS
” 2003 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.
Digital Object Identifier: 10.1300/J025v20n04_05 49
50 Computers in the Schools

concludes with recommendations for development research and de-

sign-based research. [Article copies available for a fee from The Haworth
Document Delivery Service: 1-800-HAWORTH. E-mail address: <docdelivery@
haworthpress.com> Website: <http://www.HaworthPress.com> © 2003 by The
Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.]

KEYWORDS. Technology integration, development research, design-

based research

Education change depends on what teachers do and think–it’s as

simple and complex as that. . . . If educational change is to happen,
it will require that teachers understand themselves and be under-
stood by others.

–Michael Fullan, 1982, p. 107

INTRODUCTION

The successful integration of technology into classrooms has been a

goal for generations of instructional technology researchers and practi-
tioners (Cuban, 1986). Especially in the last 25 years, emerging “new
technologies” such as computers and the Internet have attracted many
people to research and practice focused on improving education with
technology. The interactive multimedia “affordances” (Norman, 1990)
of contemporary networked computers enable us to think of them not
only as media for distributing information, but also as environments capa-
ble of fostering the adaptation of student-centered pedagogy (Jonassen,
Peck, & Wilson, 1999; Sandholtz, Ringstaff, & Dwyer, 1997). Using
the Internet for instructional purposes especially stirred the public’s
imagination, and thus in the 1990s, there was a rush to wire virtually all
schools (Becker, 2000). The sheer amount of technology in schools in
the United States has greatly increased since 1995 (Becker, 2000;
Reiser, 2001). According to the National Center for Educational Statis-
tics (2002) report, in the year of 2001, 99% of public schools had
Internet access. Additionally, the number of students per computer de-
creased from 10:1 during 1995-1996, to a little over 5:1 during the pe-
riod of 1999-2000 (CEO Forum, 2001).
Unfortunately, history teaches us that the current passion for instruc-
tional uses of technologies such as computers and the Internet is not
 Feng Wang and Thomas C. Reeves 51

unique. Similar enthusiasm appeared when older technologies (e.g.,

film, radio, and television) were introduced into education (Cuban,
1986). In those earlier times, technology proponents spent considerable
time and money on educational research and evaluation aimed at dem-
onstrating that the then “new” technologies could contribute to educa-
tional reform in a big way. Unfortunately, before substantial evidence
of the actual integration of those older technologies into everyday prac-
tice could be found, most people lost interest, perhaps because the im-
pact was not instantly obvious. At the same time, those who were
interested in educational uses of the technologies became passionate
about even newer technologies, believing that the latest innovations
would finally “revolutionize” education if widely adopted (Perlman,
1992). As each new technology was promoted as the next possible pan-
acea for educational problems, people rarely thought carefully about the
previous failures involving older technologies.
Taking a long view, Cuban (1986) described a cycle that was re-
peated again and again in the applications of older technologies: “exhil-
aration/scientific credibility/disappointment/teacher-bashing” (p. 5).
Cuban explained that whenever a new technology was introduced into
educational contexts, some people advocated its widespread adoption
to improve education to a broad and deep extent. Subsequently, numer-
ous research studies were conducted to find credible evidence of the ef-
fectiveness of instructional applications of the innovation. After the
technology was introduced in many schools but failed to do what had
been promised, disappointment became rampant and the search for
someone or something to blame began. Most often, teachers’ resistance
to using it was identified as one of the major reasons for the failure of
technology to transform education (Winn, 1989).
Teachers were easy targets of critics regarding the failure of technol-
ogy integration in classrooms. People were much more prone to attrib-
ute implementation failure to the motives and self-interests of teachers
rather than to contextual variables, poor leadership, or gaps in support-
ive infrastructure (Cuban, 1986). In the court of public opinion, teachers
were viewed as free to utilize whatever technologies they thought ap-
propriate in their classrooms, but they simply chose not to use them.
These uninformed opinions failed to acknowledge or did not ever per-
ceive factors that severely limited teachers’ choices concerning instruc-
tional use of technologies. Teachers’ hostility, reluctance, and fear of
technological innovations were proclaimed as the major reasons for the
failure of technology integration, while the real reasons were much
more complex (Means, 1994). The conditions that limit teachers’ ca-
52 Computers in the Schools

pacity to adopt technology and other innovations may have actually

worsened over the past two decades partly due to the imposition of inco-
herent multiple reform initiatives (Cuban, 2001; Fullan, 2001).
Undoubtedly, as the ultimate practitioners, teachers are one of the
key contributors to the success of integrating new technologies into
learning and instruction (Office of Technology Assessment, 1995).
However, teacher’s perspectives of classrooms, including their expec-
tations and views of factors such as structure, discipline, and relevance,
have usually been overlooked by educational researchers as well as in-
structional designers. Indeed, instructional innovations were seldom
initiated by teachers per se, but usually by outsiders (Cuban, 1986,
2001; Neal, 1998). The failure of new technologies to be successfully
integrated into classrooms may well lie in the inability or failure of their
proponents to address the most important perceptions and needs of
teachers (Kent & McNergney, 1999). Given this lack of focus on teach-
ers’ concerns, it is easy to understand why teachers have rarely used
film, radio and television in classrooms more than once a week (Cuban,
1986), and why even newer media such as computers and the Internet
have had minimal impact on instructional practice and educational out-
comes thus far (Cuban, 2001; Reiser, 2001).
Now the cycle of failed innovations is underway again as educational
technologists and commercial interests seek to support research and de-
velopment focused on the educational uses of computers and the
Internet as well as other new emerging technologies such as virtual real-
ity (Dede, 2000), personal data assistants (PDAs) (Hudgins, 2001), and
digital libraries (Landoni & Diaz, 2003). The sometimes feverish pas-
sion for networked computers has infiltrated nearly every corner of the
globe; and, as a result, educational technologists as well as many mem-
bers of the public appear convinced that computers will surely succeed
in enabling (or forcing) teachers to integrate technology into their class-
rooms where so many previous innovations have failed. The remaining
challenges, from the proponents’ perspectives, are simply that teachers
need more time to accept the new technologies and to change their be-
liefs, and that with proper support, technology integration will finally
be accomplished. Of course, if that doesn’t happen, it will be concluded
that there must be something wrong with teachers, students, or oth-
ers–anyone except the researchers and developers themselves who once
again are not paying enough attention to teachers’ perspectives and
needs.
For the new technologies to escape the same fate of older technolo-
gies in schools, we need to pause and think more seriously. A simple
 Feng Wang and Thomas C. Reeves 53

question could be helpful for us to gain a better insight on this issue:

“Why do teachers need to use technology in their classrooms?” To an-
swer this question, we need to take a fresh approach and throw away old
assumptions. We must call into question the current ways we view the
issues involved in school reform through technological innovation, es-
pecially what is taken for granted. This new attitude requires a fresh the-
oretical perspective such as phenomenology, through which it is
possible that new meanings will emerge, or at least, that the former
meanings will be validated (Crotty, 1998).

NEW TECHNOLOGIES, OLD PASSIONS

New technologies have often engendered great passion about their

possible educational applications, especially among technophiles. In
1913, when film was first used in instruction, Thomas Edison pro-
claimed that “the motion picture is destined to revolutionize our educa-
tional system and that in a few years it will supplant largely, if not
entirely, the use of textbooks” (Cuban, 1986, p. 9). Nearly a century
later, however, films had still not replaced books, although instructional
films did contribute a great deal in military training, especially during
World War II (Noble, 1991). Forty years after Edison’s optimistic pre-
diction, television, a “new” media that combined the major affordances
of film and radio, attracted people to research and practice focused on
its application in education. According to Reiser (2001), there was a
great growth in the use of instructional television (ITV) in the 1950s.
For example, at least 242 television channels were established for edu-
cational purposes. But by the mid-1960s, the interest in instructional
television had greatly abated due in part to the mediocre quality of most
programs, lack of interaction, inadequate curricular support, and to
some degree, teachers’ perception that ITV threatened their classroom
authority and created discipline problems (Kent & McNergney, 1999;
Reiser, 2001).
Thomas Edison is hardly the only representative of people who have
overestimated the educational advantages of technology. On the cusp of
the introduction of the World Wide Web, Perlman (1992) predicted that
new “hyperlearning” technologies spelled the end of schools as we
know them. And yet schools remain largely similar to the ones both Ed-
ison and Perlman predicted would be transformed. With the wider and
wider availability of computers and Internet access over the last decade,
new prognosticators have come forward to predict the transformation of
54 Computers in the Schools

education via technology. Jones (2000) proclaimed that it might soon be

a feasible idea to replace teachers with holograms. It has even been pre-
dicted that artificial intelligence and bionic computers interfaced with
our own ultimately inferior wetware will supersede our need for learn-
ing (Pearson & Neild, 2002).
At first glance, multimedia computers and the Internet, with their
powerful interactive capabilities and the merging of all the major func-
tions of previous media–television, radio and film–may indeed seem to
have the potential to overcome the failures that the earlier technologies
suffered. Alas, the latest research reports and critical analyses have already
shown us that the effects of these technologies are far more modest than
their advocates expected (see Cuban, 2001; Kent & McNergney, 1999;
Noble, 2001). Why have so many high expectations resulted in dismal
results with respect to learning and the use of technology? It is not easy
to answer this question, but we may gain some new insight if we try to
consider whether our expectations are too high to be achieved with
technology or if the capacities of current technologies are too limited to
be used effectively.

PROBLEMATIC EXPECTATIONS

An important reason that many people think computers are integral

to a school’s success in the 21st century stems from the current e-cul-
ture. New Internet technologies have progressed more rapidly than
most people imagined to transform banking, commerce, travel, commu-
nications, and other sectors of everyday life. As a result, many people
believe that computers must be in schools if for no other reason than to
prepare students for their e-future.
However, trying to keep schools up to date with the latest technolo-
gies may be a hopeless crusade. Just as soon as most of the schools were
wired, the wireless “revolution” arrived. Desktop computers have been
supplanted by laptops, and laptops are now being superceded by PDAs
and tablet computers. A “new” computer with latest technologies is
likely to become inadequate to utilize the latest software and operating
systems after just a few years of use; whereas, a refrigerator can still be
conveniently used even after a decade or more (which is often regarded
as a generation). Rapidly changing technology will only accelerate in
the future. To a greater extent than before, educational technology is
viewed as a way for students to learn to deal with the rapidly changing
e-society. But a visit to most schools will reveal closets full of technolo-
 Feng Wang and Thomas C. Reeves 55

gies that were hardly used at all, much less utilized as the instruments of
fundamental educational reform.
Education is also viewed as essential for the continuing development
of our market economy. According to Cuban (2001), the primary eco-
nomic purposes that public schools and higher education should serve
first became explicit in the early 1900s, and a century later contemporary
school activists are still focused on solving the nation’s economic
problems through education. With the wider integration of computers
throughout many aspects of our society, having basic computer skills is
considered by many to be a prerequisite for students to find a decent job.
Thus, computers are also considered to be an ideal way to reform schools
by many public officials and corporate leaders (CEO Forum, 2001;
Jones, 2000). Of course, many of these same proponents represent corpo-
rations that realize enormous profits when technology is sold to schools.
In the conversation published in a recent issue of Educational Tech-
nology, Professor Michael Molenda of Indiana University suggested that
K-12 teachers are more willing to adopt “hard technologies” over “soft
technologies,” as the former ones do not threaten their way of teaching
and role in the classroom (Oswald, 2003). He also pointed out that it is the
pedagogical issues rather than the technological changes that are essen-
tial to technology integration in classrooms (Oswald, 2003). Molenda’s
ideas reflect an important expectation that people have for computers in
education, i.e., the shift from teacher-centered instruction to student-cen-
tered learning (Cuban, 2001). In the past decade, with the introduction of
constructionism as a learning theory appropriate for most levels of educa-
tion (Papert, 1993), many educational experts have come to view this
change as an ultimate goal to be achieved with the aid of technology
(Jonassen, Peck, & Wilson, 1999; Sandholtz, Ringstaff, & Dwyer, 1997).
Educational technology proponents view computers as much more ac-
commodating than their precedents to enable authentic learning environ-
ments and extend students’ control of their learning processes (Means &
Olsen, 1994; Reiser, 2001). Unfortunately, most teachers find the shift to
constructionist pedagogy to be out of sync with other expectations placed
upon them, such as the emphasis on improving achievement test scores
and maintaining classroom discipline.

WHY OLDER TECHNOLOGIES FAILED

Before trying to answer questions about whether computers can

overcome the barriers that have thwarted technological innovations in
56 Computers in the Schools

the past, it’s necessary to examine the reasons that older technologies
failed to fulfill people’s expectations. Cuban (1986), in his book titled
Teachers and Machines: The Classroom Use of Technology Since
1920, explained that the failure of instructional film and television were
inescapable and could be attributed to many reasons. First of all, the
supply of equipment was limited. It was too expensive to have every
classroom equipped with a film projector in earlier times, as it would be
even today, and thus showing a film required adhering to a schedule.
Teachers needed to order a machine to be sent to their classroom or re-
serve a special film classroom whenever they wanted to have their stu-
dents view a film (Cuban, 1986; Kent & McNergney, 1999). Teachers
find adhering too strictly to a “time and place” schedule to be confining
because it limits the possibilities of taking advantage of the “teachable
moment” when the opportunity to clarify or expand upon content comes
at unpredictable times within the context of teacher and student interac-
tions. In addition, few teachers have the planning time required to make
best use of technology that must be scheduled well in advance; instead,
the little planning time teachers have is spent struggling to figure out
how they are going to teach successfully during the next day or two.
The storage and distribution of films were also big problems. Most
importantly, the quality of many film programs was mediocre. Though
high-quality films could be produced, they were often too costly to be
affordable (Cuban, 1986). In addition, teachers lacked training to know
how to use films to their maximum advantage in their classrooms. For
some teachers, films were threatening, as they “decentered” their au-
thority. Teachers had to sit in the dark with their students while the
screen flickered, and if the film was of poor quality, they had to spend
most of their time keeping students from misbehaving or falling asleep.
Later, instructional television (ITV) was introduced as an advanced
medium that combined all the basic advantages of film and radio. But
ITV was susceptible to many of the same problems earlier media had:
lack of teacher training, poor quality of programs, scheduling, the ex-
penses of installation and maintenance, and so forth (Reiser, 2001).
Most teachers perceived ITV as a single-direction medium with very
limited if any interactive capacities. Another significant challenge was
that teachers found it very difficult to integrate ITV into the normal flow
of the curriculum as defined by textbooks and/or district or state level
curriculum guides. It was not easy for teachers to adapt video materials
to their instructional needs, and it was even more difficult to create their
ITV own materials (Kent & McNergney, 1999).
 Feng Wang and Thomas C. Reeves 57

Even more problematic was the fact that all those earlier technolo-
gies tended to foster a teacherless form of instruction whereby the cen-
trality of the media would supersede teachers (Kent & McNergney,
1999). Teachers were seldom consulted when administrators and edu-
cational technologists tried to “push” those technologies into class-
rooms (Neal, 1998; Cuban, 2001). The efforts of technology advocates
were doomed because it is the teacher, the ultimate authority in a class-
room, who determines if a technology will be successfully integrated or
not (Fullan, 1982, 2001; Bitner & Bitner, 2002). Most teachers resisted
using older technologies because the media were perceived as increas-
ing their workload while bringing only minimum benefits. Teachers
recognized that the proponents of new technologies had little knowl-
edge of or concern for their day-to-day instructional practices (Cuban,
1986). Failing to pay attention to teachers’ perspectives, administrators
and technology experts assumed that the failure was caused by teach-
ers’ resistance; they rarely tried to find why teachers didn’t want to use
these technologies that seemed so powerful. After all, their effective-
ness had been “proved” scientifically correct in quasi-experiments most
often conducted in nonschool contexts (Collins, 1999). So the failures
of the past were repeated again and again, and teachers were always
blamed for the failure of instructional use of new technologies.

ARE COMPUTERS ANY DIFFERENT?

Is this failure repeating itself with respect to today’s application of

computers in the classroom? Certainly, crass pundits such as Clifford
Stoll (1999) think so, but pessimism is also echoed in the words of more
thoughtful critics such as Neil Postman (2003) and researchers such as
Larry Cuban (2001). There are many considerations to worry about, es-
pecially because there are many similarities between the classroom use
of computers today and that of older technologies before. As in the past,
too many people are overconfident that these new technologies will im-
prove education greatly. Despite the lack of solid evidence, proponents
appear to believe that “research” has proved their effectiveness. Politi-
cians and corporate interests have worked hard to make computers and
the Internet available in every classroom. States and school districts
have invested heavily in computers, networks, and peripherals, but
much less in teacher training and support.
The probability of repeating the previous failures looms large. Be-
fore long, technophiles will probably conclude again that these cur-
58 Computers in the Schools

rently new technologies have become out of date, and then they will
begin to embrace even newer technologies such as virtual reality sys-
tems and wireless portable devices, while education remains unchanged
in any substantive way. Undoubtedly, it’s time for us to think seriously
about whether a computer can differentiate itself from those older tech-
nologies, and whether we have done or will do what is needed to give its
application in classrooms a fair opportunity for success.
There are three key factors for a technology to accomplish wide-
spread use and to be accepted by teachers: pedagogical flexibility, sup-
port for teacher control, and accessibility (Cuban, 1986, 2001; Kent &
McNergney, 1999). The successes of chalkboards, textbooks, and over-
head projectors in classrooms provide credible evidence of the impor-
tance of these three factors. These “innovations” can be flexibly integrated
into teachers’ curriculum plans and provide options for teachers to shape
or shift their instruction whenever they think appropriate. Teachers also
can utilize these without reducing their control over the classrooms and
instructional processes. Their flexibility and low cost make them acces-
sible and pervasive for teachers and students alike. There are few sched-
uling demands on schools and little teacher planning time needed to use
these technologies.
By contrast, none of the older technologies could fulfill all three of
these requirements. Film was not appropriate for any of them. Radio
and television were accessible, but were not qualified for pedagogical
flexibility or support for teacher control. How about computers?
Needless to say, the computer is far more powerful than the older
technologies. All the functions that film, radio, and television have can
be integrated into a multimedia computer, especially one with Internet
access. Also, the accessibility of computers is widespread in most areas
of the United States today (NCES, 2002). With computers, it would
seem to be much easier for teachers to create their own course materials
or to find low-cost materials created by other teachers or other develop-
ers. Now that the Internet has become an integral part of daily life for so
many people, it would seem that asynchronous and synchronous inter-
actions among students and teachers as well as with course content can
become feasible. It would appear that teachers, with a little training, can
easily adapt computer materials to correspond with their instructional
purposes. Moreover, with the computer becoming more and more prev-
alent in our lives, the ability to use a computer has become for many a
basic literacy ability as important as reading and writing. On the surface
of things, it seems that using computers for instruction should become
an ordinary behavior for most teachers just as they have used chalk-
 Feng Wang and Thomas C. Reeves 59

boards, textbooks, and overhead projectors. After all, if teachers can in-
tegrate technology within their personal lives, effectively integrating
technology with instruction should happen as well (Nisan-Nelson,
2001).
However, the current situation of the classroom use of computers re-
mains disappointing. According to Cuban (2001), a technological revo-
lution in teaching and learning has not occurred in the vast majority of
American classrooms thus far. The few teachers who use computers
regularly in the classroom usually deploy them in ways that reinforce
traditional pedagogical practices rather than learner-centered ap-
proaches (Cuban, 2001). Mandinach and Cline (2000), among others,
maintain that “it will be many years before such innovations (technology-
based constructivist approaches) are widely implemented” (p. 377).
Meta-analyses of the research literature have shown that there is no di-
rect link between broader access to computer-based technologies and
the enhancement of learning (Dillon & Gabbard, 1998; Fabos & Young,
1999).
Hence, even if we claim that the computer can differentiate itself
from those older technologies, there are also many uncertainties that
limit its imminent success in classrooms. First of all, teachers face many
obstacles when they try to adapt themselves to these changes. Some of
the obstacles are external to teachers, including time, funding, training,
modeling instruction, hardware and software access, organization cul-
ture, and support from parents (Bitner & Bitner, 2002; Mandinach &
Cline, 2000; Norum, Grabinger, & Duffield, 1999). There are also im-
portant obstacles that are intrinsic to teachers, such as overreliance on
traditional teaching pedagogies, fears about loss of control, and under-
lying beliefs about the relative roles of teachers and students in class-
rooms (Ditzhazy & Poolsup, 2002; Ertmer, 1999). Both external and
intrinsic obstacles can impede teachers as they try to adjust themselves
to any change in classroom routines. It is extremely difficult to address
any one challenge prior to others, as new difficulties always emerge in
the process (Ertmer, 1999).
Moreover, the expectation that computers can easily foster a transition to
student-centered learning pedagogy remains dubious (Mandinach & Cline,
2000). This expectation stems from the promotion of constructionism in
educational learning theory, especially as taught in teacher preparation
programs and continuing professional development seminars. Con-
structionists proclaim that knowledge and meaningful reality are con-
structed in and out of interaction between human beings and the social
world (Crotty, 1998; Jonassen, Peck, & Wilson, 1999). From the
60 Computers in the Schools

constructivist perspective, the teacher’s role is to enable the construc-

tion process for their students as a facilitator and resources provider.
Based upon constructivist epistemology, student-centered learning is
viewed as more appropriate than teacher-centered instruction. By con-
trast, objectivism, the epistemology held onto by a great number of
teachers despite their training, warrants that learning is the process of
acquiring external truth, and that the teacher’s role is to transmit knowl-
edge to learners through direct instruction (Hannafin & Hill, 2002).
The change from one theoretical mindset to another is not easy, espe-
cially when there are such extensive differences between the two
epistemologies. It is very difficult for teachers to adjust their teaching
philosophy because the psychological mental models they have of
teaching and learning processes has been formulated over years and
consistently reinforced by the existing infrastructure. The provision of
technology, no matter how widespread, does little to initiate teachers’
movement toward constructivist methods. At best, it can be a catalyst
for the transformation process of a teacher who already has become dis-
satisfied with teacher-centered instruction (Windschitl & Sahl, 2002).
The pedagogical adaptation process is excruciatingly slow compared
with the process of purchasing and deploying computers in classrooms
(Cuban, 2001), and what teachers do and think has changed little over
the past 25 years (Fullan, 2001). This shift becomes even more improb-
able in light of the emphasis on high-stakes testing that is pervasive in
recent federal government directives to educators (Dede, 2002).

WHAT CAN BE DONE?

Considering all the aforementioned challenges, is it rational for us to

conclude that computers and the Internet can bring great changes to
classrooms in the next few years? We think not. At the very least, im-
proper enthusiasm must be discouraged. Educational innovation, as
with any fundamental social improvement process, takes more time and
effort than most people imagine. Poverty and homelessness are persis-
tent in even a nation as wealthy as the United States, disease and un-
healthy practices such as obesity are rampant despite advances in
medical research and health indicators, and war remains a viable option
for even self-professed democracies.
Most teachers remain reluctant to use computer technologies in their
classrooms because they have perfectly reasonable doubts and ques-
tions about them. Cuban (2001) lists some of these questions:
 Feng Wang and Thomas C. Reeves 61

• Is the machine or software program simple enough for me to learn

quickly?
• Is it versatile, that is, can it be used in more than one situation?
• Will the program motivate my students?
• Does the program contain skills that are connected to what I am
expecting to teach?
• Are the machine and software reliable?
• If the system breaks down, is there someone else who will fix it?
• Will the amount of time I have to invest in learning to use the sys-
tem yield a comparable return in student learning?
• Will student use of computers weaken my classroom authority?
(p. 168)

If any significant progress is going to be made, educational research-

ers and instructional developers must seriously consider teachers’ per-
spectives as essential to the success of integrating computers into
classrooms. Cuban (2001) emphasized this point when he wrote:
“Without attention to the workplace conditions in which teachers labor
and without respect for the expertise they bring to the task, there is little
hope that new technologies will have more than a minimal impact on
teaching and learning” (p. 197).
Educational research has not been a great success in supporting the
implementation of instructional innovations; in fact, it has had little influ-
ence on educational practice in general (Lagemann, 2000). Obviously, ed-
ucational researchers and developers alike must change their ways if they
are to influence practitioners. The technology integration process in class-
rooms could be accelerated if more educational technology researchers
adapted a development research method (van den Akker, 1999). The his-
tory of educational technology research has been disappointing for decades
(Clark, 1983). In an article titled “Socially Responsible Educational Tech-
nology Research,” Reeves (2000) described three major problems with ed-
ucational technology research: (a) generally poor quality with respect to
design, implementation, analysis, and reporting; (b) disappointing research
syntheses; and (c) major misunderstandings about the differences between
basic and applied research. He proposed that educational technologists
should pursue development goals if they want to be more socially responsi-
ble, especially considering the poor history and restricted return-on-invest-
ment of previous research approaches.
The overall goal of development research is to “solve real problems
while at the same time constructing design principles that can inform future
decisions” (Reeves, 2000, p. 25). Development research requires a prag-
62 Computers in the Schools

matic epistemology that is in sharp contrast to the objectivist epistemology

of traditional experimental research approaches. Recently emerging de-
sign-based research approaches, currently at the forefront of educational
research, share basic characteristics with it. In a special issue of Educa-
tional Researcher (Kelly, 2003), The Design-Based Research Collective
(2003) proposed that “design-based research . . . can provide a lens for un-
derstanding how theoretical claims about teaching and learning can be
transformed into effective learning in educational settings.” (p. 8).
Both development research and design-based research emphasize that
research should produce plausible solutions to practical problems while, at
the same time, it should look beyond a specific context or problem and
generate theories that can be shared in a comparatively broad context.
These forms of research should have clear implications for both practitioners
and other researchers. Secondly, in these approaches, research and prac-
tice are intertwined. Development research should be conducted in real
contexts that allow theories to be tested and refined through cyclical stud-
ies. Over time, new theories and principles are refined in situ. Finally, both
development and design-based research require intensive collaborations
between the researchers and practitioners, so much so that their roles be-
come blurred in the research process through continuous interactions and
multiple feedback cycles (Bannan-Ritland, 2003).

CONCLUSION

Although it won’t be easy and it certainly isn’t guaranteed, the dan-

ger of entering another tragic circle of technology failure in classrooms
should decrease if more development research or design-based research
is used in education. Much closer collaboration between researchers
and teachers will help to assure that teachers’ perspectives will not be
overlooked anymore. The practical problems related with the process of
technology integration in classrooms may be solved through these ap-
proaches. The intertwined relationship between research and practice
also can help researchers and practitioners deal with new problems that
inevitably emerge in classrooms whenever innovations are introduced.
Moreover, theories and principles that are tested in real contexts with
rigorous studies will be informative to teachers, administrators, other
researchers, and any other people who are concerned with these issues.
It is our belief that the development research approach is the only so-
cially responsible way to address the fundamental question: “Why do
teachers need to use technology in their classrooms?”
 Feng Wang and Thomas C. Reeves 63

REFERENCES
Bannan-Ritland, B. (2003). The role of design in research: The integrative learning de-
sign framework. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 21-24.
Becker, H. J. (2000). Who’s wired and who’s not. The future of children. The David
and Lucille Packard Foundation. Available online at http://www.teacherlib.org/
articles/becker.pdf
Bitner, N., & Bitner, J. (2002). Integrating technology into the classroom: Eight keys to
success. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 10(1), 95-100.
CEO Forum. (2001). The CEO Forum school technology and readiness report. Wash-
ington, DC: CEO Forum on Education & Technology.
Clark, R. E. (1983). Reconsidering research on learning with media. Review of Educa-
tional Research, 53(4), 445-459.
Collins, A. (1999). The changing infrastructure of education research. In E. Lagemann &
L. Shulman (Eds.), Issues in education research (pp. 289-298). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the
research process. London: Sage Publications.
Cuban, L. (1986). Teachers and machines: The classroom use of technology since
1920. New York: Teachers College Press.
Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Dede, C. (2002, June). No cliché left behind: Why education policy is NOT like the
movies. Keynote presentation at NCREL’s National Educational Technology Con-
ference. Available online at http://www.ncrel.org/tech/netc/2002/keynote.htm
Dede, C. (2000). Emerging influences of information technology on school curricu-
lum. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 32(2), 281-303.
Dillon, A., & Gabbard, R. B. (1998). Hypermedia as an educational technology: A re-
view of the empirical literature on learner comprehension, control and style. Review
of Educational Research, 68(3), 322-349.
Ditzhazy, H. E. R., & Poolsup, S. (2002, Spring). Successful integration of technology
into the classroom. The Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin, 68(3), 10-14.
Ertmer, P. A. (1999). Addressing first- and second-order barriers to change: Strategies
for technology integration. Educational Technology Research and Development,
47(4), 47-61.
Fabos, B., & Young, M. D. (1999). Telecommunications in the classroom: Rhetoric
versus reality. Review of Educational Research, 69(3), 217-259.
Fullan, M. (2001). The meaning of educational change (3rd ed.). New York: Teachers
College Press.
Fullan, M. (1982). The meaning of educational change. New York: Teachers College
Press.
Hannafin, M. J., & Hill, J. R. (2002). Epistemology and the design of learning environ-
ments. In R. Reiser (Ed.), Trends and issues in instructional design and technology
(pp. 70-82). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice-Hall.
Hudgins, B. (2001). Leveraging handheld technology in the classroom. T.H.E. Jour-
nal, 29(5), 46.
64 Computers in the Schools

Jonassen, D., Peck, K., & Wilson, B. (1999). Learning with technology: A
constructivist perspective. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Jones, G. R. (2000). Cyberschools: An education renaissance (2nd ed.). Englewood,
CO: Cyber Publishing.
Kelly, A. E. (2003). Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for educational in-
quiry. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 3-4.
Kent, T. W., & McNergney, R. F. (1999). Will technology really change education:
From blackboard to Web. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Lagemann, E. C. (2000). An elusive science: The troubling history of educational re-
search. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Landoni, M, & Diaz, P. (2003). E-education: Design and evaluation for teaching and
learning. Journal of Digital information, 3(4). Available online at http://jodi.ecs.
soton.ac.uk/Articles/v03/i04/editorial/
Mandinach, E. B., & Cline, H. F. (2000). It won’t happen soon: Practical, curricular,
and methodological problems in implementing technology-based constructivist ap-
proaches in classrooms. In S. P. Lajoie (Ed.), Computers as cognitive tools. No
more walls (pp. 377-395). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Means, B. (Ed.). (1994). Technology and education reform. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.
Means, B., & Olsen, K. (1994). The link between technology and authentic learning.
Educational Leadership, 51(7), 15-18.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2002). Internet access in U.S. public schools
and classrooms: 1994-2001. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
Neal, E. (1998). Does using technology in instruction enhance learning? or, The artless
state of comparative research. The Technology Source. Available online at http://
ts.mivu.org/default.asp?show=article&id=464
Nisan-Nelson, P. D. (2001). Technology integration: A case of professional develop-
ment. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 83-103.
Noble, D. D. (1991). The classroom arsenal: Military research, information technol-
ogy and public education. New York: Falmer Press.
Noble, D. F. (2001). Digital diploma mills: The automation of higher education. New
York: Monthly Review Press.
Norman, D. A. (1990). The design of everyday things. New York: Doubleday.
Norum, K., Grabinger, R. S., & Duffield, J. A. (1999). Healing the universe is an inside
job: Teachers’ views on integrating technology. Journal of Technology and
Teacher Education, 7(3), 187-203.
Office of Technology Assessment, U. S. Congress. (1995). Teachers and technology:
Making the connection. Washington, DC: U. S. Government Printing Office.
Oswald, D. F. (2003). A conversation with Michael Molenda. Educational Technol-
ogy, 43(2), 59-63.
Papert, S. (1993). The children’s machine: Rethinking school in the age of the com-
puter. New York: Basic Books.
Pearson, I., & Neild, I. (2002). Technology timeline. London: British Telecommunica-
tions. Available online at http://www.btexact.com/docimages/42270/WP106.pdf
Perlman, L. J. (1992). School’s out: Hyperlearning, the new technology, and the end of
education. New York: William Morrow.
 Feng Wang and Thomas C. Reeves 65

Postman, N. (2003). Questioning media. In M. S. Pittinsky (Ed.), The wired tower:

Perspectives on the impact of the internet on higher education (pp. 181-200). Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Reeves, T. C. (2000). Socially responsible educational technology research. Educa-
tional Technology, 40(6), 19-28.
Reeves, T. C. (2002). The future of academic staff: Visions of tertiary teaching in the
21st century. In A. Goody, J. Herrington & M. Northcote (Eds.), Proceedings of the
2002 Annual International Conference of the Higher Education Research and De-
velopment Society of Australasia (HERDSA), Perth, Australia.
Reiser, R. A. (2001). A history of instructional design and technology: Part 1: A history
of instructional media. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49(1),
53-64.
The Design-Based Research Collective. (2003). Design-based research: An emerging
paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 5-8.
Sandholtz, J. H., Ringstaff, C., & Dwyer, D. C. (1997). Teaching with technology: Cre-
ating student-centered classrooms. New York: Teachers College Press.
Stoll, C. (1999). High tech heretic: Why computers don’t belong in the classroom and
other reflections by a computer contrarian. New York: Doubleday.
van den Akker, J. (1999). Principles and methods of development research. In J. van
den Akker, N. Nieveen, R. M. Branch, K. L. Gustafson, & T. Plomp (Eds.), Design
methodology and developmental research in education and training (pp. 1-14). The
Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Windschitl, M., & Sahl, K. (2002). Tracing teachers’ use of technology in a laptop
computer school: The interplay of teacher beliefs, social dynamics, and institutional
culture. American Educational Research Journal, 39(1), 165-205.
Winn, W. (1989). Towards a rationale and theoretical basis for educational technology.
Educational Technology Research and Development, 37(1), 35-46.