Technology Adoption and Integration: A Multiple Case Study of Rogers' Diffusion of Innovation Theory in Kuwait

Randa Fouad Abdelhafiz Abdelmagid

Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and

State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy In

Curriculum and Instruction

John K. Burton, Chair Barbara B. Lockee Kenneth R. Potter

Ann D. Potts Abdulmuhsen A. Alqahtani

March 4, 2011

Blacksburg, Virginia

Key words: perceived attributes of innovations, user characteristics, Kuwait,

female teachers, primary public schools

Copyright 2011, Randa Fouad Abdelhafiz Abdelmagid

TechnologyAdoptionandIntegration:AMultipleCaseStudyofRogers'DiffusionofInnovationTheoryinKuwait

RandaFouadAbdelhafizAbdelmagid

Abstract

Theadoptionand integrationof technology is limited inK‐12contextsworldwide,

including in the Middle East. Based on the work of Everett Rogers (1995) and his

disciplines, studies in the United States indicate that teachers’ perceptions towards the

attributes of technology (relative advantage, compatibility, complexity, trialability and

observability) reflect the extent by which technology is used. Furthermore, teachers’

characteristicsandthesupportenvironmentprovidedcanpotentiallyencourageorinhibit

the adoption of technologies. This multiple case study was designed to show the

applicabilityofRogers’diffusionofinnovationtheoryinKuwaitpublicschoolsystems.The

studywasconductedwitheightfemaleKuwaititeachersintwoprimarypublicschools.A

qualitative methodology was employed using interviews, participant observations, and

physicalartifactsforcollectingdata.

ThestudyrevealsthatRogers’threeattributesrelativeadvantage,compatibilityand

observability (result demonstrability) contributed to use, while complexity and

observability (visibility) limited use. Prior experience and practice,motivational support

provided by the school administration and department head, and teachers’ voluntary

decisions on the type of technologies to use encouraged use. Anxiety from lack of

functionality of devices and extra time and effort in preparing materials, centralized

decision‐making on technology purchases, budget constraint, and limited access to

technologyandclassroomsinwhichdevicesarelocatedwerefactorsthatlimitedteachers’

use. The study showed that Kuwaiti teachers’ acceptance of technology varied along the

continuum,where some teacherswere early adopters and somewere laggards. Support

initiativesareneededfromtheMinistryofEducationandschooladministration,inorderto

facilitatetechnologyadoptionanduseinKuwaitischools.

iii

Dedication

TothepeopleIlovemost

Myparents;Sedkimyhusband;Abdelhafiz,Abdelwahab,andAhmedmybrothers;Ibraheem,

Yousuf,andHebamychildren;andmylatebelovedgrandfatherAbdelhafiz.

iv

Acknowledgements

ForemostIamgratefulandthankfultoAllah(God),whoistheOnetobepraisedand

thankedforgivingmetheguidance,strength,andpatience,throughoutmyPhDprogram.I

wouldliketothankmyadvisorDr.JohnBurtonwhoIwasveryfortunatetoworkwith.Dr.

Burtoninspiredmewithhiscontinuoussupport,patience,respectandappreciationtomy

ideas, my work, and my traditions, allowing me to reach to this stage in my academic

progress.Iwilltrulyremaingratefultohim.Iwouldliketoalsothankmyothercommittee

members Dr. Barbara Lockee, Dr. Ann Potts, Dr. Kenneth Potter, and Dr. Abdulmushen

Alqahtani,whom I amgrateful to for their researchguidance, experienceandcomments.

Special thanks to Dr. Alqahtani who supported me while in Kuwait and assisted me in

carryingoutthisresearchstudy.

IwouldalsoliketothankDr.FahadAlkhezziwhowasabletoobtainpermissionfor

me to visit the Kuwaiti schools and Ms. Aisha Almajed, who contacted the schools and

accompaniedmeduringmostofmyfieldworktofacilitatecommunicationswiththeschool

administrationandtheteachers.Itistobenotedthattheauthortookallphotospresented

in this document. Special thanks also to Ms. Amel Alsaleh, one of my participants, who

helpedmewithsearchingforresources,assistedmewithtranslations,andwhocontinued

to provide guidancewhenever needed. Many other people have also contributed to the

successofthisdissertationindifferentways.ThankstoalltheIDTprofessorswho provided

mewithknowledge,andexperienceneededtocompletethis journey.Iwouldalsoliketo

thank my special friends Afraa, Riham, Nora, and Yasmine for their continuous

encouragementandassistance. Iwouldalso like to thankmycousinOsmanandhiswife

v

Samahfortheircontinuousprayers.Iwouldliketothankmyin‐lawsHayam,andNariman

whotookcareofmydaughterduringmyexamsandhertransitionfromEgypttotheStates.

FinallyveryspecialthankstomymotherwhostayedlatenightswhenIwasyoung

to ensure that I did well in school and always encouraged me to develop and enhance

myself as well as advised me always to never give up on my goals and beliefs. I am

especially thankful to my lovely husband, Dr. Sedki Riad, for his concrete and moral

support andwho shared themany challenges and sacrifices for completingmy doctoral

program.Todadthankyouforalwayscheeringmeupwhenindistress,andforyourhard

work, which allowed me to complete my education and reach to this level. I am also

gratefultomydaughterHebawhowithstoodthestressfuldaysandnotbeingwithherall

thetimeduringthecompletionofthisdocument.Tomybrothersandstepsons,especially

AhmedandIbraheem,thankyouforbeingthereandforyourcontinuousenquiriesabout

myprogress.

vi

TableofContents

ChapterOne:Introduction‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 1 StatementoftheProblem ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 4

PurposeStatementandResearchQuestions ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 6SignificanceofStudy ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 7OrganizationoftheStudy ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 7

ChapterTwo:LiteratureReview ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 9Teachers’AdoptionandUtilizationofTechnology‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 9 Teachers’AttitudesandBeliefs‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐10 ChallengesofTechnologyAdoptionandUtilization‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐12 TheProcessofAdoption ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐19 Summary‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐29RelatedDiffusionPerspectivesandCommonalities ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐30ContributionsandCriticismsofDiffusionResearch ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐35ApplicationofRogers’PerceivedAttributesinEducationalSystems ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐37 StudiesinHigherEducation ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐37 StudiesinK‐12SchoolSystems‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐40

Summary‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐42BackgroundonKuwait’sPublicEducationalSystemandPrimaryLevel‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐43 Summary‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐52

ChapterThree:Methodology‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 53PurposeStatementandResearchQuestions ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐53ResearchDesign‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐54PilotStudy ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐56TheStudyPopulation ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐56 ProcedureforEstablishingtheSample ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐58 DescriptionsoftheSchoolsandParticipants‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐59 SummaryoftheStudyPopulation ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 68DataCollection ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐69 DataStrategyandAnalysis ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐72 ValidatingtheResultsandFindings ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐75 SummaryofDataCollection ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 79DelimitationoftheStudy‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐80

ChapterFour:ResultsandFindings ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 81

vii

ChangeProcess‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐81 TransitionandAdjustment‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐81TechnologyUse‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐85 EmployingTechnologyinTeachingandAdministrativeTasks ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐86PriorKnowledgeandExperience‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐95

ExperienceandPractice ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐96AdministrationSupport ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐97

SupervisionandManagement(MotivationalSupport) ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐97Decision‐Making ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 102 DirectandIndirectInvolvement ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 102BudgetConstraints ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 105

RelativeAdvantageandCompatibility‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 107 InformationAccessandSharing‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 107 OrganizationoftheLesson ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 109 FacilitationoftheLearningProcess ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 110 DisseminationofInformation‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 112Complexity ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 115 DifficultyofUseofDevicesandApplications ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 115 DealingwithMalfunctions‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 117Observability‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 122 VisibilityandAccessibility‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 122 TangibleResults ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 126Trialability‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 130 ProfessionalDevelopment‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 130Summary‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 134

ChapterFive:DiscussionandConclusion‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐136DiscussionoftheFindings ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 136 ResearchQuestionOne‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 136

ResearchQuestionTwo ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 144 AssociatingtheFindingswithRogersandFarquharandSurry ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 148

ConclusionsandRecommendations ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 152ImplicationsforFutureResearch ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 156AreasforFurtherStudies‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 157

References ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐158AppendixA:InvitationLetter ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 167AppendixB:SampleSelectionQuestionnaire‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 168

viii

AppendixC:IRBApprovalLetter ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 169AppendixD:KuwaitiMinistryofEducation(MOE)ApprovalLetter‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 170AppendixE:InterviewQuestions‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 174AppendixF:Technology‐relatedLearningProgramsQuestionnaire ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 177AppendixG:ObservationsofPhysicalArtifacts ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 178AppendixH:OrganizationalStructureoftheKuwaitiMinistryofEducation ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 179AppendixI:DefinitionsofTermsandAbbreviations‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 180

ix

ListofFiguresFigure1.Theinnovation‐decisionprocessmodel ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐24Figure2.Adoptercategorizationonthebasisofinnovativeness‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐25Figure3.Variablesdeterminingtherateofadoptionofinnovations‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐27Figure4.TheSocialstudiesclubforgrades4and5attheI.S.School ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐91Figure5.TheSciencelabattheI.S.School‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐94Figure6.TheSocialstudiesclubforgrades1,2and3attheI.S.School ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐99Figure7.UsingtheDatashowtoteachEnglishattheA.E.School ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 101Figure8.DiagramofkineticandstaticmovementusedduringAbeer’sfifth‐gradesciencelesson ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 114Figure9.TheSocialstudiesclubattheA.E.School ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 123Figure10.TheIslamicstudiesclubattheA.E.School‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 123Figure11.TheDatashowroomattheA.E.School‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 124Figure12.TheEnglishclubattheA.E.School ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 125Figure13.SupportinitiativesfromtheMOEandschooladministration‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐155

x

ListofTables

Table1:NumberofstudentsenrolledintheA.E.School,March2010‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐60Table2:NumberofstudentsenrolledintheI.S.School,March2010‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐65Table3:Descriptionofstudyparticipants‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐68Table4:Individualandorganizationalattributesaffectingtechnologyuse‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐152

1

CHAPTERONE‐INTRODUCTION

Therapidemergenceoftechnologyanditscurrentroleindevelopingandenhancing

learning have made educational practitioners and instructors strive to adopt new

technological innovations to meet the growing needs within their school systems and

higher educational institutions. In the field of instructional technology, research on new

innovation has focused on the diffusion and adoption process. Diffusion refers to the

spreadoftechnologytogeneraluse,andadoptionreferstotheselectionofatechnologyfor

usebyindividualsororganizations.Thestudyofdiffusiontheoryispotentiallyvaluablefor

instructional technologists for three reasons. First, by being knowledgeable of the

problems that face technology adoption, the impeding or facilitating factors are better

predicted, explained and taken into consideration. Second, being knowledgeable in

innovationprocesses and theorieswillmakeworkingwith clients andpossible adopters

moreeffective.Third,acquiringknowledgeaboutdiffusiontheory,diffusionandadoption

models can be generated that would lead to innovations that are valuable and

pedagogicallyappropriate(Surry,1997).

Studiesshowthatgeneraldiffusiontheorieshavebeenemployedtobuildtheories

specifictoinstructionaltechnology.Surry(1997)dividesdiffusiontheoriesintotwobroad

categories, which are general diffusion theories that are applicable to a wide range of

organizations, and instructional technology (IT) related diffusion theories that dealwith

specificinnovationsinspecificinstructionalsettings(Alias&Zainnudin,2005).Numerous

diffusiontheoriesexist,butfortheneedsofthisresearchstudy,themainfocuswillbeon

Rogers’ Diffusion of Innovation Theory (DOI) developed in 1962 and Adoption Analysis

(AA),amicro‐levelITdiffusiontheorydevelopedin1994byFarquharandSurry.Rogers’

2

DOI theory (2003) describes the process by which an innovation is adopted and gains

acceptance bymembers of a certain community. It postulates that the diffusion process

involves fourmainelements: the innovation,communicationchannel, timeandthesocial

system.TheAAmodelfocusesontheadoptionofaspecificinnovationbyaspecificgroup

of potential adopters (Farquhar & Surry, 1994). It involves both the individual and

organizationalattributes.

RogersDOItheory(2003)emphasizesthatseveralvariablesinfluencetheadoption

of an innovation. One of these variables is perceived attributes of an innovation. The

principle of perceived attributes is that potential adopters judge an innovationbasedon

their perception in regards to five characteristics of the innovation, which are relative

advantage, compatibility, trialability, observability, and complexity. That is, the rate of

diffusionwill increase if the potential adopter perceives the innovation to have relative

advantage to other innovations, is compatiblewith existing practices and values, can be

tried on a limited basis, offers observable results and is not complex in terms of usage

(Rogers, 2003). Moore and Benbasat (1991) further separated observability into two

dimensions: result demonstrability and visibility. Result demonstrability deals with

tangibleresultsthatemergefromusingtheinnovationandvisibilityreferstothephysical

presenceoftheinnovationinthesetting.Studieshaveshownthatitisnotonlythevisibility

ofthetechnologythatmatters,butalsomakingitaccessibleintermsoflocation,quantity

andavailabilityencouragesuse(Oncuetal.,2008;Rogers,1999).Furthermore,personality

variables,socioeconomiccharacteristicsandcommunicationbehaviorimpactthedecision

ofpotentialadoptersonwhethertoadoptorrejectaninnovation(Rogers,2003).Potential

adopters need to have the knowledge or skill to effectively adopt an innovation.How‐to

3

knowledge, which consists of information needed to use an innovation properly, and

principles‐knowledge, which consists of functioning principles underlying how an

innovationworksareimportantfactorsforadoption

Similarly,theAAmodel(Farquhar&Surry,1994)examinestheusercharacteristics

oftheadopters,whichisthe“psychological,physical,affectiveandcognitivecharacteristics

thatmakeuptheadopterpopulation”(p.21).Theusercharacteristicsincludetheadopter’s

traitssuchasknowledge,priorexperience,skilllevel,anxiety,andmotivation.Inaddition

touserscharacteristics, themodelshowsthatperceivedattributes,physicalenvironment

and support environment play a role on whether an innovation will be rejected or

effectivelyutilized.Boththephysicalandsupportenvironmentareorganizationalaspects

that includes the “hardware, knowledge, attitudes and skills that exist within the

organizationinwhichtheinnovationistobeimplemented”(p.21).TheAAisutilizedasan

additional tool for the development of successful instructional products pertinent to the

users.Itassistsinanalyzingthefactorsandsolvingproblemsduringtheadoptionprocess,

thusincreasingtheadopters’chancesofutilizingtheproduct.Thisstudywillembracethe

instrumentalist or adopter‐based philosophy that highlights that the end users of an

innovation are the individuals who bring about the desired change and therefore it is

consideredessentialtounderstandthesocialcontextinwhichtheinnovationwillbeused

andthefunctionthatitwillserveforthem(Surry,1997).

StudieshaveshownthatRogers’DOI(2003)hasbeenappliedtovariouseducational

sectorsintheUnitedStates,wheretheperceivedattributesofaninnovationhaveshownto

predict therateofadoptionof innovations.Rogers(2003)emphasizes“the firstresearch

on attributes of innovation and their rate of adoptionwas conductedwith farmers, but

4

teachers and school administration suggested that similar attributes predict the rate of

adoption for educational innovations” (p. 223). However, studies show a substantial

variation between countries on the prediction of technology use (Usluel, Aşkar, & Baş,

2008). Furthermore, Moore and Benbasat (1991) emphasize that adopters perceive

innovation attributes in differentways. These perceptions determine towhat extent the

technology is used.Thus it is important to identify theneeds andwants of thepotential

adoptersanddevelopproductsthatmeettheirneeds(Farquhar&Surry,1994)tofacilitate

the adoption process. Therefore, it is important to study each culture individually as it

wouldbemorevaluable(AlSenaidi,2009).

ThestateofKuwaitislocatedintheMiddleEastborderingthePersianGulfbetween

IraqandSaudiArabia.Education isviewed inKuwaitasakeystone fordevelopmentand

progress forboth individualsandsociety.Likemanymoderncountries,Kuwaithasgiven

greatattentiontoeducationinordertokeepitssocietyeconomicallyandculturallystrong

(Al‐Sahel, 2005). Oil profits have allowed Kuwait to build a broad‐based educational

systeminwhichtheliteracyrateis93%,accordingtoKuwait’s2008nationaleducational

report.EqualaccessofeducationisgiventoallthecitizensofKuwaitregardlessofgender

andsocioeconomicstatusasstatedbythe1962constitutionofKuwait,whichassertsthat

“education is the right forKuwaitis and that it is compulsory and free at its preliminary

stages”(p.11).Nevertheless,Kuwait’s2008nationalreportemphasizesthateducationin

Kuwaitfacesseveralchallenges,includingbothcognitiveandtechnologicalchallenges.

StatementoftheProblem

Studieson technologyadoptionandusehave shown that teachers’ perceptionsof

5

whether technology shouldbeused in theirprofessionand in student learning, relieson

theirviewofhow learningshould takeplaceandon theirability togo througha change

process.Technologycanprovidesupporttoteacherstoeffectivelyandefficientlymanage

their school activities and tasks; however most teachers neither use technology in

classroom instruction nor integrate it into the curriculum (Bauer&Kenton, 2005; Zhao,

Pugh,Sheldon&Byers,2002).Forexample,DashtiandBehbhani(2005)establishedthat

teachers’useofcomputersandothertechnologiesinteachingEnglishislimitedinKuwaiti

publicschools.Individualswhenconfrontedwithnewinnovationswouldshowreactionsof

anxiety and resistance at first beforemaking their final decision as towhetherornot to

adopt(2003).However,teacherswilladoptandintegratetechnologymoresmoothlyifthey

perceivethatitisrelevanttotheirpedagogicalneeds(Yates,2001).

Studieshavealsofoundthat“conflictingideasandadviceonthevalueoftechnology

leadstoaconfusionontheteachers’behalfregardingitseducationalvalue”(Zhao&Frank,

2003,p.809)and,accordingly,tardinessinacceptanceandusage.Thusthereisaneedfor

moreempiricalinvestigationsontheuseoftechnologyasameansofbridgingthegapthat

existsregardingitsuse.Despitetheexistenceofsomeresearchstudiesontechnologyuse

inKuwait, thesestudies tend to focusmoreonhighereducationand institutions thanon

school systems. In addition, diffusion studies have been implemented in various sectors,

butnotintheschoolsystemswithinKuwaitandmoststudiescarriedoutintheMiddleEast

andKuwaitarequantitativeinnaturewhilequalitativeresearchislimited.Thisstudywas

thereforedesignedtoexpandandaddtotheexistingresearchbyexploringteachers’useof

technologyinK‐12Kuwaitischoolsystemsusingqualitativemethodology.

6

PurposeStatementandResearchQuestions

Thismultiple‐casestudywillusetheperceptionsoffemaleKuwaititeacherstoward

technologythatmayhavecontributedtoorlimitedtheiradoptionofitinordertoshowthe

applicabilityofRogers’DOItheory,withintwoKuwaitiprimarypublicschoolcontexts.The

studyseekstoanswerthefollowingspecificquestionsandsubquestions:

1. TowhatextenthavetheKuwaititeachersadoptedandintegratedtechnology?

a. Howdo teachers’ characteristics (priorknowledgeandexperience,motivation,

andanxiety)affectthewaytheyperceivetechnologyuse?

b. What are the support environments that facilitate or impede their use of

technology?

2. InwhatwaydotheattributesoftechnologyaffecttheperceptionsofKuwaititeachers’

towardstechnologyadoptionanduse?

a. Howistechnologyusefulandbeneficialtoteachersintheirprofession?(relative

advantage)

b. Is the technology used consistent with the teachers’ pedagogical beliefs and

needs?(compatibility)

c. What are the challenges that teachers face when working with technology?

(complexity)

d. Whatopportunitiesdoteachershavetoexperimentwiththetechnologybefore

becomingpotentialadopters?(trialability)

e. Whatdoteachersexperiencewhenusingtechnology?(observability)

i. Whattangibleresultsdoteacherswitness?

ii. Howdovisibilityandaccessibilitycontributetouse?

7

SignificanceofStudy

This research study is significant from an educational and diffusion research

standpoint. From an educational standpoint, this studywould serve as a framework for

both public school administrators and policy makers in Kuwait and the Arab Gulf

Cooperation Countries (GCC) countries to understand and determine how to effectively

integratetechnology.Thisstudywillalsocontributetotheadoptionanddiffusionresearch

field, as itwouldpresent issuesandprovide results that reflect theMiddleEastern (ME)

culture and accordingly bridge the gap in literature in this regard. Ali (2004) indicated

“ThereisverylimitedITadoptionrelatedresearchinthecontextoftheMiddleEast”(p.2).

Furthermore,Farag(2005)emphasizedthatthereisalackofstudiescarriedoutregarding

theuseoftechnologyineducationandinschoolsintheGCCandtheME.

OrganizationoftheStudy

Chapter 1 provides an introduction and the need of the study, statement of the

problem, significanceof the studyandorganizationof the study.Chapter2discusses the

contributing and challenging issues pertaining to teachers’ adoption and utilization of

technology, an overview of Rogers’ DOI theory, including its application in various

education systems, criticisms of the theory and related diffusion theories. In addition

background informationonKuwait’spubliceducationalsystemandprimary levelwillbe

discussedincludingproblematicissuesfacingtheprimaryschools.

Chapter 3 present a description of the research design employed, the study

population, aswell as thedata collectionproceduresanddataanalysis strategy thatwas

followed. This chapter also includes a description of how the validation of results and

8

findingswasattained.Chapter4providesthefindingsgeneratedfromboththeinterviews

andparticipantobservation.Chapter5presentsadiscussionofthefindings,theconclusion

andtherecommendationofthestudy.Areasforfurtherresearchwillalsobehighlighted,

includingthelimitationsofthestudy.

9

CHAPTERTWO:LITERATUREREVIEW

Thischapterwilldiscusstheissuespertainingtoteachers’adoptionandutilization

oftechnology;theadoptionprocessthatfocusesprimarilyonRogers’DOItheory,including

the contributions and criticisms of the theory; related diffusion perspectives and

commonalties;andanoverviewofhowthe theoryofperceivedattributeswasapplied in

various educational systems. Background information on Kuwait’s public educational

system and primary level will also be discussed, including issues facing the primary

schools.

Teachers’AdoptionandUtilizationofTechnology

Theadoptionandutilizationoftechnologyisabroadtopicthatinvolvesnumerous

facets;however,fortheneedsofthisresearchstudy,thefocuswillbeontheadoptionand

utilization of technologywithin school systems.Technology, in this context, refers to all

toolsusedbyteachersintheirprofession.Thereisanincreasedinterest inandemphasis

onhowtechnologyshouldbeintegratedintoteaching(Hofer&Swan,2008),asseenbythe

promotionofsuchinitiativesbyeducationalpractitioners(Dashti&Behbhani,2005;Safar,

2001). Oncu et al. (2008) described technology integration as being composed of three

aspects: teachers’ attitudes, conditions affecting technology adoption, and the process of

adoption. Although other factors such as age, experience, gender, suburban vs. urban

location, and grade level impact technology use, for this study reference is made to

challenges thatwere discussed numerous times in the literature, were identified by the

literatureasmost influential, andwere “findings inempirical researches” (Hew&Brush,

2007,p.225).

10

Teachers’AttitudesandBeliefs

Teachershavediversewaysofusingtechnology,and,basedonhowit isused, the

learning outcomes vary. Onemethod of teaching is didactic pedagogy,wherein students

passively receive knowledge from teachers (Tiene& Ingram, 2001). This type ofpassive

teaching approach is “unlikely to cultivate in learnersanalytical, reasoning, and problem-solving

skills that are most desired and are useful beyond the classroom setting” (Gwayi, 2009, p. 76).

Teachers also tend to rely on individualisticlearningprocessesandusedrillsorrepetitionof

information (Wenglinsky, 2005) to solve students’ learning problems. In addition,

concentration is on students’ memorization and recitation, and the attainment of basic

knowledge (Aldhafeeri, Almulla, & Alraqas, 2006). A second method of teaching is the

constructivistapproach(Taylor&Duran,2006;Wenglinsky,2005),whereinteachersallow

students to think abstractly by illustrating concepts in real‐world contexts and employ

various learningtechniques(Wenglinsky,2005).Throughthisapproach,studentstendto

develop their problem‐solving and critical‐thinking skills (Niederhauser, Lindstrom, &

Strobel, 2006). In addition, constructivism promotes collaborative learning (Grainger &

Tolhurst,2005;Venezky,2004;Zhaoetal.,2002)andincreasesstudentconcentrationon

coursecontent(Oncuetal.,2008;Hennessyetal.,2005).

Agreement does not exist regarding whether these teaching approaches are

applicableinallschoolsystemsorwhethertheyhavethesameeffectonstudents’learning.

Itstandstoreasonthatinstructionaltechnologycanservetosupporteitherpredominant

teachingapproach.Technologycanbebeneficialwhenutilizedinamannerthatrelatesto

the need of the teachers and students. For instance, Safar (2001) discusses teachers

becoming more creative with preparing lesson plans, finding ways to make learning

11

effective and efficient to the students, as well as becoming encouraged to use other

advanced computer‐related applications when they are left to utilize technology in a

mannerthatisappropriatetothem.ZhaoandFrank(2003)arguethattechnologydirectly

benefits teachers when they use it for their own profession, but it does not necessarily

apply to students unless teachers themselves facilitate student use of technology. This

shows thatnotonly is teachers’usean importantcomponentof technologyuse,butalso

that an assessment of the real outcomes related to students’ learning is another key

component.

Despite the promotion of using technology in schools and studies that show how

technologycanassistinteachingandstudents’ learning,aconsiderablebodyofliterature

indicatesthatschoolteachershavenoteffectivelyusedtechnology(Keengwe,Onchwari,&

Wachira, 2008; Culp, Honey, &Mandinach, 2005). Zhao and Frank (2003) indicate that

“someofthetechnologiesarejudgedtobemoreuseful,orfitforthetask,thanothers,and

they survivewhile others perish that are judged to be less fit” (p. 812). This judgment

arisesfromteachers’beliefsabouthowandwhattechnologycanachieveforthem.Studies

haveshownthatteachers’beliefsandattitudestowardsacertaintechnologyinfluenceits

integrationinschools(Oncuetal.,2008;Wozney,Venkatesh,&Abrami,2006).Theextent

towhichtechnologyisuseddependslargelyontheteachers’choiceandbeliefonwhether

technologycanbeasolutiontoimprovingstudentlearning(Hermans,Tondeur,vanBraak,

&Valcke,2008; Sugar,2002).When technology is compatiblewith teachers’pedagogical

orientationorbeliefs,theytendtointegratetechnologymoresmoothly(Zhaoetal.,2002)

andviceversa,thustheydecidewhatkindandhowmuchtechnologyistobeusedintheir

classroom settings (Oncu et al., 2008). Furthermore, teachers are reluctant to adopt a

12

technology that seems incompatible with the norm of a subject culture (Hew & Brush,

2007;Hennessyetal.,2005).Subjectculturereferstothecommonjointpedagogicalbeliefs

thatteachersofthatgroupholdregardinghowasubjectareaoughttobetaught.Hennessy

etal.(2005)refertoitasthe“communityofpractice”(p.160)associatedwithsubjectarea.

John and La Velle (2004) summarize it well by saying that “teaching and learning are

influencedbyteachers’beliefsaboutthesubjectmatterandsubjectculturaltraditions,as

well as personal theories and relatedpedagogical styles” (p. 309). They argue that prior

teachers’ roles,values,andbeliefsshape theircurrentunderstandingofhowto integrate

technologyandhowtheyperceiveitschallenges.Asaresult,thereisaneedtounderstand

themainissuesthathaveanimpactonteachers’useornon‐useoftechnology.

ChallengesofTechnologyAdoptionandUtilization

Numerouschallenges,barriers, andconstraintsplaya role in technologyadoption

anduse.Bythesametoken,authorssuchasEly(1999)useareverselogic,andinsteadof

lookingatbarriers,helooksattheaspectsthatfacilitateintegration.Thesechallengingor

facilitating aspects are described in the literature as internal or external components.

Ertmeretal. (2006)divides technologychallenges into thoserelated to teachersdirectly

(intrinsic)versusthosethatexternallyimpactusage(extrinsic).Shearguesthat“intrinsic

enablers”aremoreimportantthan“extrinsicenablers”becauseteachersarethedecision‐

makersabouthowtointegratetechnologyinmeaningfulways,regardlessofthetypeand

amountoftechnologyavailable(p.55).Thissupportsthenotionthat“mostfactorsdonot

directlyinfluencetechnologyusersinalinearfashion;rathertheirinfluenceismediatedor

filtered by teachers’ perception” (Zhao& Frank, 2003, p. 817). Someof these challenges

13

and/orfacilitatorsareintertwined,andinmanysituationsoverlapeachother.Ely(1999)

states,“Themixofpersonalandinstitutionalcharacteristicsissometimesconfusing.There

isanoverlapandinterrelationshipamongtheconditions,yetisitverydifficulttoseparate

them”(p.8).

Oneofthemajorissuesfacingteachersiseducationalchangeandwhethertheyhave

the readiness and openness to adopt and integrate technology into their profession and

classroompractice(Hennessyetal.,2005;Byrom&Bingham,2001).Fabry&Higgs(1997)

talked about how “teachers would need to change their teaching ideologies and this

transition usually is more difficult than using technology itself” (p. 388). Moore (2007)

emphasizes that real change involves uncertainty, which leads to anxiety. This anxiety

tends to lead to a failure of change to take place. Some authors argue that if individual

characteristics suchas age, yearsof teachingexperience, and training (Moore,2007) are

put intoperspective during the adoption and integrationprocess, changewill takeplace

smoothly.BaylorandRitchie(2002)emphasizethatteacherscanadjusttochangethrough

professionaldevelopmentandasupportiveschoolculture,butmoreimportantly,teachers

need to have “an open‐to‐change attitude and positive perception of the benefits of

technology”(p.3).Otherauthorsdiscussthatchangeonlyoccurswhenanindividualsense

of innovativeness emerges and there is an awareness of the need for innovation and a

positiveattitudetowardschange(VanBraak,2001).ThissupportsEly’s(1991)condition

of dissatisfaction with the status quo when individuals perceive technology and related

processesasineffectiveandinefficientandthusstrivetochange.

Anotherproblematicissueisteachersnothavingsufficientknowledgeandskillsto

work with technology. First, teachers need to have complete awareness of the type of

14

technologies thatwouldbebeneficial for teaching theirsubjectarea.Studieshaveshown

that the subjector contentarea taughtby teachersdetermineswhether technologiesare

used and what technologies are used. For example, studies showed that computer use in

English and Social studies is higher than Math, Science and Foreign language (Cuban,

Kirkpatrick & Peck, 2001). Furthermore, Alkhezzi and Alqahtani (2007) found that the use of

spreadsheets was used by teachers in the science department and not by those in the art

department. Second, teachers need to have the expertise and knowledge about the topic

being taught (content) and how to design a learning experience (pedagogy) for their

students(Hofer&Swan,2008)throughtheuseoftechnology.AsindicatedbyHennessyet

al.(2005),thereisaneedfor“teacherstohaveboth‘technologicalpedagogicalknowledge’,

which is utilizing certain strategies to guide students in using a certain technology, and

‘technologicalcontentknowledge’,which isbeingawareofwhetherthecontentprovided

can be taught by technology” (p. 181). Third, teachers need to have knowledge of the

enablingconditionsfortechnology,or“technologyproficiency”(Zhaoetal.,2002),whichis

“knowingwhatisnecessarytouseaspecifictechnologyinteaching,”(p.389).Forexample,

inorder tohavea computervideoconference for students, teacherswouldneed toknow

how to install the necessary software and acknowledge the need to have high‐speed

Internetanddigitalcamerasforsuccessfulimplementation.

The next major challenge for technology adoption and use is the importance for

teachers to have technology‐related classroom‐management knowledge and skills,which

arecrucialforproperintegrationoftechnologyintheclass.Teachersneedtobeequipped

withclassroommanagementskillsonhowtomanagetechnology‐based lessons,organize

theclasseffectivelysothatstudentshaveequalopportunitiestousetechnologytools,and

15

beabletoassistthemwithtroubleshootingissues(Hew&Brush,2007).Exposuretoand

acquisitionofsuchskillswould lead teachers toacomfortablezone,whichwouldenable

them to build their confidence in utilizing technology in the best possiblemanner. This

aspectsupportsthetrainingandskilldevelopmentconditionraisedbyEly(1999),whichis

oneofthefacilitatorsfortechnologyintegration.

Scarcityoftechnologicalresourcesisalsoconsideredachallengeforteachers.Hew

andBrush(2007)includethelackoftechnicalsupportandlackoftimetolearntechnology

under this category. The literature shows that schools still lack sufficient computers,

peripherals,andsoftware(Karagiorgi,2005;O'Mahony,2003),despitetheNationalCenter

for Education Statistics 2006 report, which showed that 97% of schools and 94% of

instructional rooms in the United States had computers with Internet access in 2005

(Belland,2009).Additionally, thegrowingnumberof schoolshasplacedpressureon the

need formore teaching tools and technologies tobemade available, thus leading to this

shortage.Ely’s(1999)conditionadequateresourcetalksabouthowimportantitistohave

adequateresourcessuchashardware,software,money,andpersonnelforanyinnovation

to be successfully implemented. Furthermore, even with the technologies available in

schools,teachersstillfinditdifficulttohaveaccessatalltimesbecauseoflimitedamounts

andlocationsinwhichtheyareplaced(Hew&Brush,2007).

The lackof technical support is another challenge for teachers.Teachersoftendo

notreceivethetechnicalsupportneededforthemtousetechnologyeffectively(Ertmeret

al., 1999; Rogers, 1999), due the fact that some schools employ a limited number of

technical supportpersonnelwhoareoftenoverwhelmedby teacher requestsanddonot

respondswiftlyoradequately(Hew&Brush,2007).Otherschoolsdependonoutsourced

16

technical support,and, thus, techniciansarenotavailableatall times,whichslowsdown

usebyteacherswhenamalfunctionoccurs.Inherstudy,Nyirongo(2009)foundthatonly

30.1% of facultymembers believed thatMzuzuUniversity inMalawi provided sufficient

technical support to help them integrate electronic technology in teaching and learning.

The rest thought that technical supportwasnonexistent, or thatwhere it existed, itwas

mostlyinsufficient.Thestudyshowedthattechnicalsupportwasratedasakeycomponent

tothesuccessfuluseofelectronictechnologiesforteachingandlearning.

Time is alsoanother challengingaspect for teachers (Ertmeret al., 1999;Seavers,

2002),sincemanyteachershavenotimetolearn,embed,andimprovetheirtechnological

skillsduetooverloadofworkresponsibilitiesatschools.ZhaoandFrank(2003)arguethat

simpletechnologiesthat“requirelittlechangeand[do]notrequirereconfiguringteaching

practices, [and]cost less in termsof timeandenergyareusedmost frequently”(p.821).

Ely’s conditionofavailability of time indicates that individualsneed time to learn, adapt,

integrate,andreflectontheiractionstobeabletounderstandandbecapableofadapting

the innovation to suit their situation. For instance teachers learn to use an interactive

whiteboardinamannerthatassiststheminconveyingtheinformationtothestudents.

The lackofprovisionof incentivestoteacherswhousetechnologyalsochallenges

theiruse.Ely(1999)emphasizedthatrewardsorincentivesfacilitatetechnologyadoption.

When teachers are provided with rewards or any form of incentives, they become

encouraged and stimulated to act. A study by Mosley (2005) showed that the use of

incentives to promote teacher participation in the technology‐mentoring program was

deemedimportantbytheparticipants.Rewardsmayhelpimplementerstohavesomething

to look forward to and, hence, facilitate successful implementation of the innovation

17

(Nyirongo,2009).Overall, it isevident that the lackof resources,whether in the formof

technologies,technicalsupport,time,orincentivesisduetofundingissues(Rogers,1999).

Nothavingsufficientfundsorinappropriateallocationoffundsbyinstitutionscanactasa

majorobstacleforadoptingtechnology.

Another challenge that teachers face is the issueof assessment, inwhich teachers

measure students’ learning progress. Formative assessmentsmeasure students’ ongoing

learningprogress,butsummativeassessmentsarerelatedtonational testscores(Hew&

Brush, 2007; Williams & Easingwood, 2007), and, thus, are considered very critical by

teachersandschooladministrators.Studieshaveshownthatteachersoftenfaceaconflict

between trying to use technology tools and needing to conform to the external

requirementsofstandardizedtestsandassessmentinstruments(Hew&Brush,2007).For

example, teachers may face the difficulty of assessing the efforts of students who have

drawngraphsbyhandversusthosewhohaveproducedthemonacomputer,astheofficial

assessmentmaybeontraditionalmanualskillsandnottechnologyskills(Hennessyetal.,

2005).Thus,teachersmayneedtochangethewaytheyassesstheirstudentswhenusing

technologytoaddressthenewkindofskillsandknowledgedevelopedthroughtheuseof

technology(Pierson,2001).

The lackofplanningandleadership inschools isalsoaproblemfacingtechnology

use.School leadersneed toprovide thepropersupportandencouragement,andaddress

concerns of potential adopters, aswell as serve as rolemodels for using the innovation

(Ensminger & Surry, 2008). This is similar to Ely’s (1999) leadership condition.

Furthermore,administratorsandsupervisorsneedtohaveplanningstrategiestofacilitate

the adoption and integrationprocess.A clear visionof the achievable goals and tangible

18

outcomesexpectedfromintegratingtechnologiesmustbedevelopedandcommunicatedto

the teachers. Studies have shown that when administrations do not cooperate with

teachers and provide leadership and planning strategies, the use of technology does not

extend beyond that point (Hew & Brush, 2007). This discussion of leadership in

technology use brings us to the issue of commitment.Commitment (Ely, 1999) is a very

important component needed by those who are involved in the technology adoption

process.Nyirongo(2009)foundthatthelargestportionofthestudyrespondentsidentified

that the commitment of Mzuzu University’s (Malawi) leadership provided an enabling

environmentfortheintegrationofelectronictechnologiesforteachingandlearning.

Anotherproblemisthelackofteachers’collaborationandcommunication.Oncuet

al. (2008)emphasize thathavingpersonalandprofessional relationshipswithcolleagues

who use technology provides encouragement and reassurance for teachers. Through

collaboration,teachersareabletolearnfromothersabouttechnologiesthatareunfamiliar

or that they have never considered using in their classrooms. This supports Ely’s

participation condition, which calls for involving all concerned parties in planning and

decision‐making issues. Despite the fact that collaboration is important because it

encourages teachers to create technology‐integrated lesson plans andmaterials, authors

havearguedthatcollaborationinitselfcanbedifficulttoachieveduetoteachers’workload

atschools.

Thestructureandfacilityofaschoolinfluencewhichtechnologiesareinstalledand

usedinschools.Schoolattributessuchasthesizeandlayoutoftheclassrooms,aswellas

havingtheappropriatefacilitiesandutilitiesthatallowfortheinstallationoftechnologies

such as computers and Internet connectivity, encourage teachers’ use. Elmasry (2007)

19

emphasizes, “learning environments is directly correlated with the pedagogical models

takingplace”(p.123).Teachers’perceptionsregardingtheirlearningenvironmentimpact

howtheyperforminitanddeterminetheteaching–learningactivitiesthattakeplaceand

their preferences on the type of learning technologies that are used (Elmasry, 2007). In

addition, the insufficient number of classrooms in some schools limits the quantity and

types of technologies installed and, accordingly, the availability for teachers. Fabry and

Higgs (1997) state that the lackof access to the right typesof technology inappropriate

locationsisakeychallengetotheintegrationoftechnologyintheclassroom(Keengweet

al., 2008).For instance, studies show that laptops are beginning to be used in schools due to

limited computer availability atschools, or if available constraints in scheduling for computers in

advance and students unequalaccess to computers at home (Warschauer, 2007)

TheProcessofAdoption

The literature has identified manymodels of technology adoption such as Davis’

(1989)TechnologyAcceptanceModelTAM&Rogers’(2003)DiffusionofInnovation(DOI)

theory,butduetoitsimportancetothepresentstudy,Rogers’theorywillbeindependently

described in detail. However, the commonalities between Davis’ (1987) andMoore and

Benbasat’s(1991)researchthataddedconstructstoRogers’DOItheorywillbediscussed,

andreferencewillalsobemadetoIT‐relateddiffusiontheories.

RogersDiffusionofInnovation(DOI)Theory

Rogers’ DOI theory is a general diffusion theory that is well established and has

been utilized in both educational and non‐educational contexts. It has also been used

20

extensively with modifications and extensions when investigating various types of

innovations.Rogers’seminalworkhasbeenoneofthemostcomprehensivetreatmentsof

adoptionanddiffusion,and,publishedfirstin1962,itiscurrentlyinitsfifthedition(Surry

&Ely,2002).Surry(1997)emphasizedthatRogers’theory“isthemostsynthesizedwork

doneofallofthesignificantfindingsandcompellingtheoriesrelatedtodiffusionandthe

closestanyresearcherhascometopresentingaunifiedtheoryofdiffusion”(p.3).Diffusion

is “the process by which an innovation is communicated through certain channels over

timeamongthemembersofasocialsystem”(Rogers,2003,p.11).Thetheoryisconsidered

asocialchangemodelinwhich“alterationoccursinthestructureandfunctionofasocial

system”(Rogers,2003,p.6).Thissocialchangeoccursduetotheprocessesthattakeplace

whennew innovationsare introduced,diffused,and theneitheradoptedorrejected.The

mainelementsinthediffusionofnewideasareinnovation,communicationchannels,time,

andthesocialsystem.

Innovation

Aninnovationis“anidea,practiceorobjectthatisperceivedasnewbyanindividual

oranotherunitofadoption”(Rogers,2003,p.12).These individualsorunitsofadoption

make the final decision onwhether to use it or not.Manydifferent types of innovations

exist that require different levels of commitment. New innovations are not always

necessarily viewed as progress or important to all individuals (Rogers, 2003).

Furthermore, thecharacteristicsof the innovation influence thespeedatwhichpotential

userswilladoptit.Thecharacteristicsorattributesofaninnovation,aswillbediscussed,

subsequently play a very crucial role in the adoption process. Innovations in one social

21

systemmaynotbedesirableforothersinthesamesocialsystem,andthisalsoimpactsthe

rateof adoption.The conceptof reinvention (Rogers, 2003) is an aspect of innovation in

whichindividualschangetheinnovationintheprocessofitsadoptionandimplementation.

Userstendtousereinventiontoensuretheinnovationfitstheiruniquesituation, leading

diffusiontotakeplacemorerapidlyandadoptionlikelytobesustained(Rogers,2003).

PerceivedAttributesofInnovations

Rogers’ (2003) theory suggests that individuals are inherently more or less

predisposedtoinnovativebehavior.Teachersarethekeytothediffusionofanyinnovation

in the classroom, and their perception level of the attributes of an innovation defines

whetheritwillbeadoptedandused(Moore,2007).Thetermperceivedattributerefersto

“the opinions of potential adopterswho base their feelings about an innovation on how

theyperceivethatinnovation”(Surry&Ely,2002,p.186).Theseperceivedattributesmake

them acceptable to some individuals and not to others. Moore and Benbasat (1991)

emphasizethatadoptersperceiveinnovationattributesindifferentwaysand,accordingly,

behaviors differ too. These behaviors determine towhat extent technology is used. Five

attributesweredefinedbyRogers(2003):

1.relativeadvantage,

2.compatibility,

3.complexity,

4.trialability,and

5.observability.

22

The first characteristic, relative advantage, is the degree to which an individual

perceives an innovation to be superior to previousmethods. Economic advantage, social

prestige,convenience,andsatisfactionareimportantfactors.However,anindividualmust

perceivetheinnovationasadvantageous,evenifitisnotthecase.Next,compatibilityisthe

degree to which an individual perceives an innovation to be consistent with his or her

existing values, past experiences, andneeds. Third, complexity is the degree towhich an

innovationisperceivedasdifficulttounderstandanduse.Fourth,trialabilityisthedegree

towhichan innovationwillbe triedona limitedbasis,whichhelpsreduce theadopters’

uncertainty toward the use of the innovation and, accordingly, its adoption. Fifth,

observability is the degree to which the results of an innovation are visible to other

individuals. Insummary, innovationsperceivedby individuals tohavegreateradvantage,

compatibility,trialability,observability,andlesscomplexityareadoptedmorequicklythan

other innovations (Rogers, 2003). Moore and Benbasat (1991) emphasize that the

“perceptionsofusingtheinnovationisofinterestratherthantheinnovationitself,sinceits

useispredictedbyhowtheseindividualsperceivetheinnovationattributes”(p.194).

CommunicationChannels

Communicationisthe“processthatindividualsusetocreateandshareinformation

toachieveamutualunderstanding”(Rogers,2003,p.18).Thiscommunicationallowsfora

better decision‐making process to take place concerning the innovation (Moore, 2007).

Twoformsofcommunication,massmediaandinterpersonalchannels,areusedtotransmit

information(Rogers,2003).Theformerisconcernedwiththetransmissionofinformation

through mass media formats such as radio, television, journals, newspapers,

23

telecommunications,etc.Informationdistributedinthismannerusuallyoccursrapidlybut

lacks credibility and trustworthiness when transferring information. Interpersonal

channels are used when the information is exchanged face‐to‐face. This method is

considered much slower than mass media, but it is more effective because of human

interactionandtheabilityofindividualstoexchangeandcommunicatenewideastoeach

other.Rogers(2003)emphasizedthatwheninformationisexchangedbetweenindividuals

who are homophilous—who have common attributes whether in regards to education,

socioeconomic status, or beliefs—communication tends to be more effective. This

effectiveness comes in terms of knowledge gain and attitude formation about the

innovation.Thiseffect is reversedwhen thegroup isheterophilous, as thesepartieshave

differentattributesthatnegatively influencetheachievementofeffectivecommunication.

Despitethisfact,somedegreeofdifferenceisneededfornewinformationtobeexchanged

(Rogers,2003).Thisdegreeofdifferenceisneededasitallowsfornewideastospreadto

otherindividualsofsocioeconomicstatus,educationandtechnicalexpertiseconnectedina

close‐knitnetwork.

Time

Timeisthefactorthatreferstohowlongindividualstaketogothroughtheprocess

of either accepting or rejecting an innovation (Moore, 2007). Three related events take

placeduringthediffusionprocess(Rogers,2003)asshownbelowinFigure1:

1. theinnovation‐decisionprocess,

2. theinnovativenessoftheindividual,and

3. theinnovation’srateofadoption.

24

1Figure1.Theinnovation‐decisionprocessmodel(Rogers,2003).

During the innovation­decision process, as shown in Figure 1, the individual first

acquirestheknowledgeneededtolearnandunderstandabouttheinnovation.Anattitude

is then formed about the innovation during the persuasion stage, which leads to either

favorableorunfavorableopinions concerning it. In thedecision stage, an individualwill

seekadditional informationaboutthe innovation, trythe innovation,anddecidewhether

to adopt or reject the innovation. The implementation stage occurs when an individual

decides toadopt thenew innovationandputs it intouse. In the laststage, the individual

confirmsthedecisionandseeksreinforcementofthedecisiontoadopttheinnovation.The

individualrecognizesthebenefitsofusingtheinnovation,integratestheinnovationintoa

continuous routine, and promotes the innovation to other individuals. However, an

individualmay reversehisorherdecisionanddiscontinue the innovation if “exposed to

1 Source:DiffusionofInnovations,5thEditionbyEverettM.Rogers(5.1,p170).Copyright©1962,1971,1983byTheFreePress,aDivisionofSimon&Schuster,Inc.Usedwithpermissionofthepublisher.Allrightsreserved.

25

conflicting messages about the innovation thus effort is exerted to avoid a ‘state of

dissonanceorreduceitifoccurs’”(Rogers,2003,p.189).Implementationofaninnovation

inanorganizationismorecomplexthanforanindividualbecausetheindividualswhouse

theinnovationareusuallyadifferentsetofpeoplefromthedecision‐makers.Thereforean

organization may decide to adopt an innovation, but implementation may not always

follow,sincedecisionstoimplementinvolveotherindividuals(Gwayi,2009).

Thesecondissuerelatedtotimeisinnovativeness,whichisthedegreetowhichan

individualisrelativelyearlyinadoptingnewideascomparedtoothermembersofasocial

system.Rogers (2003)groupedadopters into five categoriesof a social system inabell‐

shapedcurvebasedontheirdegreeofinnovativeness,asshowninFigure2.

2Figure2.Adoptercategorizationonthebasisofinnovativeness(Rogers,2003).

Innovatorsarethefirstpeopletoadoptanewideaintheirsystem.Theyrepresent

the first 2.5% of the individuals to adopt an innovation. These people can cope with

uncertainlyathigherlevelsconcerninganinnovation,haveahighlevelofmediaexposure,

understand and apply complex technical knowledge, have interpersonal networks, and

2 Source:DiffusionofInnovations,5thEditionbyEverettM.Rogers(6.1,p222).Copyright©1962,1971,1983byTheFreePress,aDivisionofSimon&Schuster,Inc.Usedwithpermissionofthepublisher.Allrightsreserved.

26

usually control substantial financial resources that help in losses from unprofitable

innovation(Rogers,2003).Earlyadoptersareanintegratedpartofthelocalsocialsystem

and represent the next 13.5% to adopt a new idea. They serve as opinion leaders from

whomotherindividualsobtainadviceandinstructionbeforeadoptinganewideaandare

respectedbytheirpeers(Rogers,2003).Theearlymajorityrepresentsthenext34%ofthe

adopters. They adopt innovations before the average member of the social system and

interactwiththeirpeersbutseldomareopinionleaders.Theyprovideanimportantlinkin

the social process between the very early and the late majority, since they provide

interconnectednessinthesocialsystem’snetwork(Rogers,2003).

Latemajorityadoptersmakeupthenext34%themembersofthesocialsystem.The

latemajorityareskepticsanddonotadoptnewideasuntilthemajorityofthemembersin

their social system have done so. However, they usually adopt an innovation due to

economicnecessityandincreasingpressurefromtheirpeersintheirnetwork.Theyhave

scarceresources,and,thus,mostoftheuncertaintyabouttheinnovationmustberemoved

beforetheyfeelitissafetoadopt(Rogers,2003).Laggardsarethelast16%toadoptanew

idea inasocialsystem.Theyusuallyarenotopinion leaders,have limitedresources,and

make certain that a new ideawill be successful before theywill adopt it. Their point of

reference is in thepastandwhathasbeendonepreviously.Theyhave traditionalvalues

andaresuspiciousofinnovationsandchangeagents(Rogers,2003).

The third aspect related to time is the rate of adoption. The rate of adoption is

definedas“therelativespeedwithwhichaninnovationisadoptedbymembersofasocial

system”(Rogers,2003,p.23).Whenthenumberof individualsadoptingan innovation is

plottedonacumulativefrequencyovertime,anS‐shapedcurveisformed.Initially,onlya

27

fewinnovatorsadoptthenewidea.Itwillthenhaveaperiodofrapidgrowththatwilltaper

offandbecomestable,theneventuallydecline.Severalvariablesaffecttherateofadoption

of innovation. The rate of adoption differs for the same innovation in different social

systems.This isdue to the fact that “rateofadoption ismeasured foran innovation ina

systemratherthanforanindividualasaunitofanalysis”(Rogers,2003,p.23).Inaddition,

attributesof innovations that arehighlyperceivedby individualswill haveamore rapid

rate of adoption. Other variables that play a role as seen in Figure 3, are the perceived

attributes of innovations, the communication channels, the type of innovation‐decision

takingplace,andtheeffortsexertedbychangeagentstopromotetheinnovation.

3Figure3.Variablesdeterminingtherateofadoptionofinnovations(Rogers,2003).

3Source:DiffusionofInnovations,5thEditionbyEverettM.Rogers(7.3,p281).Copyright©1962,1971,1983byTheFreePress,aDivisionofSimon&Schuster,Inc.Usedwithpermissionofthepublisher.Allrightsreserved.

28

TheSocialSystem

Asocialsystem“isasetofinterrelatedunitsthatengageinjointproblemsolvingto

accomplish a common goal” (Rogers, 2003, p. 23). Members of a social system can be

individuals, informal groups, or organizations. The diffusion of an innovationwithin any

social system is dependent upon social structure, norms, opinion leaders, and change

agents; types of innovation‐decisions; and consequences of innovation (Rogers, 2003). A

social structure explains how members of a social system interact and live together,

predictinghowtheywillbehave.Notonlydoesindividualbehaviorcount,butalsonorms

oftheindividualswithinthatsocialsystem.Normsarethe“establishedbehaviorpatterns

forthemembersofasocialsystem”(Rogers,2003,p.26).Systemnormsaffectdiffusionin

that they provide a guide on the behavioral patterns that are shared and established by

membersofthesamesocialgroup.Iftheinnovationalignswellwiththenormsofthesocial

system, there is a high probability that it will be adopted; otherwise, it will be rejected

(Rogers,2003).Yates(2001)emphasizedthatteachersinteractmorefrequentlyandmore

freelywitheachother,and,thus,ifsometeachersadoptaninnovation,otherswillpursue

thesamegoal(Gwayi,2009).

Withinthissocialsystem,opinionleadersandchangeagentsalsoplayaroleinthe

diffusion process. The opinion leader is an individual who is influential in changing the

attitudesofotherstowardtheinnovation(Rogers,2003).Opinionleadershipisearnedby

technicalcompetence,socialaccessibility,andconformitytothesystem’snorms.Achange

agent is“anindividualwhoinfluencesclients’ innovationdecisionsinadirectiondeemed

desirable by a change agency” (Rogers, 2003, p. 27). A change agent usually seeks to

promote theadoptionofnew ideasbutmayalso try toslowdowndiffusionandprevent

29

adoption of undesirable innovations. Furthermore, change agents bridge the

communication gap between a change agency and the potential clients. Decision‐making

regarding innovations are either optional innovation­decision, inwhich individualsmake

theirdecisiontoadoptorrejectaninnovationindependentofthemembersofthegroups;

collective innovation­decisions, which aremade based on the consensus of the group; or

authority innovation­decisions, which are made by people who have power, status, or

technicalexpertise.Changesoccurtoanindividualortoasocialsystemresultingfromthe

adoptionorrejectionoftheinnovation(Rogers,2003).

Three dimensions categorize consequences: direct consequences that occur in

immediateresponsetoaninnovation;indirectconsequences,whichoccurinresponsetothe

effectsofdirect consequences; andanticipated orunanticipatedconsequences,whichare

changesthatarerecognizedorunrecognizedrespectivelybymembersofasocialsystem.

Insummary,asocialsystemconsistsofvariousaspectsthatareallimportanttotakeinto

considerationduringthediffusionprocess.

Summary

Three dimensions that involve technology adoption and integration have been

discussed in the literature: teachers’beliefs andattitudes, the challengesandconstraints

facingteachers,andtheadoptionprocess.Aslightshift intechnologyacceptanceanduse

by teachers is seen despite the challenges and constraints. Teachers are becomingmore

awareoftheimportanceofpromotingtechnologyintegrationinschools,regardlessofhow

theyareused,forwhatpurposes,andinwhatcontext.“Pedagogicalevolutiondoesappear

tobetakingplace.Thereisagradualbutperceptibleshiftinsubjectpracticeandthinking,

30

involving both pupils and teachers developing new strategies in response to new

experiencesandtheliftingofexistingconstraints”(Hennessyetal.,2005,p.186).

Rogers’ DOI theory (2003) offers a valuable framework for understanding why

innovations are accepted or rejected. The four elements of the diffusion process are the

innovation,howinformationabouttheinnovationiscommunicated,time,andthenatureof

thesocialsystemintowhichtheinnovationisbeingintroduced.Therateofadoptionofan

innovation is influencedbyperceivedattributesof an innovation, the typeof innovation,

communicationchannels,natureofthesocialsystem,andtheeffortsexertedbythechange

agentsinpromotingtheinnovation.

RelatedDiffusionPerspectivesandCommonalities

Studies show that several attempts have been made to use general theories of

diffusiontodeveloptheoriesspecifictothefieldofinstructionaltechnology(IT)inorderto

increasetheadoptionofinstructionaltechnologies.Surry(1997)statesthattheapplication

ofdiffusiontheoriestothefieldofITisdividedintotwomajorcategories:macroandmicro

theories. Macro theories deal with restructuring and reform of organizations and are

referredtoassystematicchangetheoriessincethey“involvetheadoptionofawiderangeof

innovative technologies and practices” (p. 4). A shift and development in the extent of

computer usage is presented in recent articles (Niederhauser, et al., 2006; Sutherland, et al.,

2004) which shows that studentsare using productivity tools like web browsing to access and

download information, email, wordprocessing, desktop publishing as well as making websites.

Microtheories,alsoknownasproductutilizationtheories(Surry,1997),focusonadoption

and utilization of instructional products and tend to focus on specific innovations as

31

appliedinspecificenvironments.Some studies have shown thatPDAs (hand-held computers)

are used for multimedia activities and context based tutorial system when learning foreign

languages like English (Wishart, 2008).AnumberofmacroandmicroITdiffusiontheories

havebeendeveloped, suchasBurkman’smodeluser‐oriented instructionaldevelopment

model(UOID)developed in1987,HallandHord’smodelconcernsbasedadoptionmodel

(CBAM)alsodeveloped in1987,andFarquharandSurry’sadoptionanalysismodel (AA)

developedin1994(Alias&Zainnudin,2005).

Two predominant philosophical viewpoints have been discussed regarding how

technologyisviewed:determinist(developer‐based)andinstrumentalist(adopter‐based)

perspectives(Surry,1997).Thedeterministphilosophyviewstechnologyasautonomous,

revolutionary,andtheprimarycauseofsocialchangebeyondhumancontrol.Thetechnical

characteristicsofaninnovationaredeemedimportant,and,therefore,successfuladoption

anddiffusion takesplacebasedon an innovation's technological superiority.Despite the

physical limitation on using the PDAs due to “screen sizes, limited audiovisual quality,

restrictive keyboard for dataentry, the need of SD cards for extra memory and limited battery

life” (Wishart, 2008, p. 349), teachers haverecognized its usefulness in regards to managing and

presenting information efficiently, internet browsing, word processing, sharing information

through beaming files, audio recordings andtaking photos and videos for learning purposes.The

instrumentalistphilosophyviewsthegrowthoftechnologyasanevolutionaryprocess, in

whichhumancontrolovertheinnovationisakeyissueandthecausesofchangearebased

on the social conditions andonhuman’s aspiration for change and improvement (Surry,

1997).Studieshaveshownthatusingemailoverletterwritinghasproventobemorerapid

32

andefficientincommunicatingwithothersandthereforeisbeingmoreutilizedbyteachers

whencommunicatingwithparentsatschool.

Thedebatebetweenwhetheraninstrumentalistoradeterministphilosophy(Surry,

1997) should be followed shows a consensus that technological superiority alone is not

enoughandthataninstrumentalistapproachisneededtomaximizethepotentialbenefitof

diffusiontheorieswhenusedbyinstructionaltechnologists.Atthesametime,technologists

also need to have a determinist viewpoint on “how to improve society by improving

instructional technology” (Surry, 1997, p. 11). Clearly, an understanding is needed by

instructional technologists on the issues pertaining to the adopters and the surrounding

social system before pursuing either of these philosophies. This will ensure that the

adoption and diffusion process is successful and technological improvement is really

occurring.

Despite each model being conceptually different from the other, the similarity

betweenRogers’ (2003),Moore andBenbasat’s (1991),Davis’ (1987), andFarquhar and

Surry’s(1995)theoriesisthatallfouremphasizetheimportanceofindividuals’perception

towardstheattributesofaninnovationduringtheadoptionprocess.Throughtheadoption

analysisapproach(Farquhar&Surry,1994),abroaderperspectiveofbothuser‐perception

and organization attributes is taken into consideration, resulting in the adoption of

technologythat isrooted inanorganizationalcontextandaddresses issuesofconcernto

theintendeduser.Adoptionanalysisisa“processthatcallsforathoroughexaminationof

boththecontextinwhichaninstructionalproductwillbeusedandofthepeoplewhowill

use the product” (Surry & Farquhar, 1995, p. 594). This model focuses on both the

individual and the organizational factors that have an impact on whether or not the

33

productinadopted.Individualfactorsarethe“skills,attitudes,perceptionsandknowledge

possessedby thepeoplewhowill use the technology” (Surry&Farquhar, 1995,p. 596),

which includesboth “usercharacteristics”and“perceivedattributes.”Usercharacteristics

include the adopter’s traits such as knowledge, prior experience, skill level, anxiety, and

motivation, while perceived attributes deal with how the innovation is perceived by the

adopters,asdiscussedpreviouslyinRogers’theory(2003).Organizationalfactorsinclude

“all of the personnel, expertise, attitudes, hardware, software, facilities and services

available within or to an organization” (p. 596). They consist of both the physical

environment and the support environments. The physical environment includes “how

technology is utilized, available classroom facilities and existing hardware and software

while the support component include production services, technical support, ongoing

monetarysupport,andstoragesupport”(Surry&Farquhar,1995,p.596).

Similarly, Rogers’ DOI theory shares some common featureswith the Technology

AcceptanceModel(TAM)proposedbyDavis(1989).DavisdevelopedtheTAMtoexplain

thebehavioralintentionandactualbehaviorofaperson’scomputerusage.TheTAMmodel

definesPerceivedUsefulness(PU)as “thedegree towhichapersonbelieves thatusinga

particular system would enhance his or her performance” and Perceived Ease of Use

(PEOU)as“thedegreetowhichapersonbelievesthatusingaparticularsystemwouldbe

free of effort” (p. 320). We see a similarity to Rogers’ (2003) concepts of “relative

advantage”and“complexity,”whichrefertoteachers’beliefthatusingtechnologyintheir

classroomswouldenhancetheirteachingperformanceandtotheirbeliefthattheywillbe

abletoutilizethetechnologywithease,respectively.TAMproposedthatPUandPEOUare

affected by various external variables such as user characteristics and organizational

34

factors (Al‐Senaidi, 2009). It is important to identify the perceptions of the potential

adopters as well as their needs and wants to develop products that meet these needs

(Farquhar& Surry, 1995) in order to facilitate the adoptionprocess. “In ameta‐analysis

studyonTAMwith88publishedstudies,KingandHe(2006)concludedtheTAMisavalid

androbustmodel”(AlSenaidi,2009,p.10).

Rogers’(2003)fiveattributesofperceivedattributeswerefurtherrefinedbyMoore

& Benbasat (1991). Relative advantage was decomposed into two constructs: relative

advantage and image. Image is defined as “the degree to which use of an innovation is

perceived to enhance one’s image or status in one’s social system” (Moore & Benbasat,

1991,p.175).Roger’sviewpointisthatimageispartofrelativeadvantage,butMooreand

Benbasat’s (1991) research found it tobe independentof relative advantage.Moore and

Benbasat (1991) also divided observability into two constructs—visibility and result

demonstrability.Visibility is“theextenttowhichpotentialadoptersseetheinnovationas

being visible in the adoption context” (Moore & Benbasat, 1991, p. 203). The construct

resultdemonstrabilityisdefinedas“tangibilityoftheresultofusinganinnovation”(Moore

&Benbasat,1991,p.203).

An additional construct was generated through this study, called voluntariness.

Voluntariness of use is defined as “thedegree towhichuseof innovation is perceived as

beingvoluntaryorfreewill”(Moore&Benbasat,1991,p.195).Accordingtotheauthors,

technology acceptance is not only influenced by a person’s perception but also by a

mandatefromsuperiors.AgarwalandPrasad(1997)indicatedthatthisconstructwasnot

partoftheinnovationcharacteristicsbyRogersbuthasshownthatpotentialadopterscan

perceivevaryinglevelsofchoiceintheadoptionofinnovations.Theconstructsimageand

35

voluntariness show the extent towhich teachers are affected by these constructs rather

thantheirownself‐interestinusingthetechnology.Inhisstudy,Gwayi(2009)foundthat

although TALULAR (Teaching and Learning Using Locally Available Resources) is not

strictlymandatory, science teachers generally perceived using the innovation to be less

voluntary. Their perception that theywere required to use the innovation tended to be

associatedwithincreasedlevelsofuse.

ContributionsandCriticismsofDiffusionResearch

Diffusionresearchstudieshavecontributedtootherresearchstudiesbuthavealso

drawn criticism. Rogers (2003) emphasized that diffusion studies are relevant to many

disciplines, especially to social sciences. Studying behaviors of individuals and

organizationspaintsanaccuratepictureofthesocialchangeprocessthattakesplaceover

timeandleadstoresultsthatprovideindividualswithsolutionsinsimilarsituations.The

growthofdiffusionstudiesleadstoempiricalevidencefromwhichscholarscangeneralize

results and apply it to specific cases. Diffusion studies also reflect clear research

methodologies,wheredata isnotdifficult togatherandthemethodsofdataanalysisare

well laid out. Yates (2001) indicated that through Rogers’ seminal work on diffusion of

innovation,researchersareabletounderstandthereasonsbehindindividualsadoptingor

rejecting a technology, come up with ways to introduce new hardware and software

componentstotheusers,anddevelopseveralmodelsthatcanbeusedinsimilarstudies.

Beginning in 1970, criticism started to take shape among the diffusion scholars

(Rogers,2003).Fourissuespertainingtothesecriticismswillbediscussed.Thefirstisthe

pro­innovationbias,whichimpliesthataninnovationisadoptedbyallthemembersofthe

36

socialsystemandthattheinnovationshouldbeneitherreinventednorrejected.Theissue

thenbecomes that “researchersareunable to lookatdiffusionof innovationsholistically

and fail to learn certain important issues such as end‐users’ ignorance about new ideas,

discontinuance, and other anti‐diffusion programs aimed at preventing undesirable

innovations” (Gwayi, 2009, p. 26). Successful diffusions have the data, which could be

retracedbydiffusionresearchers,whileunsuccessfuldiffusionsdonotleavemuchtotrace

for reconstruction (Ozaygen, 2005). The second criticism is the individual­blame bias, in

which there is a tendency to hold an individual responsible rather than the systems of

whichtheindividualisapart.“Diffusionstudiestendtotakesidewithchangeagenciesthat

promoteinnovationratherthanwiththeindividualswhoarepotentialadopters”(Rogers,

2003,p.118).

The third criticism is the recall problem, which may lead to inaccuracies in time

(period)as towhen the individualadoptedanew idea.Ozaygen(2005)emphasized that

participantsfailtogivetherightanswersregardingwhentheyadoptedaninnovation,and

onlysnapshotsarecollected.This isduetothe fact thatmostdiffusionprocesses involve

aspectsthatextendintimeandevents.Thefinalcriticismistheissueofequality,whereby

thespreadofnewideascausesasocioeconomicgapbetweenthehigherandlowerstatus

segments of a system. Studies have shown that if “communication strategies are used

effectivelyinnarrowingthesocioeconomicbenefitsgap,thensocioeconomicstructurewill

no more become a major barrier to diffusion of innovations for those who are

disadvantagedinthepopulation”(Rogers,2003,p.134).Inunderstandingthesecriticisms,

researchers can help to provide solutions that improve the field of diffusion studies.

However,with all the criticisms, diffusion researchhas lead to the formationof theories

37

explainingtheimpactofnewinnovationsonsocieties(Rogers,2003).

ApplicationofRogers’PerceivedAttributesinEducationalSystems

Despite the variations in findings regarding Rogers’ (2003) propositions, studies

haveshownthatsomeattributesareconsistentpredictorsintheadoptionprocess(Gwayi,

2009). Below is a description of some of the studies that were carried out in higher

educationandK‐12schoolsintheArabGulfStates,theMiddleEast,Africa,andtheUnited

States.TheArabGulfStatesareSaudiArabia,Qatar,Oman,Bahrain,Kuwait,andtheUnited

ArabEmirates;thesestatescomprisetheGulfCooperationCountries(GCC).

StudiesinHigherEducation

A quantitative study by Al Senaidi (2009) explored the factors influencing

InformationandComputingTechnology (ICT) adoption forOmani facultymembers from

SultanQaboosUniversity.ConsistentwithRogers’(2003)model,thisstudyfoundthatthe

number of faculty members in the five‐adopter categories were close to a normal

distribution. Approximately 86% of the faculty members classified themselves in the

innovator,earlyadopter,andearlymajoritycategories(whichincludedthelaggardgroup).

SignificantgroupdifferencesofICTusesandskills,perceptionofbarriers,andperception

ofICTattributes intheadoptercategoryshowedthattheearlyadoptersusedtechnology

more, had ahigher level of technological skills, perceived fewerbarriers in the adoption

process, and recognized higher values of technology attributes than the later adopters.

Compatibility between ICT and job duties or personal style, ease of use, and relative

advantage regarding job efficiency accounted collectively for68%of the varianceon the

38

perception scale. In contrast, the study showed that other constructs such as trialability,

image, voluntariness, demonstrability, and visibility, which are valid inWestern culture,

didnotholdinOmaniculture.

Uslueletal.(2008)investigatedtheimpactsofICTfacilities(i.e., inclassroom,lab,

and office) and ICT attributes (i.e., relative advantage, compatibility, ease of use, and

observability)onICT instructionalandmanagerialusesby834facultymembers from22

universities inTurkey.The study showed that theuseof ICT is becomingwidespread in

higher education and that the faculty members use ICT mostly as a means of

communicationandfordoingresearchaboutthecoursethroughtheInternet.TheyuseICT

less frequently for publishing their lecture notes and announcements concerning the

course (e.g., assignments,projects)on the Internet. Furthermore, this study investigated

theunderlyingrelationshipbetweenICTfacilities,perceivedattributes,andICTusagefor

highereducation,showingthattheuseoftheICTusingRogers’DOImodel(2003)hasbeen

tested andvalidated andall thehypotheseswere supported.The studyprovided further

evidence of the appropriateness ofDOI tomeasure the ICTusage in higher education in

Turkey.

AstudybyAlmobarraz(2007)examinedfactorsleadingtothedecisiontoadoptthe

Internet in the academic environment as perceived by faculty members of Imam

MohammedBinSaudUniversity,inSaudiArabia.ItfoundthatattributesofRogers’stheory

(2003) and those in Moore and Benbasat’s study (1999) influenced faculty members’

adoptionoftheInternet.AlmobarrazshowedthatusingtheInternetforacademicpurposes

wascompatiblewithallaspectsoffacultymembersinregardstotheirprofessionaswellas

fortheirpersonalneeds.Relativeadvantagewasthesecondstrongestpredictor,followed

39

by image, ease of use, result demonstrability, trialability, visibility, and voluntariness,

respectively.Inregardstorelativeadvantage,facultymembersusedtheInternetbecauseit

enabled them to accomplish academic tasks faster and it enhanced their efficiency in

completing theacademic tasks.Complexity (easeofuse)alsowasa factor in that faculty

membersfoundthatlearningtooperatetheInternetwaseasyforthem.Thisstudyshowed

thattrialabilityisaweakpredictoroffacultymembers’Internetadoption.Thereasonfor

this result is due to the lack of training available for using Internet applications and

services. Lastly, observability (result demonstrability and visibility) showed that the

results of using the Internet are apparent to the facultymembers and that an increased

numberofInternetServicesProviders(ISPs)andthespreadofInternetcafesthroughthe

majorcitiesmademorepeopleawareoftheInternet’suses.

Al‐Asmari(2005)carriedoutastudytoinvestigatetheuseofInternetbyteachersof

EnglishasaForeignLanguage(EFL)inSaudiArabianCollegesofTechnologyusingRogers’

DOItheory(2003).Thestudyshowedthattheteachershadpositiveperceptionsaboutthe

Internet as a tool for EFL instruction since it “[saved] time and effort in obtaining

information and materials needed for class, [lessened] the using of traditional delivery

methods and added an element of interest and joy to the teaching/learning process” (p.

142).However,severalissueshinderedteachers’Internetuse.Themainissuewastheneed

for financial support to enable the purchase of more computers and better Internet

connections.Limitedaccesstocomputers inclassroomand limitedopportunities to train

on the use of the Internet reduced teachers’ interest in implementing the Internet in

teachingEFL.Inregardstoattitudesandappropriateness,teachershadtwoconcerns.The

firstwasthattheSauditeachersdidnotwanttochangetheirtraditionalwaysofdelivering

40

instruction and resisted using the Internet. The secondwas that they had apprehension

about the negative values and moralities that the Internet might have on the students.

Furthermore, the study showed that external factors were a stronger predictor in

comparisontopersonalfactorswhenitcametotheuseoftheInternetinteachingEFL.

StudiesinK­12SchoolSystems

AstudybyGwayi(2009)wascarriedoutwithsecondaryschoolscienceteachersin

Malawi, investigating the relationship betweenperceptions of usingTALULAR (Teaching

andLearningUsingLocallyAvailableResources)andthe levelof its implementation.The

study used perceived attributes characteristics derived from Rogers (2003), Moore and

Benbasat (1991), and Compeau, Meister, and Higgins (2007). The study revealed that

relative advantage, ease of use, compatibility with prior experience, others’ use,

communicability, measurability (observability), and trialability were significantly and

positivelyrelatedtothe implementationofTALULAR,whilevoluntarinesswasnegatively

related. The study showed that level of education, school type, and training attendance

were significantly related to implementation, while no significant association wasmade

with gender, teaching experience, or length of innovation training. Teachers were also

concerned about certain issues that included “time limitation to use the innovation,

ineffectivenessoftheinnovationinsomecases,needfortraining,andscarcityofsomelocal

resourcestofacilitatetheuseoftheinnovationforteaching”(Gwayi,2009,p.181).

Moore (2007) carried out a study with Virginia secondary technology education

teachers to determine to what extent are they implementing STL (Standards for

Technological Literacy), to what extent each standard was being implemented, and the

41

relationshipbetweentheindividualstandardsimplementedandrespondents’perceptions

according to Rogers’ (2003) innovation attributes. The study showed that 20% of

respondents, having adopted STL, perceive them to be an advantage to their teaching,

compatiblewiththeirlifeexperiences,easytotryonalimitedbasis,easytoobserve,and

nottoodifficulttounderstandandapply.Thestudyshowedthattheteachersunderstood

howtheindividualstandardswerecompatiblewithwhattheywerecurrentlyteachingin

theirclassroomandwerewillingtotryimplementingindividualstandardsseparately.For

someof the individualstandards, teachershadadifficult timetryingonlyportionsof the

standardsorbeingable toobservesomeoneelseusing them,andmanyof the individual

standardswereviewedasbeingtoocomplextouseandimplement.Thestudyshowedthat

there were variations of perceived attributes of the individual standards due to the

extremerangeoftopicscovered;nevertheless,itwasevidentfromthestudythatstronger

relationships with Rogers’ (2003) perceived attributes and the individual standards are

neededasthesecouldincreasetherateofadoption.

A study was carried out by Martins, Steil, and Todesco (2004), investigating the

factors that influencedtheuseof the Internet in languageschools inBrazilusingRogers’

(2003)perceivedattributes.Thestudyshowedthatobservabilityandtrialabilitywerethe

twovariablesthatappearedasthetwomostsignificantones,whilerelativeadvantageand

complexity exerted little influence in the study. Trialability was an important indicator

because the teachers who attended training programs applied the Internet skills they

acquiredintheclassroom.Internetavailabilityandadoptioninthisstudywasintrinsically

related to training. Observability was also a strong variable since the results and the

benefits of its use were visible to the teachers. When an innovation is perceived to be

42

explicitandvisible,favorableattitudesconcerningtheinnovationaremorelikelytooccur

(Martinsetal.,2004).

A studywas conducted in Trinidad andTobago in elementary schools, examining

the relationship between teachers’ attitudes towards computers and Rogers’ (2003)

perceived innovation characteristics and their satisfaction and use of computers

(Sooknanan,Melkote,&Skinner, 2002).The study showed that the individuals’ attitudes

andperceptions on the innovationsweredetermining factors in its implementation, and

satisfactionconstructswererelatedtoreliabilityandaccuracy,learningtools,networking

tools,andutilizationconstructofeducationandnetworking. ByapplyingRogers’ (2003)

theory, the study showed that relative advantage, compatibility, and observability

influenced teachers’ adoption and use of computers. Relative advantage was applicable

since teachers perceived that computers enabled quicker access to information, helped

overcome administrative delays, and improved the storage and retrieval of students’

records. Compatibility in this study was divided into two types: compatibility with

classroom instruction and compatibility with classroom needs. Teachers had a positive

perceptiontowardthecompatibilityofcomputers to theircurriculumgoalsbecause they

perceived that computers were reliable and accurate, met their information needs, and

made up for limited classroom time. No relationship was found between the perceived

complexityinusingcomputersandthedegreeofimplementation.

Summary

TheapplicationofRogers’DOItheory(2003)aswellasotheradoptiontheoriesin

worldwide higher education and school systems to determine the factors that influence

43

technology adoption and integration has shown a common perspective between various

cultures.Thiscommonperspectiveistheneedtostartatthelevelofthepotentialadopters

by addressing their characteristics in the environment in which they will be using the

technology. Studyingteacher’sphilosophiesandpersonal interpretationsofwhetherit is

valuabletousetechnologyleadstoanunderstandingofhowtechnologyisdiffusedeasily

and rapidly and what kind of adaptation takes place and is needed in the educational

contextinwhichthetechnologywillbeutilized.

BackgroundonKuwait’sPublicEducationalSystemandPrimaryLevel

The state of Kuwait is located in the Middle East, bordering the Persian Gulf

between Iraq and Saudi Arabia. Kuwait is a constitutional, hereditary emirate, ruled by

princes (Amirs) who have been drawn from the Al Sabah family since the mid‐18th

century. The capital is Kuwait City, and the state has 178 kilometers (120 miles) of

coastlineontheArabianGulf.Oneofthesmallestcountriesintheworld,Kuwaitoccupies

only 17,818 square kilometers (6,880 square miles). The total population of Kuwait in

2005was2,991,189,outofwhichonly992,217(45%)werenativeKuwaitis(TheNational

Mid‐DecadeReportonEducationforAllintheStateofKuwait,2002–2006).

Islamistheofficialreligion,andtheShari’ah,whichincludestheHolyQuranandthe

teachingsofProphetMuhammad,isthefoundationfortheKuwaitsocietyandgovernment

(Al‐Enezi,2002).MostKuwaitisareSunniMuslims,andabout30%areShi’aMuslims.Non‐

MuslimswholiveinKuwaitarefreetopracticetheirownreligionswithinthecountry’slaw

(Alqahtani, 2006). The official language is Arabic, but English is widely spoken and is

taught inschools.Beforethediscoveryofoil in1936,Kuwaitdependedonseatradeand

44

pearlexports;petroleumbecamethemainandthesoleeconomicproductbeginninginthe

20th century, whichmade Kuwait a classicwelfare countrywith one of the highest per

capitaincomesintheworld.Kuwaitisconsideredthefifth‐largestoilreserveintheworld

afterSaudiArabia,Canada,Iran,andIraq.Kuwaitisalsoatax‐freecountryinwhichhealth,

housing,andpublicservices,suchasbuildingroads,arefree(Alqahtani,2006).

Despite its oil, Kuwait is not considered a developed country, according to the

International Monetary Fund (IMF) World Economic Report in 2010; rather, it is

consideredanemerging,developingcountry.TheIMFclassificationsystemisbasedonper

capita income level, export diversification (oil exporters that have high per capita GDP

wouldnotmaketheadvancedclassificationbecausearound70%ofitsexportsareoil),and

degreeofintegrationintotheglobalfinancialsystem(IMFWorldEconomicOutlook,2010).

Developingcountriesare,ingeneral,countries,thathavenotachievedasignificantdegree

of industrialization relative to their populations,whereas developed countries have self‐

sustaining economic growth in both the service industry and knowledge (intellectual)

sectoroftheeconomyandhavehighmaterialstandardsofliving.TheWorldBank’smain

criterion for classifying economies is Gross National Income (GNI) per capita, and high‐

income countries have (GNI) above $12,196, putting Kuwait and the rest of the GCC as

developinghigh‐incomecountries.CriticismsaboutusingtheWesternmodelofeconomic

development as an indication of certain countries being developedwhile others are not

havebeen raisedbymany. Perkins (2003) emphasized “Eastmond (2000)uses the term

lowtechnologycountriestoidentifycountriesinNorthandWestEurope,theMiddleEast

andNorthAmericathatlackorarelackingeducationalortechnologicalresources”(p.7).

The philosophical framework for the national vision of education in Kuwait is

45

“visualizingthefutureandenvisagingwhatthecitizen'scharactershouldbelike,inorder

tocopewiththisfutureimage,withitsspiritual,mental,cultural,psychological,social,and

technological dimensions, while preserving the national identity” (The National Report:

Development of Education in the State of Kuwait, 2004–2008, p. 23). The Kuwaiti

government worked productively to enhance the educational stages, starting from

kindergartenthroughuniversity,andhavespentmore than12%of itsannual incomeon

education (Ebrahim, 2004). Kuwait has employed the “financial resources that were

produced from the enormous rise in state revenues to carry out ambitious plans to

promotepubliceducation”(Alqahtani,2006,p.15).

There are three formal educational systems in Kuwait: public (government),

qualitative (religious), and private education (The National Report: Development of

Education in the State ofKuwait, 2004–2008). The educational structure is two years of

kindergarten(agesfourtosix),fiveyearsintheprimarystage(agessixto10),fouryearsin

theintermediatestage(ages11to14),andthreeyearsinthesecondarystage(ages15to

17).Subjectareas taught inpublicschoolsarebasedon thenationalcurriculumguideof

Kuwait. Due to Islamic beliefs, public education is segregated, except for kindergarten,

which is coeducational; in addition, faculty and staff members are of the same gender

“except for a fewmale elementary schools that have female faculty and staff due to the

abundanceoffemaleeducatorsinKuwait”(Al‐Enezi,2002,p.15).

Historically,mostschoolsinKuwaitwerebasedonreligiouseducation,inwhichthe

mosques and Quranic schools, called Al‐Katatib, played the largest role in educating

youngsters.ThemaincurriculumwastheHolyQuran,mathematics,reading,andwriting.

Between 1911 and 1921, two formal public schools were established. In 1936 oil was

46

discovered,whichledtocomprehensiverevitalizationintheKuwaitisocietyeconomically,

socially,andeducationally,andaBoardofEducation(Da’eratAlmaarif)wasfoundedand

theeducationsystemwastakenoverandfinancedbythegovernment(Ebrahim,2004;Al

Ahmad, 2000). Da’erat Almaarif had an important role in developing and organizing

education. Initially, the new schoolswere for primary level, but between the 1940s and

1950s,differentgradelevelswereadded.Formaleducationforwomenstartedin1937.

With the increase inschoolsbeingestablished,Da’eratAlmaarifapproachedother

ArabcountriestoprovideteachersforKuwait,whichresultedinaninfluxofteacherswho

weremainlyfromEgypt.Overtime,educationbecameinfluencedbytheEgyptianmodelin

regardstoteachers,curriculum,andtextbooks(AlAhmad,2000).Thisissuewasaconcern

for many Kuwaitis, and after Kuwait’s independence, the work of Da’erat Almaarif was

transferredtotheMinistryofEducation(MOE)ofKuwaitin1962,throughwhichallpublic

educational institutions became centralized and operated by the MOE, including the

operationofprivateschoolstoensurethatqualityeducationisprovided(Al‐Enezi,2002).

In1965,educationwasmadecompulsoryforeveryKuwaitichilduptheageof18;

since then, education has been free to every Kuwaiti from kindergarten until university

level, including vocational andprofessional education. With the expansion of education,

theMOEadoptedfiveeducationalareas(Al‐Jahra,AlAhmadi,AlFarwania,Hawally,andAl

Aseema) in the 1980s. By forming these five educational areas, the MOE appointed

decentralized administrators to work on their behalf and implement their goals by

overseeingthetechnicalandadministrativeaspectsofeachschoolinthedistrictaswellas

supervise,evaluate,and follow‐uponeducationalserviceswithin thedesignatedarea(Al

Ahmad,2000).Recently,anothergovernate,MubarakAlKabeer,wasadded.

47

TheMOE is responsible fordetermining thecurriculumand its implementation. It

provides the schools with annual budgets, which are subsidized by the government of

Kuwait,tofinanceschoolequipment,teachingmaterials,andresources.Thereforesalaries

arerelativelyuniformfromschooltoschool,andtherecruitingofteachersisdonethrough

theministryitself.“TheultimatestaffingdecisionsandfundingiscarriedoutbytheMOE,

which equally provides both human and technological resources without any

differentiation” (Alkhezzi & Alqahtani, 2007). The disadvantage is that decision‐making

regardingbudgetarysupportand theneedsofeachschoolare taken forgrantedwithout

awareness of each school’s conditions. This situation causes lack of consistency in the

provisionofwhateachschoolreallyneeds.

Funds provided by the MOE are divided into capital (more than one year) and

operational (onlyoneyear) funds.The formerdealswith expenditures suchas furniture

and equipment, audiovisual equipment, overhead projectors, and library books and

materials, while the latter deals with aspects such as textbooks, workbooks, and other

student materials (Al‐Enezi, 2002). The MOE provides schools with a budget, which is

distributed between the content area departments and administrative needs. The

departmentsusethebudgetforstationeriessuchasink,photocopypaper,etc.Theschool

administration uses the allocated budget on stationeries, maintenance of devices,

workshops, etc. (N. Aleteki, personal communication, April 6, 2010). The MOE is also

responsible for renovation, remodeling, and major maintenance of the school premises.

Furthermore,theMOEreceivesothersourcesoffundingfromcharitableorganizationsand

private foundations in Kuwait to support and develop educational services (Al‐Enezi,

2002). Similarly, schools generate extra funds through their cafeterias and funding from

48

charitableorganizations(N.Aleteki,personalcommunication,April6,2010).

Theprimarystage inKuwait lasts for fiveyears,whenstudentsareagessixto10.

The curriculum consists of 10 content areas (subject areas), which are Arabic, Islamic

Studies,Mathematics,SocialStudies,Science,Arts,Music,PhysicalEducation,English,and

ComputerStudies.Thecurriculumisunifiedinallprimarystagesthroughouttheschoolsin

Kuwait. TheMOEunifies the content of the textbooks and the student assessments, and

determinestheallocationoflessonsforeachsubjectperweek.Allocatedlessontimeis45

minutes,withatotalof32lessonsperweek(AlAhmad,2000).Theeducationalareasare

responsible for execution, supervision, and evaluation of the curricula. The system of

education and teaching in Kuwait is based on traditional teaching approaches. Ebrahim

(2004) emphasizes that despite the current changes taking place in the use of

contemporary teaching methods, teacher‐centered instruction has solid and empirical

roots in Kuwaiti schools. Students move from one grade to another according to their

performanceinclass,mid‐termtests,andprogressionduringtheschoolyear,asthereare

nofinalexamsasthereareinmiddleandsecondarylevels(AlAhmad,2000).Gradesfour

andfive,ontheotherhand, takefinalexamstomovefromone level toanother inpublic

schools(N.Aleteki,personalcommunication,April6,2010).

Schoolpersonnelconsistofaschooladministrator(principal),oneortwoassistant

principals,andonedepartmentheadforeachsubjectarea,teachers,technicians,andoffice

personnel. The school administrator is responsible for the administrative and technical

performance of the school, financial issues, connectingwith the district, and the overall

school management. The assistant principal monitors office personnel tasks, oversees

teachers’attendanceandabsenteeism,organizestimeallocationsforteachers’classhours,

49

arranges teachers’ shift hours, supervises school activities, andacts as a liaisonbetween

theteachersanddepartmentheadswiththeprincipal(AlAhmad,2000).Thedepartment

head supervises and provides guidance to the teachers in her department, controls the

department budget, and acts as a liaison between the school administration and the

teachers.

The department head, principal, and superintendent evaluate teachers’

performance,inwhichtheprincipal’sassessmentcarriesthemostweightof50%,whilethe

department head and the superintendent carry 25% each. Superintendents and

departmentheadsevaluate teachersbasedon their teaching techniques, interactionwith

students, teaching toolsused,etc.Theschooladministrationevaluates teachersbasedon

their attendance, cooperation with colleagues, and school administration (N. Aleteki,

personal communication, April 6, 2010). The principal and superintendent also assess

departmentheads.Teachersareassessedonceatthebeginningandonceattheendofthe

academic year. Reports are designed by the MOE and contain elements of assessment,

whicharegraded frommost to least (AlAhmad,2000).Theevaluation formsconsistsof

criteria ranging from following lesson plans as portrayed by the MOE, classroom

management, ability to teach the topic, relationship with students, accepting the

superintendent’s advice, use of tools and different teaching methods, evaluation of

students, allowing participation of students, preparation of lesson, and completion and

stampingoflessonexercises(B.Alayoub,personalcommunication,March17,2010).

Teachers are promoted to department head after five years of teaching and go

through awritten exam, oral interviews, and a short‐term training program. Nominated

candidatesfordepartmentheadpositionsaredistributedtootherschoolsorcanchooseto

50

remaininthesameschoolandworkasteachers.Furthermore,afterfiveyearsofservice,

departmentheadscanbepromotedtoworkassuperintendentsorassistantprincipals(M.

Aladwani,personalcommunication,March31,2010).Assistantprincipalsgetpromotedto

principals and superintendents get promoted to head superintendents. All these

promotionsdependonwhetherexcellentevaluationsandgoodconductareachieved(A.A.

Alsaleh,personalcommunication,February1,2011).

Teachers in the primary stage face several problems; for the needs of this study,

onlyanumberof issueswillbetackledthatareinalignmentwiththisresearch.Kuwait’s

constitutionmandatessecurejobsforallKuwaiticitizens,whichleadtoanoverabundance

ofteachersintheschoolsystems(AlAhmad,2000).Althoughhavingasurplusofteachers

is good in regards to teacher/student ratio, this issue has a drawback, which is the

inconsistency on the allocation of lessons. Department heads are given the authority to

distributelessonsastheyseefit,and,thus,havinganabundanceofteacherscausessome

departmentheadstogiveexperiencedteachersmoreclassestoteachthanlessexperienced

onesduetotheirconcernaboutstudentsachievements.Inothercases,someteachersget

tocarryoutschoolactivitieswhileotherstakeoverclassesforabsentteachers(AlAhmad,

2000).

Kuwaititeachersalsodonothavesufficienttimeinusingnewteachingmethodsfor

several reasons. First, the continuous change of the curriculum by the MOE enforces

teacherstoexertmoreeffortinimplementingit(AlAhmad,2000).Inaddition,itdoesnot

give the teachers ample time to exchange ideas with others or prepare the materials

needed(N.Aleteki,personalcommunication,April6,2010)nortoimplementnewteaching

ideas (Al Ahmad, 2000). Teachers also receive teaching guidance from various

51

superintendents,andthiscausesconfusiononthebestteachingmethodstobeemployed,

which also affects teachers’ assessments (Al Ahmad, 2000). Recently, the MOE changed

their policies and instead one superintendent is assigned to each content area and is

responsible for theschoolsundereachof the fiveeducationalareas (A.Alsaleh,personal

communication,February1,2011).

Al Ahmad (2000) found that the strict school policies regarding absenteeism

including sick leave or leave of absence affected teachers’ evaluation. Primary school

teachers also have limited participation in the decision‐making process concerning their

jobs,leadingtoasenseofdemotivation(AlAhmad,2000).Otherproblemsincludedealing

withnon‐cooperativeparentswhoarenotwillingtocooperatewiththeteachers inclass

and difficult student relationships (Al‐Lemeh, 2004). The lack of educational tools, the

curriculum,technicalsupervision,andallocatedlessontimeandclassschedulesarealsoa

problem for teachers. In his study, Al‐Lemeh (2004) found that Kuwaiti female teachers

thoughtclasstimewasmoreofaproblemthanthecurriculum,sinceithinderstheiruseof

various educational tools and teaching approaches in conveying the information and

instead promotes the traditional teaching approach. During the end of each semester,

allocatedclasstimeisshortenedto40minutesinsteadof45minutes,allowingforanextra

lesson to be created. This lesson enables students to receive assistance in specific

curricularareas.Thedisadvantageisthatconcentrationismadeondoingactivitiesrelated

totheexamsand, thus, teachersareunabletouseanyformof technology(L.Alghoneim,

personalcommunication,April4,2011).

Despitetheprovisionofsometechnologiesinthepublicschools,thereisstilllackof

technological resources in the primary schools. Teachers have constant access to audio‐

52

recorders and overhead projectors due to their availability in classrooms as they are

providedbytheMOE.Ontheotherhand,thereareaninsufficientnumberofotherdevices

such as the Data Show, which is a terminology teachers use to refer to a document

projector. Internet access is provided for the administration but not to the teachers.

Teachers use their personal USB Internetmodem for access. The lack of equipment and

educational resources forces teachers to pay often from their own personal funds (A.

Alasaker,personalcommunication,April4,2011).Thismeansthatthosewhocannotafford

itlackthesamelevelofexpertiseandexposuretotechnologyandthosewhocanaffordit

feeltheburdenofself‐sustainingeducationalmaterials,whichissupposedtobegrantedby

theschooladministrationandtheMOE.

Summary

The MOE in Kuwait is a centralized institution, which oversees all educational

matters for K–12 school systems. The organizational structure of the MOE consists of

different work sectors, each headed by assistant undersecretaries. Decisions regarding

school budgets, equipment purchase, personnel employment, the curriculum, training

programs, and school facilities are under the umbrella of the public education sector.

Despitethechallenges,thecitizensofKuwaitareprovidedwithlearningopportunitiesthat

fosterenhancededucationalenvironments.

53

CHAPTERTHREE:METHODOLOGY

This chapter will present a description of the research design employed, an

illustration of the participating schools and study population, and the data collection

procedures and data analysis strategy that was followed. The chapter also includes a

descriptionofhowthevalidationofresultsandfindingswasattained.

PurposeStatementandResearchQuestions

Thismultiple‐casestudywillusetheperceptionsoffemaleKuwaititeacherstoward

technologythatmayhavecontributedtoorlimitedtheiradoptionofitinordertoshowthe

applicabilityofRogers’DOItheorywithintwoKuwaitiprimarypublicschoolcontexts.The

studyseekstoanswerthefollowingspecificquestionsandsubquestions:

1. TowhatextenthavetheKuwaititeachersadoptedandintegratedtechnology?

a. Howdo teachers’ characteristics (priorknowledgeandexperience,motivation,

andanxiety)affectthewaytheyperceivetechnologyadoptionanduse?

b. What are the support environments that facilitate or impede their use of

technology?

2. InwhatwaydotheattributesoftechnologyaffecttheperceptionsofKuwaititeachers’

towardstechnologyadoptionanduse?

a. Howistechnologyusefulandbeneficialtoteachersintheirprofession?(relative

advantage)

b. Is the technology used consistent with the teachers’ pedagogical beliefs and

needs?(compatibility)

54

c. What are the challenges that teachers face when working with technology?

(complexity)

d. Whatopportunitiesdoteachershavetoexperimentwiththetechnologybefore

becomingpotentialadopters?(trialability)

e. Whatdoteachersexperiencewhenusingtechnology?(observability)

iii. Whattangibleresultsdoteacherswitness?

iv. Howdovisibilityandaccessibilitycontributetouse?

ResearchDesign

Thisresearchstudyutilizedaqualitativemethodologyforbothdatacollectionand

dataanalysis.Inqualitativeapproachstudies,theresearchergainsknowledgebasedonthe

meaningofindividualexperiencesanddevelopspatternsbasedonthesocialandhistorical

constructofthegroup(Creswell,2003).Conductingthestudyinanaturalsettingallowed

metoobtainadetailedandholisticpictureoftheschoolenvironment,teachers’roles,their

perceptionsandviewpointsontheuseoftechnology,aswellastheirinteractionswithit.

Thus, I was able to obtain a comprehensive understanding of the aspects involved in

teachers’ decision‐making about whether to adopt or minimally adopt the use of

technology.Accordingly,IwasabletoshowwhetherRogers’(2003)theoryisapplicablein

thesetwoschoolsettings.

Casestudiesareaqualitativeapproachinwhichthe“researcherexploresindeptha

program, an event, an activity, a process or one or more individuals. The case(s) are

boundedbytimeandactivity,andresearcherscollectdetailedinformationusingavariety

of data collection procedures” (Creswell, 2003, p. 15). Qualitative case studies allow the

55

“researchertohaveaninsight,[and]discoverandinterpretsituationsratherthan[testa]

hypothesis” (Merriam, 2009, p. 42). The three characteristics of a case study include

particularistic,descriptive,andheuristic,whichleadtoabetterunderstandingoftheissue

under study (Perkins, 2003). Additionally, the nature of case studies is that they’re

bounded,whichmeans that there is a limit towhoandwhat gets investigated. Mertens

(2005)emphasizesthatthemorethe“objectofstudyisaspecific,unique,boundedsystem,

the greater rationale for calling it a case study” (p. 237). Furthermore, case studies are

particularlyappealingineducationalfieldsandusefulforstudyingschoolandeducational

innovations(Merriam2009;Yin,2009),whichisalsoapplicabletothisresearchstudy.

For this study the boundarieswere quite clearly defined by a number of factors:

time,individuals,andthecontextwithinwhichtheeventsofthestudytookplace,asitwas

carriedoutspecificallyintwoKuwaitiprimarypublicschools(A.E.andI.S.), focusingon

teachers,fromMarch5toApril10.Therefore,allcriteriaforcarryingoutacasestudywere

represented.Eachschoolwasregardedasanindividualcase.Withineachindividualcase,

therewereembeddedcases(eachoftheeightteachers),makingtheresearchdesignatwo‐

caseembeddedstudy. The rationalebehindusingmultiple casedesigns is twofold: first,

thepossibilityofreplication,andsecond,arrivingatcommonconclusionsfrombothcases,

which will expand the external generalizability of the findings (Yin, 2003, 2009). In

addition, analyzing the findings within each setting and across settings enables the

understandingof thesimilaritiesanddifferencesbetweencases(Baxter& Jack,2008). In

fact, variations across the casesmake interpretationsmore compelling (Merriam, 2009)

andthefindingsmorerobust.

56

PilotStudy

Priortocarryingoutthemainstudy, ItravelledtoKuwaitinDecember2008fora

weektocarryoutapilotstudywithintwopublicschools(A.M.andA.E.).Priorpermission

wasobtained fromtheKuwaitiMinistryofEducation(MOE)with thehelpofaprofessor

from the University of Kuwait. I conducted six interviews with teachers from different

disciplines,withdifferingyearsofteachingexperience,andofdifferingages.Ashortsurvey

wasalsodistributedto30teacherstoinquireaboutthetypesoftechnologiestheyuse.The

pilotstudygeneratedinformationthatgavemeinsightintothevariousissuesaffectingthe

use of technologies in these sectors. From the data collected, I was able to identify the

targetpopulation for this studyaswell asdecideon theappropriate researchdesign. It

should be noted that teachers from theA. E. school participated in the current research

study,whileteachersfromtheA.M.schooldeclinedtoparticipate,eitherduetothetypeof

datacollectionproceduresorthelackoftimeintheschoolschedule.Thesecondgroupof

teacherswho agreed to participate in this study came from I. S., another primarypublic

schoolinmysecondvisittoKuwait.

TheStudyPopulation

This research study focused on female teachers because Kuwait has cultural

constraints regarding interaction between genders, as illustrated by the segregation in

publicschoolsanduniversities.Foracomfortleveltobereachedbetweentheresearcher

andtheparticipants,itwaspertinenttofocusonfemalesandnotmales.Thiscomfortlevel

is important because there is a need for “increased cultural sensitivity, collaboration,

57

respect and the tailoring of the research procedures to the population being studied”

(Mertens,2005,p.38)inordertoobtaincomprehensiveanddetailedinformation.

Purposeful sampling was used in this study; Patton (2002) emphasizes that this

technique involves choosing information‐rich cases, fromwhich one can learn issues of

central importance to the study (Merriam, 2009). One of the strategies of purposefully

selectingthesampleismaximumvariationsampling.Thebenefitofthistypeofsamplingis

thatit“documentsuniquenessofeachcaseandshowsthesignificanceofsharedpatterns

that emerged from their heterogeneity, thus capturing the core experiences and central,

shared aspects or impacts of a program” (Patton, 1990, p. 172). For multiple‐case or

comparativestudies,maximumvariationsamplingcanbeusedintheselectionofcases“to

ensurethatthebestcasesarechosenforthestudy”(Merriam,2009,p.81).Theliterature

showsthatsitesor individualscanbechosenformaximizingvariationwithinthesample

(Merriam,2009;Mertens,2005),allowingforthetransferabilityofthefindings,whichwill

bediscussedlateron.

The key variations for constructing the sample population in this studywere the

differences in sites and the characteristics of the participants. Regarding the sites, two

primary public schools were sought to take part in the study. In regards to teachers’

characteristics, although all teachers are Kuwaiti, the variation sample initially included

teachersbetween25to40yearsofage,whohadfivetotenyearsofteachingexperience,

andwhotaughtdifferentsubjectareasandgradelevels.Teacherswhowerewillingtobe

interviewed and audio recorded (as will be seen in the subsequent paragraph) did not

matchtheintendedvariationsampling,sothefinalsampleincludedteachersaged25to32,

with five to seven years of teaching experiencewhodid not represent all of the content

58

areas.Furthermore, teacherswhoagreed toparticipate came fromonly twoschools.For

confidentially reasons, the realnamesof theparticipantsandschoolsareconcealedwith

pseudonyms.

ProcedureforEstablishingtheSample

IncooperationwithKuwaitiemployeeMs.Almajed fromtheUniversityofKuwait,

the administrator of each school was contacted in advance to request administrative

recordsthatshowedthenamesoftheKuwaititeacherswhotaughttheappropriatecentral

subjectareas(excludingsportseducation,music,andart).Oncetherecordswereobtained,

Iconstructedaninvitationletteraddressingwhattheresearchisabout(AppendixA)anda

small questionnaire. I provided both of these to Ms. Almajed to be distributed to the

Kuwaiti teachers. The questionnaire inquired about information related to the above‐

mentioned criteria (age, experience, subject area taught, grade level, and types of

technologies used) and whether they would be willing to be interviewed and observed

(AppendixB). Although therewere several teacherswhomet the criteria, some refused

due to social traditions against being interviewed using audio, while others who had

initiallyagreedtoparticipatelaterfoundthatpersonalcircumstancesarosewhichcaused

themtodropoutofthestudy.

Intheend,atotalofeightteachers(fourfromeachschool)participatedinthestudy

andwerewilling tobe interviewed(audiorecorded)andobserved.FromtheA.S. school,

the interviews were carried out with the English, Islamic, science, and social studies

teachers. From the I. S. School, two teacherswere from science and twowere from the

social studiesdepartment. It isworthwhile tomention that twoof theparticipantswere

59

willingtobeobservedbutnotinterviewed.Meetingtheteachersinpersonanddescribing

to themwhatwould takeplace eased their concerns, and throughout the fieldwork they

wereresponsivetomyinquiries,showingthatpersonalcommunicationandcontact isan

important factor in research studies involving other cultures. The validity of the sample

was confirmed through school records and information gathered from the department

head.Priortotheinterviews,theresearchercontactedtheinterestedteacherstoschedule

timesforinterviewsandobservation.

DescriptionsoftheSchoolsandParticipants

BoththeA.E.andI.S.schoolsarepublicprimaryschoolforgirlslocatedinKuwait

and areunder the educational areadistrict ofAl‐Aseema.Both schools consist of grades

one to five. Each grade level has three to five classes. A. E. and I. S. are under the

supervisionoftheMOEandfollowthenationalcurriculumofKuwait,whichconsistsof10

contentareas.Eachofthecontentareashastheirowndepartmentheads.Operatinghours

oftheschoolarefrom7:30a.m.to1:20p.m.,SundaythroughThursday.Thefollowingisa

descriptionofeachoftheschools.

DescriptionoftheA.E.School

TheA.E.Schoolwasfirstfoundedin1975asahighschool;itlaterbecameamiddle

school,andin2004–2005itbecametheA.E.primaryschool.Table1showsthenumbersof

studentsenrolledduringmyvisit.RecentlyrenovatedbytheMOE,theschoolhasupdated

furniture,twofullyequippedcomputerlabs,andalanguagelab.Thelanguagelabhasnot

beenutilizedbyanyoftheteachers,astheyhavenotyetreceivedtrainingonhowtouseit.

60

Theschoolconsistsoftheadministrationdepartment,whichiscomprisedofoneprincipal,

two assistant managers, and six administrative personnel. There are also two social

servicespersonnel,onepsychiatricworker,twolibrarypersonnel,onetechnician,andone

facilityandstoragekeeper.

Table1

NumberofstudentsenrolledintheA.E.School,March2010

GradeLevel Classes Students Total1 17 2 15

Grade1

3 15 471 18 2 19

Grade2

3 20 571 23 2 22

Grade3

3 22 671 17 2 16 3 17

Grade4

4 19 691 18 2 18 3 18 4 17

Grade5

5 16 87TotalNumberofStudentsintheSchool 327

DepartmentdescriptionsattheA.E.School

The following is a description of the subject area departments from which the

participantswerechosen.

61

TheSocialStudiesdepartmenthasonedepartmentheadandsixteachers.Theyhave

onecomputerintheoffice,butfiveoftheteachershavepersonallaptops.Teachersshare

the office computer, which is used to enter grades. They have one printer, which the

departmentheadprovidedforherteachers.Thereisalsoaphotocopymachine,whichwas

donatedtothem.Sometimestheteacherspurchasetheinkcartridges,andsometimesthe

administration provides them. The department head holds weekly meetings with the

teachers,inwhichtheydiscussvariousissues,includingtopicsrelatedtotechnology.

Similar to the Social StudiesDepartment, the Islamic StudiesDepartment has one

departmentheadandsixteachers.Theyhaveonecomputer,butitislocatedintheIslamic

Clubbecausethere isnospacefor it inthedepartmentoffice.Threeof theteachershave

personal laptops. The department’s computer is used to enter grades, type tests, create

worksheets,etc.Theyhaveoneprinter intheofficethat isnon‐functionalandonethat is

attachedtothecomputerintheclub.LiketheSocialStudiesDepartment,theyhaveweekly

meetings inwhich theydiscussa lessonandwhat teachingmethodscouldbeused.They

alsoinformeachotherofothertechnologiestheyhavebeenexposedtowhenvisitingother

schoolworkshopsandactivities.

TheScienceDepartmentconsistsofonedepartmentheadandeightteachers.They

have twocomputers, andall eightof the teachershave theirownpersonal laptops.They

alsohavethreedepartmentprinters,twoofwhichwereprovidedbytheschool,whilethe

teachers purchased the third as a group. The computers are used for submitting grades,

preparation,worksheets,etc.SomeoftheteachersinthisdepartmenthaveanInternetUSB

modemtoconnect to the Internetwhile theyareat school.Thedepartmenthasmultiple

weeklymeetings;one is todiscusscurriculum,whileothersaretodiscussadministrative

62

issues.Duringthesemeetings,theydiscusshowtoobtainaccessfromtheInternetandhow

to present their work using technologies. Examples include downloading from

youtube.comandusingtheDataShow(whichisthetermusedforthedocumentprojector).

The English Department is made up of one department head and nine teachers.

Theyhaveone computerandeightpersonal laptops.The laptopsareused tomake flash

cards and exams, while the teachers use the computer for submitting grades, typing

materials like worksheets and tests, and printing them out. TheMOE has provided one

printer. Aswith the other departments,weeklymeetings are held to discuss topics that

include new technologies that come to the market. Examples include the iphone and

Windows7.

Descriptionoftheparticipants

The following isadescriptionof the fourparticipantsat theA.E.School, inwhich

the subject area and grade level, years of teaching experience, age, education, and

experiencewithtechnologywillbediscussed.

Amiraisasocialstudiesteacherforgradefive.Shehasbeenteachingforfiveyears,

ofwhichthreewerespentinthisschool.Sheis29yearsoldandhasabachelor’sdegreein

sociology.SheattendedtheInternationalComputerDrivingLicense(ICDL), forwhichshe

tookfourofthesevenexamsnecessaryforcompletion,butshedidnotcompletetheother

threeexams.Sheindicatedthatshelovestechnology,soshedoesn’tfeelitiscomplicated.

InheropinionthemostdifficultapplicationisMoviemaker,sinceshedidnotreceiveany

training on how to use it,while the Internet is the least difficult application to use. She

mostly uses the laptop and the Data Show, while the audio‐recorder is the least used

63

technology.Herexperiencewith technology is at theuniversitywhere she tooka course

called “Computers inEducation”aspartofherdegreeprogram.She then tooka training

course fromaschoolcalledtheInstitute for IntegratedStudies,whereshe learnedWord,

PowerPoint, and Excel. Her latest training was for the ICDL, during which she studied

Word,PowerPoint,Excel,andtheInternet.

Abeer is a science teacher for grades one and five. She has five years of teaching

experiencewith sevenmonths teaching at this school. She is 30 years old and shehas a

bachelor’sdegreeineducation,majoringinbiologyandchemistry.Shealsohasamaster’s

degree in educational administration. She completed all seven courses required by the

ICDLbutdidnottaketheexamforcertification.Sheusesmostlytheoverheadprojectorfor

teaching,aswellasPowerPoint.Leastusedaretheaudio‐recorderandExcel,astheydon’t

relatetoherwork.ThemostdifficultmachineforheristheDataShow,whiletheoverhead

projector is the least difficult. Her education in technology was taking a course in

educational technologyaspartofher courseworkat theCollegeofTeacherEducation in

Kuwait.During this course, she learnedMicrosoftOfficeapplications (Word,PowerPoint,

andExcel).

LeilaisanIslamicteacherforgradestwoandfive,andshehasbeenteachingforsix

years,ofwhichoneyearwasatA.E.Sheis28yearsoldandhasadegreeinIslamicstudies.

LeilatooktheICDLbutdidnotcomplete it;however,shedidtaketheComputerLiteracy

Program (CLP) offered by the MOE at her school. She doesn’t use any complicated

technology in her teaching. In her opinion, complicated technology is any device or

application that she feels is difficult to use. The easiest technology for her to use is the

audio‐recorder. In Islamic Studies, the audio‐recorder and the TV are the most used

64

technology,andtheoverheadprojectoristheleastused.Herexperiencewithtechnologyis

throughtheICDL(WordandInternet),theCLP(PowerPoint),andattheUniversity(Word).

NodahisanEnglishteacherforgradesoneandthree.Shehasfiveyearsofteaching

experience inwhichoneyearwas inthisschool.She is28yearsoldandhasabachelor’s

degreeinEnglish.ShedidnottaketheICDL,butshedidtaketheCLPofferedatherschool,

inwhichshelearnedhowtousePowerPointandWord.Forher,theDataShowisthemost

difficult technology, while real objects, flash cards, and the audio‐recorder are the least

difficult. Shemostlyusesaudiotapesandtheaudio‐recorderwithherstudents,whilethe

DataShowisusedleast.ShetookseveraltrainingprogramsofferedbythePublicAuthority

for Education and Practice, inwhich she learned how to use the computer applications,

Internet,PowerPoint,andWord.

DescriptionoftheI.S.School

The I. S. School was founded in 1961. Table 2 shows the number of students

enrolledduringmyvisit.TheI.S.Schoolwastransferredtothebuildinginwhichitisnow

located in2006.Theschool is in theprocessof renovation,butmostclassroomsarestill

inadequatelyfurnished.Inaddition,someoftheequipmentisoutofdateandisstored.But

theschoolhas twocomputer labsanda language lab.Similar toA.E., the language lab is

stillnotusedbytheteachers.Theschoolconsistsoftheadministrationdepartment,which

iscomprisedofoneprincipal, twoassistantmanagers,and fiveadministrativepersonnel.

Alsoonstaffaretwosocialservicespersonnel,onepsychiatricworker,onelibrarian,two

technicians, one facility and storage keeper, one implementing serviceperson, and three

sciencepreparatorypersons.

65

Table2

NumberofstudentsenrolledintheI.S.School,March2010

GradeLevel Classes Students TotalGrade1 1 19

2 20 3 21 4 19 79

Grade2 1 23 2 22 3 21 4 22 88

Grade3 1 19 2 18 3 19 4 19 5 19 94

Grade4 1 23 2 20 3 21 4 21 85

Grade5 1 17 2 17 3 18 4 20 72TotalNumberofStudentsintheSchool 418

DepartmentdescriptionsattheI.S.School

The following is a description of the subject area departments from which the

participantswerechosen.

The Social Studies Department has one department head and six teachers. They

havetwocomputersintheoffice,whicharesharedbetweentheteachersforgradeentry,

buteachteacherandthedepartmentheadhasapersonallaptop.Theirlaptopsareusedfor

66

writingtestsandteacherpreparationfortheclassroom.SomeoftheteachershaveUSBfor

Internet connection. They also have one printer, one laminationmachine, and one Data

Show,whichtheprincipalprovidedtothemasarewardtothesocialsciencedepartment

for hard work. They have weekly meetings and a monthly workshop given by the

departmenthead,inwhichshefacilitatesdiscussionwiththeteachersaboutteachingtools

andnewteachingmethods,andprovidesadministrativeguidance.

TheScienceDepartmentconsistsofonedepartmentheadandeightteachers.They

havetwocomputers;oneisusedforgradeentryandtheotherisusedfortestconstruction,

developing worksheets, and printing Word documents. One of these computers was

donated to thedepartment fromanoutsidesource.Someof the teachershave theirown

personal laptopandsomehavean InternetUSBmodem to connect to the Internet.They

alsohaveoneDataShowthatwasgiventothembyanoutsidesource.Thedepartmenthas

weeklymeetings,inwhichteachersexchangeinformationaboutnewapplications,suchas

Flash and Photoshop, that they have learned, as well as discuss what technologies are

neededforspecificlessons.

Descriptionoftheparticipants

ThefollowingisadescriptionofthefourparticipantsattheI.S.School,inwhichthe

subjectareaandgradelevel,yearsofteachingexperience,age,education,andexperience

withtechnologywillbediscussed.

Asmaaisascienceteacherforgradesoneandthree;sheis29yearsoldandhasa

bachelor’s degree in basic education with a specialization in science and applied

mathematics.Shehasbeenteachingforsevenyears,ofwhichfiveyearswereatthisschool.

67

She completed her ICDL and received her certificate. She mostly uses PowerPoint for

presentations, and she uses TV the least. For her, themost difficult application is using

featureswithinPowerPoint,suchasmakingindexes,whiletheleastdifficultistheInternet.

HerexperiencewithtechnologyisthroughtheICDLandoneweekduringwhichshetaught

herselftheuseofMoviemakerwhileshedevelopedaneducationalmoviefortheschool.

Lojain isascienceteacher forgradesthreeandfive;she is32yearsoldandhasa

bachelor’sdegreeineducationwithamajorinappliedsciences.Shehasbeenteachingfor

sevenyearsandhasbeenteachingatthisschoolforfouryears.ShecompletedtheICDLand

receivedthecertification.ShetaughtherselfFlashandMoviemaker initially,butthenshe

tookaMoviemakertrainingprogramforaweekattheTeachersAssociationinKuwait.For

her,Flash is themostdifficultbecauseshedidn’t takeprofessional trainingabout it.The

easiest technology for her is PowerPoint. Shemostly uses the Data Show for her work,

whiletheaudio‐recorderistheleastused.

Maiisasocialstudiesteacherforthefourthandfifthgrades;sheis29yearsoldand

hasadegreeinhistory.Shehasbeenteachingforfiveyears,allofwhichhavebeenatthis

school. She completed her ICDL training and received her certificate. Themost difficult

technology forher is theDataShow,andtheoverheadprojector is the leastdifficult.She

mostlyusestheInternetinherwork,whilevideotapesaretheleastused.Herexperience

withtechnology,otherthantheICDL,occurredduringheruniversitystudiesinwhichshe

attendedacomputertrainingprogramthattaughtWord,PowerPoint,Access,andExcel.

Mariam isa social studies teacher for secondand fifthgrades; she is30yearsold

andhasadegreeingeography.Shehasbeenteachingforsixyears,allofwhichhavebeen

inthisschool.ShedidnottaketheICDL,asshebelievessheknowsenoughcomputerskills

68

andhasnothadtimeto take it.Mariamhasrecentlybeenpromotedtodepartmenthead

buthasnot takenover thepost.Shemostlyuses theDataShow,andsheuses theaudio‐

recorder least. The most difficult technology for Mariam is PowerPoint in regards to

extracting pictures and organizing them on the slides. The least difficult are the audio‐

recorder and overhead projector. Her experience with technology is self‐taught on the

commonapplications(Word,PowerPoint,Excel,andInternet),fromtheComputerLiteracy

program (Word and PowerPoint), at school, and through a one‐hour session offered by

anotherschoolonhowtousetheInteractiveWhiteboard.

SummaryoftheStudyPopulation

Atotalofeightteachersparticipatedinthisstudy.FourwerefromtheA.E.School

fromtheEnglish, IslamicStudies, Science,andSocialStudiesDepartment.Theother four

teacherswerefromtheI.S.School,twofromtheScienceandtwofromtheSocialstudies

Department.Table3describestheparticipantsofthestudy:

Table3

Descriptionofstudyparticipants

Teacher’sName Age School Department TeachingYearsAmira 29 A.E. Science 5Abeer 30 A.E. SocialStudies 5Leila 28 A.E. IslamicStudies 6Nodah 28 A.E. English 5Lojain 32 I.S. Science 7Asmaa 29 I.S. Science 7Mai 29 I.S. SocialStudies 5

Mariam 30 I.S. SocialStudies 6

69

DataCollection

This study was first approved by the Virginia Tech’s Institutional Review Board

(IRB)toensurethattheresearchprotocols involvinghumansubjectsareethicalandthat

the rights of participants are protected (Appendix C). Furthermore, permissionwas also

obtainedfromtheMOEinKuwait,whichwastranslatedintoEnglishforthepurposeofthis

study (Appendix D). Written consent from each participant was obtained before data

collection.ItshouldbenotedthattheconsentformprovidedbytheIRBwasinEnglish,so

it was translated by a third party into Arabic so that the participants understood the

contents of the consent form before signing. Thiswas important because “cross‐cultrual

ethicalpriniciplesindicatesthattheresearchershouldcommunicatetheintendedresearch

agenda,designandactivitieswithmembersofthehostcommunity”(Mertens,2005,p.38).

For each school, data was collected via interviews, participation observation, physical

artifacts,andrecords.

Interviews allow researchers to gain insight into educational and social issues by

understandingtheexperienceoftheindividualswhoselivesreflectthoseissues(Seidman,

2006). Both standardized open‐ended and dialogic interviews were utilized with the

teachers. Through standardized open‐ended interviews, the questions for all eight

participantsarefixed,buttheywereallowedtorespondfreely(Rossman&Rallis,2003).

The interview questions I formulated ascertained information about the teachers’

perceptions towards the attributes of technology, as well as teachers’ characteristics, in

order to be aware of how these aspects contribute to the adoption or rejection of

technology.Theinterviewquestionsweredividedintotencategories.Fiveofthecategories

focused on asking questions related to Rogers’ perceived attributes (relative advantage,

70

compatibility,complexity,observability,andtrialability).Theotherfivecategoriesinquired

about the individual factors (anxiety due to change, teachers’ prior knowledge and

experience,administrativesupport,andtypesoftechnologyusedbytheteachers),aswell

asinvolvementindecision‐making(AppendixE).Teacherswerealsoprovidedwithatable

thatinquiredaboutwheretheylearnedtousetechnology,whattechnologiestheylearned,

andwhether they completed the training/courses, etc. (AppendixF). The teacherswere

askedtosubmittheformbeforetheendofthestudy.

Dialogicinterviewswerealsousedwhenneeded,whichareconversationsthatare

carried out “between the researcher and participants, to develop a more complex

understanding of the topic” (Rossman& Rallis, 2003, p. 182). This type of conversation

encouragedtheparticipantstoreachtoacomfortlevelandbemoreateasewithanswering

and discussing culturally sensitive issues with me. I noted the questions asked and the

pointsdiscussedwiththeparticipants,departmentheads,andschoolprincipals.

Qualitative observation occurs when the researcher is interested in observing

individualbehaviorsinanaturalisticsetting(Mertens,2005).Participantobservation“isa

special mode of observation where the researcher assumes a variety of roles and may

participate in the events being studied” (Yin, 2009, p. 111). Moderate participant

observation is when the researcher participates in some but not all of the activities

(Mertens,2005).Forthisstudy,Ifollowedthemoderateparticipantobservationapproach

with the eight participants, which provided me with an opportunity to inquire about

certain aspects and get feedback from the teachers. Observation included examining the

settingsinwhichthetechnologyisused(classroom,lab,office,etc.),howteachersuseand

interactwiththetechnology,andforwhatpurposesistechnologyused.Thisprovidedan

71

understanding of the existing technologies and the patterns of use by the teachers. I

attendedtwoclasssessions(40–45minutes)foreachteacher,foratotalof70–90minutes

ofobservationforeachteacherandatotalof16sessionsforalleightteachers.Inaddition,I

attendedtwoworkshopsandadepartmentmeeting(invitation‐based)inwhichtechnology

was used. Furthermore, I observed the layout and the technologies present in the

departmentofficeinwhichtheparticipantsworked(AppendixG).Basedonitsfocus,this

studyconcentrateson the16 sessions,but referencewill alsobemade toother sessions

sincetheyinvolvedtheuseoftechnology.

Physicalartifacts (Yin,2009)arealsoanessentialdata collectionprocedure, from

which “investigators are able to develop a more precise understanding of classroom

applications”(p.113).Thisstudyutilizedphotos,teachingmaterials,andarchivalrecords

inadditiontointerviewsandobservation.Verbalpermissionwasgrantedfrombothschool

administrations to takepicturesof theclassroomsettings, including labsandplayground

areas,withoutthepresenceoftheteachers.Fromthisinvestigation,Iwasabletodevelopa

preciseunderstandingofhow the teachersuse technologywith their studentsaswell as

observe the constraints and/or facilitative aspects that teachers face when using

technology. In addition, individual teachersprovidedmewithCDs, sampleof curriculum

textbooks, and worksheets to have a more comprehensive picture of the type of

technologies used in student’s learning and in teaching at that school, and grade level.

Archivalrecords(Yin,2009)werealsoprovidedbytheschooladministrationafterbeing

requestedbytheresearcher.Theserecordsincludedinformationonschoolestablishment,

schoolstructure,schoolpopulation,andinventory.

72

DataStrategyandAnalysis

Thefollowingsectionwilldiscusstheanalyticalstrategiesandtechniquesthatwere

used for each of the data collection methods utilized in this research study. The main

strategyusedwasrelianceon theoreticalpropositions (Yin,2009).Yin (2003)notes that

one important practice during the analysis phase of any case study is to return to the

propositions. This ensures that the analysis is focused to “avoid analyzing data that is

outsidethescopeoftheresearchquestions”(Baxter&Jack,2008,p.555).Thetheoretical

proposition was Rogers’ perceived attributes and Farquhar and Surry’s (1994) user

characteristicsandsupportenvironment.Usingthesetheoreticalpropositions,Iwasableto

decideonhowtobestorganizethedatacollectedandtofocusonthosedatageneratingthe

mostrelevantandusefulinformationtothestudy.

StrategyforAnalyzingandOrganizingDataforInterviews

Creswell emphasize “case study and ethnographic research involve a detailed

descriptionofthesettingorindividualsfollowedbyananalysisofthedataforthemesor

issues”(p.191).Researchersneedtocollectinformationusingtheparticipant’sdominant

language(Mertens,2005).SinceArabic is thenative languageofboth theresearcherand

theparticipants, theinterviewswerecarriedout inArabicexceptfortheEnglishteacher,

who decided to answer the questions in English. Conducting the interviews in Arabic

allowed the participants to be comfortable and elaboratewith ease. It was evident the

Englishteacherhaddifficultyinelaboratingasmuchasshecouldhaveifshehadspokenin

Arabic.Comingfromadifferentculturalbackground,Ihadtobecautiousnottocauseany

73

discomfortbyinsistingthattheinterviewstakeplaceinArabic.Doingsocouldhavecould

havehamperedtheinterviewprocess.

The interviews were transcribed into Arabic and then translated into English.

During the translation, I experienced two main issues: the first was the issue of the

translation itself and the second was the essence of the interview generated by the

translation.Theprocessoftranslationtosomeextentalteredtheoriginalmeaningsofthe

statementsandalsodisempoweredthevoicesoftheparticipants(AlKandari,2004),which

resulted inwhatDelgado‐Gaitan (1994) calls “the problematic of representationdue the

language translation” (p. 301). Despite the fact that my native language is Arabic, I

struggledtotranslatesomeofthewordsandterminologyusedbytheparticipantsbecause

of fear they might hold several interpretations. I translated the teachers’ statements

literallytoensurethatthevoicesofteacherswerenotinanywayaffected,buteditswere

madetothedirecttranslationsforthesakeofclarity.Theseeditsareshowninbracketsas

willbeillustratedinChapterFour(ResultsandFindings).

Patton(2002)emphasizedthatevenwhenusingcommonlanguage,wordscanhave

a differentmeaning in other cultures. Therefore, itwas pertinent to get assistance from

someone of the same national origin in order to ensure accuracy of the translation. A

Kuwaiti teacherwhomImetduringmy fieldwork(whoreceivedascholarship topursue

herdoctoraldegreeintheUnitedStates)offeredherassistancebyprovidingmewiththe

correcttranslationsofsomeambiguousterminologyandstatementsusedbytheteacher.

Frommy own perspective, reading the Arabic transcription and then reading the

Englishtranslation,InoticedthatIdidnotgetthesameeffectinthetranslationasIdidin

the transcription. This could be because I speak the same language and have a similar

74

cultureas theparticipants, therebyallowing the teachers’viewpointsanddescriptionsof

the issues tomake sense tome in Arabicmore than the translatedmaterial. It became

evident that the issueof cultureand languageplayavery important role in intercultural

researchstudiessuchasthisone.

After the completion of the transcription and translation, content analysis of the

interviews took place, which refers to “the data reduction and sense‐making effort of

qualitativematerialstoidentifycoreconsistenciesandmeanings”(Patton,2002,p.453).I

readtheinterviewstobecomefamiliarwiththeinformationprovidedandthenproceeded

with coding.Coding is the process of organizing thematerial into a segment of text that

leads tomeaningful information (Creswell, 2009). A first set of codes was generated to

highlight critical statements, which addressed the core issues regarding teachers’

perceptionsonthebenefitsandusefulnessoftechnology, itsapplicability, theconstraints

faced, difficulty of use, the types of technologies used and the context inwhich they are

used,thesupportinitiativesprovided,priorexperience,andtraining‐relatedissues.

From the first set of codes, common patterns in the teachers’ responses were

established and irrelevant data was eliminated. These common patterns were grouped

together intomeaningfulclusters(Rossman&Rallis,2003;Patton,2002),allowingmeto

identifythemes.Someofthethemeswerecloseinnatureandintertwinedwitheachother,

so Idecided to createa subtheme.This techniqueensuredaccurate interpretationof the

dataandproducedamorefine‐grainedanalysisforthefindings.Thethemesgeneratedare

supportedbytheteachers’quotationsandwillbepresentedinChapterFour(Resultsand

Findings). During all phases of coding and analysis, field notes were maintained that

addressed the data and personal reactions to the participants’ responses to increase

75

reflexivity. The same analytical strategy was followed for both schools, and the themes

generatedwillbepresentedjointly.

StrategyforAnalyzingandOrganizingDataforObservationsandPhysicalArtifacts

Fieldnoteswerecollectedthroughouttheprocesstomaintainawrittenaccountof

the observations in asmuch detail as possible. These notes included descriptions of the

participants, settings, interactions, activities, and conversations related to technology.

Fromthecompiledfieldnotes,adescriptivenarrativewasformulated,includingphotosof

the technologies present in the classrooms and labs. Using this narrative, I identified

commonissuesthatdescribedelementsoftechnologyasadoptedbytheteachers. These

issueswerelinkedtothethemesgeneratedfromtheinterviewsandactedasillustrations

ofhowtechnologywasusedbyteachers(supportedbyphotoswhenneeded).

ValidatingtheResultsandFindings

Researchstudiesareconcernedwithproducingknowledgethatcanbetrustedand

validated.Validatingtheaccuracyofthefindingsofthisstudyrequiresthattheresearcher

dealwithissuesofvalidity,credibility,andtrustworthiness(Creswell,2003).“Lincolnand

Guba(1989)parallelcredibilitywithinternalvalidity,transferabilitywithexternalvalidity,

dependabilitywithreliabilityandconfirmabilitywithobjectivity”(Mertens,2005,p.253).

Generalizability(externalvalidity)andreliabilityarenotapplicableandplayaminorrole

in qualitative research design, but in this studywewill discuss how external validity is

somewhatrelevant.

76

Trustworthiness(InternalValidity)

Inthisstudy,anumberofmethodswereusedtoincreasethecredibilityofthestudy

results.First,triangulationwasusedbecauseitallowsfortheexaminationofevidencefrom

different sourcesormethods, thusbuildingacoherent justification for themes (Creswell,

2003) and ensuring consistency of evidence across sources of data (Mertens, 2005). A

combination of interviews, observation, and physical artifacts was used in this study.

Second,toensureintegrityoftheresearcher,theresearcher’sposition(reflexivity)toward

the studywill bediscussed to ensure thatbiases are reducedandethics aremaintained.

Reducingbiases canbe achievedby ensuring reflective reporting through self‐reflexivity

(Nyirongo,2009)andreflexivityofthosestudied(Patton,2002).

Researcher’sreflexivity.

The role of the researcher in a qualitative research study involves sustained and

intensive experiencewithparticipants, and, thus, ethical andpersonal issuesmight arise

that could lead to biases and prejudices (Creswell, 2003). Merriam (2009) states that

investigators need to explain their “biases, dispositions and assumptions regarding the

research”(p.219)sothatthereadergetsabetterunderstandingofhowinterpretationsof

thedataweremade.Itisimportanttounderstandtheresearcher’sbackgroundandhistory

to determine how this reflected on the study under investigation. The researcher’s

reflexivityorposition(Lincoln&Guba,2000)“istheprocessofreflectingcriticallyonthe

selfasaresearcher”(Merriam,2009,p.221).

My perceptions of how teachers should teach and how children learn have been

shapedbymypersonalexperiences.Allthroughmyformaleducation,uptotheuniversity

77

level,Iwasinasegregatedenvironment.IwastaughtinaprivateBritishschoolsystemfor

girlsandservedasateacherassistantfortwoyearsinthesameschool.Ithencompleted

my bachelor’s degree at Ahfad University for Women, which was the first university

established inSudan topromotewomen’seducationandenhance their role in society. It

wasalsoaprivateuniversityandfollowedaBritisheducationalsystem.Thesurrounding

educationalcontextframedmybeliefandinterestintheempowermentofwomenandtheir

right to develop and educate themselves regardless of the surrounding social and/or

culturalconstraints.Thisbeliefisalsoreflectedinmydecisiontopursuemyeducationata

graduate level and gave me the encouragement to make the decision to travel to a

European country, alone, formymaster’s degree. I then furtheredmy educationwith a

doctoraldegree.

I believe thatmyunderstandingof the roleofMiddleEasternwomen ina society

that isboundedbyculturaland traditional restrictionsmakesmeawareandsensitive to

manyofthechallengesandissuesthatKuwaititeachersface,whetherintheirprofessional

teachingor in a general social context. Furthermore, being from the same religionanda

similarculture,Iwasabletorelatetotheirbeliefsystemsandunderstandtheirreactions

andviewpoints.Bythesametoken,asaresearcher,Ibroughtknowledgegainedfrommy

education in the field of Instructional Design and Technology (IDT) and acted as a link,

minimizingthemisconceptionsabouttheuseoftechnologyineducation.

Creswell (2003) emphasizes that researchers should identify biases and sensitive

ethicalissuesthatmightariseduringthestudyandhowthesesituationswillbeaddressed.

My biases, I believe,would emerge from being a supporter of students learning at their

ownpaceratherthanbeingpassivelearners.Knowingmybiases,Ihadtoensurethatthis

78

did not reflect on my field notes and on my observations. My other bias is regarding

teachers’ ideas and whether they will illustrate their viewpoints regarding the use of

technology. This issue is critical since I believe using technology is beneficial in many

aspects;duringmyinterviewsIneededtomakesurethatIdidnotask leadingquestions

thatmightinfluencetheirresponses.Inregardstosensitiveethicalissues,myexpectations

are that school administrators, including teachers, might have reservations about the

researchstudyitself.IneededtomakesurethattheywerefullyawarethatIwouldrespect

their decisions when they were unable to speak about sensitive issues. In addition, I

ensured their understanding that all information provided was confidential and that I

wouldusepseudonymsforallnamesandschoolnameswhenwritingthefinaldissertation.

Generalization(externalvalidity)ortransferability.

One of the criticisms of case studies is that the findings cannot be generalized.

According to Creswell (2003), reliability and generalizability do play a minor role in

qualitativestudies.Therearetwoperspectivesongeneralizabilitythatarecompatiblewith

qualitative research (Mertens, 2005). The first perspective is “analytical generalization”

(Firestone,1993),wherebytheresearchercangeneralizefromaparticularsetofresultsto

a broader theory” (Mertens, 2005, p. 427). One method to enhance analytical

generalization is through the use of multisite cases. Yin (2003) emphasizes that the

analyticalconclusionarising frommultiplecasestudiesaresubstantial, since focusingon

differentcontextsbutarrivingatcommonconclusionexpandsexternalgeneralizability(p.

53). Patton(1990)arguesthatthe“term‘extrapolations’arebetterthan‘generalizations’

as they are problem oriented rather than statistical and probabilistic” (p. 489).

79

Extrapolations are speculations on how certain issues are applicable in similar but not

identicalconditions(Merriam,2009).

Thesecondtypeofgeneralizabilityis“transferability(Lincoln&Guba,1985),which

canbeproducedthroughtheprovisionofthickdescriptionsthatallowsthereadertomake

judgment about the applicability of the research to another setting” (Mertens, 2005, p.

427). Merriam (2009) addresses how to enhance transferability in qualitative studies,

throughthickdescriptions,whichreferstoa“descriptionofthesettingandparticipantsof

thestudy,aswellasadetaileddescriptionofthefindingwithadequateevidencepresented

intheformofquotesfromparticipantinterviews,fieldnotesanddocuments”(p.227).In

thisstudy,adescriptionoftheschool,teachers’viewpointsandtheirstatements,observing

theirpracticaluseof technology,andsnapshotsof the technologies in theclassroomwas

maintained in this study. Another method is carefully choosing the study sample. A

samplingstrategysuchasmaximumvariationssamplingwhetherforsitesorparticipants,

allows for a “greater range of application by readers or consumers of the research”

(Merriam,2009,p.227).Maximumvariationsamplingwasalsocarriedoutinthisstudy.

SummaryofDataCollection

Thestudyisqualitativeinnatureandutilizedinterviews,participation,observation,

andphysicalartifactsasdatacollectionmethods.Throughtheuseofinterviews,teachers’

perceptions on the attributes of technology, teachers’ characteristics, and the support

environmentwererecordedtoshowtheapplicabilityofRogers’DOI(2003)theoryandto

whatextenttechnologyisadoptedbytheKuwaititeachers.Theobservationsandphysical

artifactsdescribedthesuitabilityfortechnologyuse,andtherecordsprovidedinformation

80

regardingtheschoolstructure,yearofestablishment,etc.Thestudywasconductedintwo

primarypublicschoolswitheightKuwaititeachersofdifferentsubjectareas.Thereporting

ofthestudyfindingsinvolvesalinkbetweenthethemesthatemergedfromtheinterviews

andnarrativedescriptionsfromtheobservations,includingsnapshotsofthetechnologies

used. Validating the results and findings, this study can provide information related to

technologyadoptionthatcanbetransferredtosimilarschoolcontextswithinKuwait.

DelimitationoftheStudy

Tomakethisstudymanageableandtoachieveadetaileddescriptionoftheuseof

technologywithinthesetwoprimaryschools, thescopeof thestudywasreducedto four

mainaspects.First,thefocuswasonKuwaititeachersandnotonnon‐Kuwaititeachersto

ensure that perceptions toward technology adoption or rejection reflect the Kuwaiti

teachers’ beliefs and were not influenced by another culture. Second, teachers of the

subjectareas sportseducation,music, andartswereexcluded,due to thenatureof their

content,whichhave slight or nouse of technology, thusnotmatching the criteria of the

sampleunderinvestigation.Finally,duetolimitedtimeconstraintsandfinancialresources,

onlytwopublicschoolsettingswithinthecityofKuwaitwerepartofthestudy.Thefocus

wasonpublicschoolsduetothefactthatprivateschoolshavemoreadequatecapitaland

resources and, thus, are equipped with various technologies. The school structure,

classroom context, curriculum, etc. of a private school could lead to aspects that do not

reflectthesituationwithinthepubliceducationalsector,andtheresultsmayrepresenta

specificcontextandgroupofpeoplenotparticularlyrelevanttothepublicsector.

81

CHAPTERFOUR:RESULTSANDFINDINGS

This chapter will present the findings of the research study. It will make an

integrated presentation of the themes generated from the interviews and supported by

teachers’ statements, excerpts from the teachers’ observations, and snapshots of the

classroomandlabsettings.Thischapterwillbedividedintotwosections.Thefirstsection

focuseson themesrelevant to teachers’ characteristics,and to thesupportenvironments

providedbytheschools.Thesecondsectionwillfocusonthemesrelevanttotheattributes

oftechnology.Asmentionedearlier,editsweremadetothedirecttranslationsforthesake

ofclarity,whichwillbeshowninbrackets.

ChangeProcess

One set of research questions addressed teachers’ viewpoints regarding

incorporating technology andwhether they experienced any form of anxiety during this

process.Thisallowedmetogetaclearpictureofwhattheteacherswentthroughasthey

moved from their accustomed teaching practices to using new teaching methods and,

accordingly, to discover the important aspects that made the transition and adjustment

processfeasible.

TransitionandAdjustment

During the transitionstage fromnon‐use touseof technology, the teachers in the

study facedvarious issues.While transitionwasnotaproblemforsometeachers,others

wereconcernedabouttheextratimeneededinlessonpreparation,thelackoftrainingin

usingcertaindevicesorapplications,andthelackoffunctionalityofthedevices.

82

Amira, the social studies teacher from theA. E. School, discussedhow the change

affectedherconstructively.BeforetheplasmaTVwasinstalledintheSocialStudiesClub,

Amira faced the problem of not having a variety of teaching tools, as illustrated by her

statement:

Theclubprovides [a]TV [and]DVD, so itmade iteasier forme tousemy laptop.

Before,theydidnotprovideuswiththese,soIusedtofaceaproblem.Ididnotlike

thelessonwhenIusedonlyexplanationandpictures.Iwantedtousethelaptop,but

in the lesson if I used the laptop, the screen is [so] small [that] itwas difficult to

explain toall thegirls. I facedproblemsbefore Istartedtouse technology.Onthe

contrary, technology facilitates things forme significantly. . . . Changeaffectedme

positively.

TimeandEffortinLessonPreparation

Time and effort made in lesson preparation was a concern for some teachers,

despiteknowingitsbenefits.Duetotheirobligationsinsideandoutsideofschool,insome

cases teachers avoided using technology and instead used traditional means such as

writing on the blackboard and reading from the textbook. They noticed that during the

class, less effort was exerted using traditional teaching methods. Nodah, the English

teacher from the A. E. School, talked about how it was easier for her to write on the

blackboardthantomakeaPowerPoint.Leila,theIslamicstudiesteacher,iteratedasimilar

experience:

Thecomputeratschooltakessometime.Forexample,ifIpreparealessonandput

pictures[init],ittakesmoretime. . . ifyouwanttouseapicture,youenterasite,

83

youdownloadthepicture,andyouorganizeandpreparethelesson.Thetextbookis

a bit easier in preparation. If I want a picture, I print it out and laminate it. The

computertakesalittleofbittimeinpreparationofthelesson....Inclass,itiseasier

andbetter,butinpreparationittakesabitoftimeintypingandorganizing.

Bothof thescienceteachers fromthe I.S.Schoolalsoconcurredthat they initially

facedtheissueofmoretimespentinlessonpreparation,butovertimetheygotusedtoit.

AsmaadiscussedthatbecausetherewasnoInternetatschool,shedidthepreparationat

homeintheevenings,whichtooktimeawayfromherfamilyobligations.However,during

classshedidn’tfeelanxiouswhenusingtechnology;onthecontrary,shefeltatease.Lojain

talkedaboutnothavingsufficienttimetoutilizecomputersinthebestmannerpossible:

It affected me because it [takes] time. The number of grades; for example, I am

responsible in one grade level for one or more classes, [and] for grade two, one

class,andsothis takesa lotof time . . . time inpreparingthe lesson. It takes time

usingthecomputer.Thewayofpreparingthelessontakestime;Imeanyouneedto

thinkofastoryorarepresentationoraquiz...thistakestime,sothereisnotime,

sothiswastheproblemforme.

LackofTraining

Whilepreparationwasaconcernforsomeoftheteachers,othersthoughtthatlack

oftrainingwasthemainissueinadoptingnewinstructionaltechnology.Mariam,thesocial

studies teacher from the I. S. School, emphasized that not being trained in using the

computerandothertechnologieswasaproblematthebeginning,butovertimeitbecame

easier and the change affected her positively. She said, “At the beginning, yes, it was a

84

problembecause Ididnot take thecomputer training, the ICDL.” Sheexplainedthatshe

taughtherselftheuseofcomputers,soitwasdifficultforheratfirst.Forexample,shesaid,

“ifIwantasongoranything,touploaditonaCD,Ididnotknowhowtodoit,sodefinitely

itwasdifficultatthebeginningtousetechnology...butwithtryingitbecameeasier,later.”

Shecontinuedbysayingthat“changeaffectedmepositively;changeaffectedmeinabetter

way.”

TechnologyFunctionality

Theotherconcernforsometeacherswasnotbeingabletotrustthetechnologyto

function.Fortheseteachers,changeitselfwasnotaproblem.Abeer,thescienceteacherat

the A. E. School, discussed how technology allowed her to bemore prepared before the

lesson,sincetechnologytendstomotivatethestudenttoaskalotofquestions.Shegavean

example: “If you need to search 30% of the subject area, you prepare 70 to 80% of it

because this is going to encourage them to ask questions and this affects the way you

preparethe lessons.”Ontheotherhand,shediscussedthattechnologyuse ledtoanxiety

because ofmalfunctions. She gave an example that if the laptop connection or electrical

power failed, thisaffected the teacherandtheclass.Shestated, “youneedtoprepare for

the lesson mentally and the tools you are going to use, and this frustration sometimes

doesn’tmakeyouwanttoyouusetechnologybecauseyoudonottrustthetechnology.”She

continued,“Youtrustyourhandsandmaterials.SometimesinthelessonIhadtheoptionto

useornotusethetechnology,soIdidnotuseit.”

Duringmyobservationofherfifth‐gradeclass,shefacedatechnical issue,andthe

followingdescriptionishowAbeerdealtwiththeissue.

85

Theteacherbeganherlessonbyaskingthestudents,“Whatarethetypesofenergy

that we have? I will show you types of energy.” She had her laptop, and it was

connectedtotheDataShow.Sheusedaremotecontrol,buttheDataShowdidnot

turnon.Duringthetimeshewasattemptingtosolvetheproblem,thestudentswere

saying, “Teacher, put the plug on; teacher, the batteries are notworking; teacher,

standonthechair.”Theteacherthenstoodonachair,pointedtheremotecontrol

closetotheDataShowbutton,andafterseveralattempts,thedeviceworked.

In conclusion, despite their worries about the challenges of learning to use and

usingtechnology,theseteacherswereabletoviewtechnologyuseasapositivechangefor

themandfortheirinstructionalneeds.

TechnologyUse

Asecondtopicrelatedtothethemeoftheteachers’characteristicsandthesupport

environments isthevarioustypesoftechnologiesusedbytheteachersandtheformat in

whichtheywereused.Technology, inthiscontext,referstoall teachingtoolsusedbythe

teachers in teaching thestudents.Thereason forasking theseresearchquestionswas to

get a clear view of what and how the teachers utilized technologies and how they

integrated them into their profession. In addition, the questions would provide an

understanding of the sort of technologies used in each subject area. The following is an

integratedpresentationofthetypesoftechnologiesandtheextentoftheiruseinteaching

andadministrationtasks.Thispresentationwillincludeeachteacherinthestudy.

86

EmployingTechnologyinTeachingandAdministrativeTasks

The teachers in the study used a variety of devices in their work. The types of

devicesusedincludedlaptops,overheadprojectors,DataShow,audio‐recorder,plasmaTV,

DVD, and cellphones. The teachers also used flash cards, posters, real objects, and

experimental kits. Applications used were Word, Excel, PowerPoint, the Internet, and

MovieMaker.Anillustrationofthedevicesusedbyeachteacherfollows.

Abeer,thescienceteacher,usedPowerPoint“forpresentationsofthelessonandto

showpictures.”Shealsousedher laptop “to showmovieson itusing theDataShow.” In

addition,sheusedtheoverheadprojector“to tellastoryabout the lessonor the topicof

thatday.”SometimesshealsousedtheTV“forshowingmovies.”Furthermore,sheusedthe

computer in the department office to enter students’ grades and type

certificates/transcripts for the students. In her opinion, she used technology more in

teaching.Forexample,sheexplainedthatsheusedcomputerswithfifthgradersmorethan

with the first graders because she believed that “there ismore need for communication

betweentheteacherandstudent”infirstgrade.Inthecaseoftheoverheadprojector,she

indicatedthatshe“use[d]itallthetimeforfirstgraders,onceaweekforfifthgraders.”

Amira,thesocialstudiesteacher,usedvarioustechnologiesforteaching.Sheuseda

laptop“toshowvideoswithsongs.”SheconnectedthelaptoptotheDataShowortotheTV

intheclub.ShealsousedtheDVDplayerandconnectedittotheTV“toshowvideos.”She

alsousedtheoverheadprojectorandaudio‐recorder.Amiratalkedabouttheapplications

sheused.Wordwasused“fortypingandprintingtests,students’worksheets,and lesson

preparation.” She also used PowerPoint “to present the lesson itself” and Excel “if the

lesson has tables, charts, percent of population, percent oil, exports, etc.” For

87

administrative tasks such as entering grades, she used the computer in the department

office. Shealsoused the laptop.Shesaid, “Ihaveapagewith thenamesof thestudents,

theirgrades,performance,andobservationsthatImake.”ForAmira,usingtechnologywas

equalinusefulnessforteachingoradministrativetasks.Shesaid,“BeforeIteachmylesson,

Idotheadministrativework inpreparing for the lesson,so Icannot teachwithoutdoing

the administrative task[s].” Finally, she discussed that in teaching she used technology

daily;sheindicated,“theleastIcanuseistheoverheadprojector.”

Nodah, the English teacher, used technology for a variety of purposes to enhance

instruction.Shealsohadstudents interactwith the technology.Shebeganbysaying that

she used the Data Show “for reading, playing educational games, numbers, letters, [or]

showingthemamovieaboutthelesson.”Shebelievedthattherearemanythingsthatcan

bedonewithaDataShow.Shealsousedthelaptop“forpresentationoflessons.”Sheadded

thatsheusedtheInternettodownloadgames.Nodahalsohadcomputergames,whichshe

connectedtoherlaptopforherstudentssothattheycouldpracticecolorsandshapes.She

explained,“Therearecolorsandshapes.Iaskthegirlsquestionsandeachoneofthegirls

goestothelaptopandpressesonthecorrectanswerusingthepen,whichcomeswithit.”

Nodahalsosometimesusedtheoverheadprojectorandtheaudio‐recordertolisten

to thetapes thatcamewiththe lessons. “Wehavea lesson in thepupil’sbook[inwhich]

theyhavetolistentothenativespeaker,nottomyvoice,sotheylistentothetapethefirst

time,andthesecondtime,theylistenandrepeat.”Nodahstatedthatsheusedtechnology

moreforteaching.Sheexplainedhowmuchtimeshespendsusingthetechnologies.“Iuse

the cassette player, flash cards, and real objects daily.” Similarly, she used the overhead

projectoronaregularbasis—“threetofourtimesaweek”—andtheaudio‐recorder“four

88

to five times a week.” When teaching reading, she used PowerPoint, as it was more

appealingtostudentsthanblackandwhiteflashcards.Foradministrativework,sheused

thecomputertoentergrades,forworksheets,andforlessonpreparation.

Leila, the Islamic studies teacher, described that she did not use the laptop but

mostly used the overheadprojector for showing “a verse, a prayer, theQuran, [and] the

Surah using slides.” She also used the audio‐recorder “for Quran recitation, or Hadith

recitation,”becausetheschoolswereprovidedwiththesecassettetapesformemorization.

I observed Leila with fifth graders during her Islamic studies class, where she used the

flashcards,posters,andaudio‐recorder.Thefollowingaremyobservationnotes:

Theteacherattachedtwoflashcards,whicharelaminated,ontheblackboard.The

flashcardhasthenameofthelesson,whichis“QuranicStudies.”Shewritesonthe

blackboard: “Surah Al‐Insan (Madaniya).” She hangs a large poster, which is

laminated,showingtheversesoftheSurah.Shetellsthestudentstoopenpage48.

The teacher has an audio‐recorder in front of her. She looks at what is in the

textbookandallowsthestudentstolistentotheverses.Sherepeatsthetapefourto

five times.She thenasks thestudents to repeat theSurahwith the tape.The tape

playstheversesandthenthestudentsrepeatit.Shethenreadsouttheversesofthe

Surah from the textbook inherownvoice. She thenasks the studentswhowould

liketoreadtheSurahandallowedtwostudentstoreaditaloudtotheclass.

AfterthelessonIaskedLeilawhoprovidedherwiththeposter.Sheexplainedthat

oneoftheircolleaguesinthedepartmentbroughtitfromthebookstoreandlaminatedit.

NeitherwereprovidedorlaminatedbytheschooladministrationortheMOE.

89

Leilaalsoused thecomputer forenteringstudents’gradesand to typeexamsand

tests. Except for when she made a worksheet for her class, she didn’t often use the

computers. Sheonlymade tests one to two timesper semester. She explained, “We take

turns between the teachers on who will type the tests.” She gave an example. “If three

teachersteachfifthgrade,eachonetakes[a]turnontypingthetestseachsemester.”Asfor

teaching,sheusedtheoverheadprojectorandaudio‐recorder.“Theoverheadprojector—I

useitonceinaweek.Theaudio‐recorder—Iuseitfourtofivetimesaweek.”

TeachersattheI.S.Schoolalsodiscussedtechnologyuses.Mai,intheSocialStudies

Department,providedadescriptionofhowsheutilizedtechnologyinteaching.Shebegan

bystatingthatsheusedtheDataShowforPowerPointpresentationstoexplainlessonsand

concepts:“Inteaching,IusetheDataShow.IprepareatopiconthePowerPointandthenI

showittothestudents.”Inheropinion,throughtheuseofPowerPoint,studentswereable

to see something new. The format of the lesson was not traditional; rather, it included

discussionordialogue.Shealsousedtheoverheadprojector.Sheusedtransparenciesand

photocopies of some of the textbook activities and presents them. She believed

transparencieswerebetterthanusingtextbooksbecausestudentstendedtoflipfromone

page to another and lose concentration, but when she closed the textbook, the student

focusedontheinformation.Shesaidthatastudent’s“eyesareontheslidesheisattached

totheslidesmorethanthetextbook.”Inaddition,Maiusedtheaudio‐recorderorCDsfor

songsbecausethestudentsbecomehappy if therewasmovement.Lastly,shementioned

theuseofthecellphone,whichsheusedtocalltheWeatherChannel. Sheexplainedthat

they had a lesson on the weather and they called 116 for weather information, which

90

studentsreallyenjoyed.Sheexplained,“Theyreallylikeditwhenwerangtheweather.All

werelisteningtowhatwassaidabouttheweather;allofthemtrieditathome.”

Furthermore, Mai used the laptop for obtaining reports from the Internet. She

explained that they looked up “Kuwait’s outside investments, Kuwait’s petroleum

companies,etc.Wesearchonthenetandweprintitout.”ShealsousedExcelforinserting

grades, andWord for writing exams. Mai also indicated that they have a listserv in the

department,which theyuse to send theirwork to thedepartmenthead for revision. She

said,“Isendanemailwiththework;sheseesit,doesthecorrections,andsendsitbackto

me. I do the changes and then we print it out and it is ready for the students.” She

emphasizedthatheruseoftechnologyforadministrativeandteachingtaskswasequalin

level.Shegaveanexample:“Look,attheendofthemonth,mostofthetimethecomputeris

used for administrative work when we put exams and when we put the grades [in the

computer].”But,shesaid,“ifIwriteareportorsomething,Icanuseit24hours,Iuseita

lot.”Asfortheoverheadprojector,sincewasisavailableineachclass,sheuseditdaily.She

stated,“thereisanoverheadprojector,sothepersonautomaticallywillthinktoputaslide

intomakeiteasyforthestudents.Iuseiteveryday.”

Duringmy observation ofMai’s practice teaching fifth grade in the Social Studies

Club(seeFigure4),sheusedtheoverheadprojector.Thefollowingisanillustrationofhow

Maiusedtheoverheadprojector:

Shebeganbyusinganoverheadprojectorandslides.Shehasa slide thathad the

mapofKuwaitdrawnonitandaskedthestudentstowritepercentageofpopulation

in each state. Each student took turns indicating the population percentage and

wrotetheanswersintheirtextbooks.Afterthestudentscompletedtheexercise,the

91

teacher started another exercise. She used another slide that had a graph on it

showingthepercentageofKuwaitiandnon‐Kuwaitipopulationinthecountryand

asked the students questions. She would then write the correct answers on the

slideswhilestudentswroteintheirtextbooks.

Figure4.TheSocialstudiesclubforgrades4and5attheI.S.School.

Mariam,thesocialstudiesteacher,beganbysayingthatsheusedtheaudio‐recorder

for music, especially for the first, second, and third grades. She explained, “When they

listentoasonglinkedtoalesson,theyinteractmorewiththeteacherthroughmovement,I

canletthemdanceorinteractmore.”Forexample,shesaid,“Today,thelessonisaboutthe

GCCcountries.ThesongisabouttheGulf.”

Shealsousedtheoverheadprojectorandprovidedanexample:“Whenthetextbook

has questions, I photocopy the questionswithout the answers on slides and I present it

through theoverheadprojector.” She indicated that “itbecomeseasier for thegirls; they

seethequestionsontheblackboardandIsolve[them]withthem.”Shealsoshowedmaps

thesameway.Inaddition,sheusedtheDataShowforshowingmanythingsonitsuchas

“songs,movies,andPowerPoint.”SheusedtheTVforvideosorDVDs.

92

After discussing the devices, she talked about the applications. She said that she

used Excel for tables and PowerPoint if the lesson needed it. She also used Word for

makingtestsandforreadingparagraphs.Forinstance,duringoneofthelessons,shehada

paragraphon theprince, addedpictures to it, andused theDataShowand the laptop to

presenttheinformation.

Furthermore,Mariamusedtheschool’scomputertoenterstudents’gradesbutused

her personal laptop for lesson preparation. When discussing what she used technology

most for, she indicated that it was for teaching. She stated, “We enter grades once per

monthbutteaching iseveryday.”As forpreparation,sheexplainedthatshedoes itevery

day for her lesson. “My preparation is my teaching; each lesson has its preparation, its

tools,[andthe]methodsthatIuse.”Sheindicatedthatshehadeightlessonsperweek,so

sheusedherlaptopeighttimesinaweek.Thefollowingillustrationfrommyobservations

explainshowsheusedtechnologiesinteachingherstudents:

The teacher opened the lesson by asking, “What are the GCC countries?” The

studentsrespondedandtheteacherexplainedthesimilaritiesintheGCC.Shebegan

thelessonusingtextbooksandaskedthestudentstoidentifytheGCCcountriesona

map.Theteachertransitionedtousingtechnologybyusinganoverheadprojector,

which has slides of the presidents. The students were asked to identify the

presidents on each slide. She then used another slidewith important locations in

eachoftheGCCcountriesandaskedthestudents,“Whataretheseplacesandwhere

are they located?” After this interaction, the students returned to the textbook to

completeatask.Asthestudentsworked,theteacherplayeddifferentsongsfromthe

GCCcountriesusingtheaudio‐recorder.

93

Lojain,thescienceteacher,alsoprovidedadescriptionofthetechnologiessheused.

She began by discussing that she used the overhead projector when the lesson didn’t

includetheuseoftoolsorifshehadnotoolsforit.Shegaveanexampleaboutalessonin

desertification.“Icannotbringsandtotheclass,ordesertsand,ormakesandbarsinthe

class,soItrytomakeatransparencyandshowthemhowsandbarsform,andthestudents

seeit.”ShealsoindicatedthatsheusedPowerPointwhenthelessonhadalotofpictures.

Shedownloadedpictures fromthe Internetandadded themto thePowerPoint inanice,

organizedway to show them to the students. Shegave anexample about a lessonabout

insects,whichthestudentsenjoyedseeingbecauseoftheanimation.“Imean,IusedFlash

in thePowerPoint so that they can see thebutterflymovements, numberof legs, and so

everythingwascleartothestudentsandwasinteresting.”

Furthermore,LojainusedWordwhentherewasaworksheetoratest.Shealsouses

theInternet:“Idownloadallthepicturesassociatedwiththetopicor[that]Ineed. . . for

the PowerPoint or Moviemaker, anything I can take it from the Internet.” She also

indicatedthatsometimessheusedMoviemakertoshowamovieonpartsofaflowerora

plant. She commented, “[Themovie]was clear in showing how the seeds grow till they

becomeacompleteplant.Itwasveryinterestingtothestudentssincetheydonotalways

seeitbuttheysawitwhenIusedMoviemaker.”

Lojaincontinuedbydescribingotherteachingtoolsandmethods,thatsheuses.For

her,technologyincludesexperimentalkits,“Ihaveanexperimentalkit—theoneofferedby

theMOE.Itiseveryeasybecauseithasalltheinstructions.”Sheexplainedthatthestudents

triedto followthedirectionsgivenbecausethe instructionswereclearandshortsothey

couldreadit.Thekitalsohadmagnetic/electricaltools,makingiteasyforthestudentsto

94

experimentwiththecircuitsandmagneticshapes.Shethendiscussedhowcertainconcepts

insciencecouldbeillustratedbyrole‐playing.Shegaveanexample:“Todaywestartedthe

lesson[with]astoryabouttwocircuits.Twostudents[areinvolved];oneactsas[a]series

connectionandanotheroneactsasifconnectedinparallel,andsoItrytomakeanacting

situation.” But she further stated that this method didn’t work with all ages. “I used to

follow this with the younger stage in order to convey the information, but the older

students do not need this type of role acting; [they prefer] only themodern things like

PowerPointandMoviemaker.”

Lojain, like many of the teachers, indicated that she used technology more for

teachingthanforadministrativework.Shestatedthatsheusedvarioustypesoftechnology

throughout theweek: “Adaydoesn’tpassunless Iuse technology.”When Iobservedher

fifthgradeclass inthescience lab(seeFigure5),studentsworkedingroupstocarryout

scientificexperiments,usingtheexperiementalkitsshetalkedabout.

Figure5:TheSciencelabattheI.S.School.

Asmaa,thesecondscienceteacher,alsoprovidedadescriptionofthetechnologies

sheused.SheusedherlaptopfortypingandaccessingtheInternet:“[Iuseitfor]anything

thatIneedtotypeorwhenIwanttodownloadapicturefromtheInternetanddownload

95

shortmovies.”ShealsousedPowerPointinpresentinglessonandusedtheDataShowfor

presentations. Sheused theoverheadprojector for transparencies, suchas for “apicture

thatIneedtoenlargeforthegirls.”Similarly,iftheyhavemoviestowatch,sheusedtheTV.

Asmaaindicatedthatsheusedtheaudio‐recorderforsongs,whichtheyusedatthe

beginningofthelesson.Thesesongsaremadebysometeachers.Forexample,for“alesson

aboutmagnets,wehaveasongaboutmagnets.Iturnitonforthembecausewhenthegirls

hear it, they get to know the scientific terminologies through the song and so theywill

memorize[them].”Asmaafurtherexplainedthatshemostlyusedtechnologies,inthiscase,

computers, for administrative tasks such as “typing and printing worksheets, lesson

preparation, [and] typing and printing grades.” She further stated, “In a weekwemake

threeworksheetsandinamonthwemakeasmalltest.”Furthermore,shesaid,“Weextract

wordsofthelessonandwewriteitonA4paperandphotocopyit.Preparationismorethan

teaching.”

Inconclusion,teachersatbothschoolsusedvarioustypesoftechnologies,whether

devices or applications, to assist them in carrying out their teaching and administrative

activities.

PriorKnowledgeandExperience

The second aspect related to teachers’ characterstics is prior knowedge and

experience. Teachers were asked whether they thought that prior knowledge and

experienceencouragedthemtousetechnologyandwhethertheybelievedthatitplayeda

role in their continuoususe.Thisquestionwasdesigned toprovide anunderstandingof

howpreviousknowledgeandexposuretotechnologyingeneralreflectitsuse.

96

ExperienceandPractice

All of the teachers in the research study were of the same opinion that prior

experience and the daily use of technology played a role in influencing them to use

technology in their profession. Amira, the social studies teacher from the A. E. School,

explainedthatusingherlaptoponacontinuousbasismadeherlikeusingitandmadetasks

significantly easier for her. At the same time, she pointed out her colleagues who had

laptopstoobutwhohadlimiteduseduetolackofexperience.Shesaid,“Iknowteachers

[who]donothavepriorexperiencewiththelaptop,[and]theiruseislimited,even...use

during tests. Despite the fact that they have a laptop, they don’t have prior experience,

[and]priorexperienceisbeneficial.”

Nodah,theEnglishteacher,supportedthebenefitsofandneedforpriorexperience

andcontinuouspractice.Shestatedthat“by[practicing]everyday,Ilearnsomethingnew..

..ForthePowerPoint,IlearneditbeforeIbecameateacher,andwhenIbecameateacher,I

used it. . . . daily.” Similarly Lojain, the science teacher at the I. S. School, talked about

experience and practice, “Yes of course, with continuous experience.” She believes that

“regardlessofthenumberofcoursesthatapersontakes,theywon’tlearnasmuchaswhen

theyhaveexperienceandpractice.”Mai, thesocial studies teacher, talkedabouthowher

experiencewiththeInternetdriveshertouseitnow.Sheexplainedthatwhenshebeganto

use the Internet and she learned how to extract information, she would bring her USB

Internetmodemtoschoolanduseit.

A conclusion from these study results is that teachers see prior experience as an

importantfactor,butdailypracticeismorecrucialfortheircontinueduseoftechnology.

97

AdministrationSupport

Inquiring about whether teachers received support from the administration and

departmentheadprovidedanunderstandingofthetypeofsupportavailableandhowthis

reflected teachers’ use of technology. Support provided by the school administration for

eachschoolwillbediscussed,followedbysupportofthedepartmenthead.

SupervisionandManagement(MotivationalSupport)

TeachersfromtheI.S.Schoolindicatedthattheyreceivedsupportfromtheschool

principal by receiving excellent evaluations, being praised, and, in some cases, being

providedwiththetechnologiesthattheyneeded.Lojain,thescienceteacherfromtheI.S.

School, responded, “There is encouragement by the principal entering the class and

encouragingus. She likesus touse technology all the time inside the class and enjoys it

whenshesees the teacheruse thecomputerand therearepresentations.”Lojain further

explained that the claim of principal is that “‘students can benefit from the use of

technology,’ and she likes that the student tries to use the computer.” In addition, she

added, “this is the onlymotivationwe get, but [monetarily] or spiritually, there is none.

Only one thing gets affected and [this is] the teacher’s assessment. Those who use

technologyexcelintheirfinalassessment.”

Teachers also disccused how the department heads provided guidance regarding

the types of technologies to be used, carried out weekly meetings, assisted them with

technologicalissues,andtriedtoorderdevicesforthem.OnlyLojain,thescienceteacherat

theI.S.School,indicatedthatherdepartmentheaddidn’tsupporther.Mariam,thesocial

studiesteacherfromtheI.S.School,responded:

98

[Mydepartmenthead]givesusweeklymeetings;sheisMashallahcleverontheuse

oftechnology,sosheshowsusthingsthatshedoes,andshetellsustodothesame;

sheattendsourlessonsandsheseestheteachersthatexcelintheuseoftechnology,

andshehonorsusinouroffice,nearlyeveryweek.

Maialsofoundthedepartmentheadsupportiveofherefforts:

Ourdepartmenthead,yes,verymuch....Forexample,sheboughtusthelamination

device. She is always keen on getting us new things; shemakes us aware of new

devices.Shemadetheemaillistservforthedepartmenttocollaboratetogether;we

sendherpersonalcommentsabouttheproblemsrelatedtothedepartmentthrough

the[listserv].

Duringmyfieldwork,Iwasinvitedtoattendasocialstudiesweeklymeetingledby

thedepartmentheadattheI.S.School.Duringmyobservationofthesocialstudiesweekly

meeting,whichtookplaceintheclubroom(seeFigure6)thatisdesignatedforgrades1,2,

and3, thedepartmentheadprovided the teacherswithaPowerPointpresentationusing

theDataShow.Thepresentationon Japanexemplifiedthetypeofactivities that teachers

carryoutwiththeirstudents.Thedepartmentheadthoughtthisdiscussionwasimportant

because it exposed the teachers to teaching techniques followed inother cultures,which

would assist them in learning and adapting new teaching trends for the benefit of the

students.Theclubhadanoverheadprojector,TV,andvideotapes.

99

Figure6.TheSocialstudiesclubforgrades1,2,and3attheI.S.School.

Lojain,thescienceteacherattheI.S.Schoolhadaverydifferentexperiencewithher

department head and did not feel the same contextual support. She stated, “My current

headdoesnot[supporttechnologyuse].Itisrelatedtothetypeofenvironment.Sheisfrom

a certain environment, andwe are from another background.Differences in background

haveledtolittleornouseoftechnologyandencouragement.”

Theexperienceof teachersbeingsupportedwassimilarat theA.E.School,where

teachersalso indicated that theyreceivedsupport fromtheschoolprincipalbyreceiving

excellentevaluations,beingpraised,and in somecasesbeingprovidedwith technologies

thattheyneeded.Leila,theIslamicstudiesteacher,commented:

[Theprincipal]alwayspreferstheteacherswhoconstantlyusetechnologytools.If

theadministrationorthesuperintendentattendstheteacher’sclass, theyevaluate

herwell;theyenjoyseeingherusingtechnology,projector,alaptop,tools,etc.There

isaction;itisbetterthantheteacherwhodoesn’tuseanything.

The teacheralsoreinforced that theschooladministration“provide[s]uswith the

equipment, like the overhead projector, teaching tools, [and] the TV [that] is

availableineachdepartment.”

100

The A. E. School’s teachers also discussed the support initiatives provided by the

departmentheads.Nodah,theEnglishteacher,viewedherthedepartmentheadnotonlyas

supportivebutalsoasaresource.Sheenthusiasticallystated:

Yes. . . .Well,shealwayssaysit,shesaysusethisandusethat;shealwaysgiveus

manyideas.Forexample,thePowerPointtoday,shesuggesteditforme;[shesaid]

insteadofusingtheflashcards,make itaPowerPoint, it ismorecolorful, it’smore

attractive.Shealwaysgivesusmanytoolstouseitintheclassroom.Shegetsitfor

usfromthebudgetoftheministryoftheschool.

DuringmyobservationofNodah’sfirstgradeclassintheEnglishClubthefollowing

interactionoccurred,whichexemplifiedtheteacher’suseoftechnology:

The teacher connects the laptop to theData Show. There is a TV andDVD in the

room.AmovablescreenandDataShowwasbroughtfromtheadministration.She

beginsbystating,“Wearegoingtodosoundstoday.”Sheusesflashcards.Shesays,

“Mynameis...mysoundisWa.Wisforwhite,”then,“Mynameis...mysoundis

Pa. P is for pink.” The teacher then uses the Data Show with picture and words

writtenonitandmakesthestudentsreadthesentencesbypronouncing“CaAaTa=

cat,” “RaAaN=ran”(seeFigure7).After thepresentation,sheasks thestudents

howtowritetheletterO.Sheusesaplastic‐coveredflashcardandasksthemwhatO

lookslike.ShewritestheletterOontheblackboardandasksoneofthestudentsto

comeandmatchitwithasmallletter.Sheusesplastic,magneticletters.

101

Figure7.UsingtheDataShowtoteachEnglishattheA.E.School.

Other teachers at the A. E. School also indicated that their department head is

supportive.Abeer,thescienceteacher,explainedthattheirdepartmentheadadvisedthem

aboutwhatmovies touse for their lessons. “She sometimesdownloadsmovies from the

Internetatherhomesothatwecanpresent[them]totheclass.”Inaddition,sheindicated

that the department head took full responsibility for getting and keeping the remote

controlfortheDataShowfromtheschooladministrationsothattheteacherscoulduseit.

Amira, the social studies teacher, stated that the teachers feel comfortable

suggesting the purchase of equipment to the department head. For example, she said,

“Yesterday,wefoundaDataShowinoneofthestoreswithagoodprice,sothedepartment

headvolunteeredthatshewillhelpusbuyitandwecanleaveithereinthedepartment.”

Amiraalso indicatedthat theteachersreceivedrecognitionthroughacertificate for their

workandenthusiasminusingtechnology.

Insummary,theschooladministrationanddepartmentheadsprovidedsupport in

variouswaysandencouragedtheteacherstousetechnologywiththeirstudents.

102

Decision‐Making

Thediscussiontoucheduponwhethertheteacherswereinvolvedinthetechnology‐

relateddecision‐makingprocess.This informationprovidedanoverviewof thedegreeto

whichteacherswereinvolvedindecision‐makingandhowit impactedtheir instructional

technology use. Teachers were found to be either directly or indirectly involved in

decisionsregardingtechnology.

DirectandIndirectInvolvement

Teachers from both schools were directly involved in deciding the appropriate

technology to use with their students inside the classroom, but they were indirectly

involvedinthedecision‐makingprocessrelatedtopurchasingofcertaintechnologiessince

thesedecisionwerecarriedoutbytheMOEandschooladministration.Teachersfromboth

schoolsalsoindicatedthattheyhadfreedomtousevariousteachingtoolsastheysawfit.

Leila, the Islamic studies teacher from the A. E. School, stated that the school

administrationprovidedthemwithseveraltoolsandthatshechosewhattouseornotto

use.“Theyleaveitfreeformetodecide...Ihavetouseit.It’samust.”Nodah,theEnglish

teacher, supported Leila’s assertion by saying that she decided whether to use a

PowerPointortheTV,forexample,buttherewerecertainthingsthatshehadtouse.“For

theCDplayer,Ihavetouseitbecausethestudentshavetolistentothenativespeaker...

astheCDcomesfromtheMOE.”Similarly,teachersfromtheI.S.Schoolindicatedthatthey

hadthefreedomtochoosethetechnologiestheywantedtouseintheirlesson.Asmaa,the

science teacher, responded, “It’smy decision. Nobody tellsme . . . even the department

headhasnosayinthis,it’smydecision;shedoesn’tinterfere.”

103

Sheexplainedthatitwasherlessonandthateachteacherhadherownmethodof

teaching and delivering the information to the student. “Themost important thing is to

convey the information . . . every teacher has her own style.”Mariam, the social studies

teacher, responded, “I have many technologies available—audio‐recorder, overhead

projector,DataShow,etc.—butIamnotforcedtouseitinonelesson.”Sheexplainedthat

sometimesshedidnotusetechnology:“Icancomeoutofalessonwithoutusinganytypeof

technology,soIamnot forcedtousethemall.”Sheaddedthat theschooladministration

didn’tforcehertouseacertaintypeintheclass:“IdecidewhatIneedtouse.”

The interview and discussion thenmoved to the types of technologies purchased

and whether the teachers were involved in the decision‐making process. Some of the

participants discussed that the MOE and the school administration decided on the

technologies to be purchased but that their suggestions were taken into account, while

otherteachersstatedthattheiradvicewasnottakenintoaccount.TeachersfromtheA.E.

SchoolsuchasAmira,thesocialstudiesteacher,statedthattheschooladministrationdid

notbuyequipmentunlesstherewaspressurefromtheteachers.Shestated,“Whenwesay

weneedthistechnology,itwilldeveloplearning,[theprincipal]thentakesstepsindoing

so,shebuysit.”Nodah,theEnglishteacher,supportedthisnotion:“theministry(prinicpal)

[listens to] the suggestionof the teachers. . . . Sometimeswehave [a] generaldiscussion

andthedepartmentheadconveystheinformation. . . .Ifweneedanything,wejustsayit,

weneedthisone,weneedthatone.”Ontheotherhand,Leila,theIslamicstudiesteacher,

commented that their advice was not taken into account “because it is not the

administration,it’stheMinistrywhodecides...theydonottakeouradvice.”

104

Bythesametoken,theI.S.School’steachersdiscussedhowtheyarenotinvolvedin

thetechnologydecision‐makingprocess.Mai,thesocialstudiesteacher,indicatedthatthe

departmenthead took theiradviceandconveyed theirviewpoints to theprincipalof the

school,buttheydidnotdirectlyrequest it fromtheschooladministration.“Theprincipal

consults with the department head. I think she provides things if she is convinced that

[they] will benefit the teachers.” She further explained that their principal knew the

“advancedthings”andwasalwaysresearching.“Sheseesthethingsthatareusefultothe

school.Thereareschoolsthatdonothavethetechnologywehave.”

Asmaa, the science teacher, discussed that the principal held meetings with the

departmentheadsoftheschool,whotoldherwhattechnologiestheteachersneeded.She

furtherexplainedthattheprincipalwouldconsultwiththoseinchargewithintheMOEand

discussedwiththemherplantoprovidedevicessuchaswhiteboards.Theprincipalthen

informedthedepartmentheadoftheoutcomes,andtheheadtheninformedtheteachersof

thedecisionsmade.Shesaid,“This[meetingbetweentheprincipalanddepartmenthead]

happenseveryweek.[Thedepartmenthead]tellsus,definitely.Butwhetherweapproveor

not,we arenot asked.” Lojain, the science teacher, concurred that theprincipal didnot

taketheteachers’advice,butshetooktheadviceofthedepartmenthead,whowouldask

themwhattheywanted.Inheropinion,theprincipalboughtthingsaccordingtowhatshe

sawwas beneficial “There are things that are important;maybe the science department

doesn’tbenefitfromit,butotherdepartmentsdo.”

Theconclusionaboutdecision‐makingregardingtechnologyisthatteachersdidnot

takepart indecisions related topurchasing technologies, but teachersdiddecideon the

typeoftechnologiestheyusedinsidetheclassrooms.

105

BudgetConstraints

Financial issues related to technology use emerged during the interviews.

Numeroustimes,teacherstalkedabouthowtheypurchasedschoolsupplieswiththeirown

personal money, which in their opinion was not fair to them; it was due to lack of

appropriatebudgetplanningbytheMOEaswellastheschooladministration.Amira, the

socialstudiesteacherfromtheA.E.School,commented:

Theschoolbudgetshouldgotoprintingpaper,inkforexamsandtests,certificates,

recognitioncards,gifts,stickers—thisshouldbeboughtbytheschool’sbudget,but

technologyaseducationalmethods,theMOEitselfmustprovideit....Alhamdulillah,

weareacountrythathasabudget,thefinancialissuesaregood,sotheremustbean

interest on technology and its provision in the school. . . . The administration

provided us with the whiteboard from its budget, despite the fact that the MOE

shouldprovideit.EventheTVisfromtheschoolbudget.

Leila,theIslamicstudiesteacher,concurredbysaying:

Forexample,IbuythepostersandsometimestheMOEprovidesitandsometimes

theydon’t;webuyitandtheschooloruspaysforit.Laminationisthesamething,I

gototheadministration,theylaminateitforme,andIgetchargedforit. . . .[The]

schoolortheMOEshouldofferthis.

Likewise,teachersfromtheI.S.Schooldiscussedthisissuefromtheirperspectives.

Lojain,thescienceteacher,emphasizedthattheyboughtthingsnotonlyforthelabbutalso

for other activities. “For example, [for] theworkshop you attended,weput [in] like 500

dinars;fortwomonththeteachersput[in]$50dinarsandsowegatheredthisamountfor

thefood,themes,organization,etc.Itwasallfromourpersonalmoney.”Shediscussedhow

106

teachersgottiredoftryingtogetthingsdoneattheschool“Anyemployeefromaroundthe

world doesn’t get tired like the teacher. In the Arab countries, the teacher spends from

his/herownpocket.”

Asmaatalkedaboutbuyinginkcartridgesallthetime,whichwereveryexpensive,

sotheprincipalhadtosignoffonallthepapersthatneededtobeprinted“Wehavemany

problems—a bigger problem is the ink. We provide the ink cartridge[s] all from the

school’sbudget,sothat’swhytheprincipalsigns[off]onthepaper[s][tobeprinted],not

allthepapers.”Furthermore,sheexplainedthattheysometimespurchaseditemsfromthe

budgetallocatedforthesciencedepartment.“Sometimes,forexample,wemakeabrochure

[or] copy transparencies, [and] the ink [and] the transparencieswe have to provide . . .

fromthebudgetofsciencethatisallocatedfortools.”

Other teachers, such as Mai and Mariam, the social studies teachers at the I. S.

School,talkedabouthowtheMOEshouldprovidecertaindevicesfortheschool.Maistated

that “the Internet has to be present, connected so that I can provide it for the students

[and] I do not have to get the USB Internet modem.” She explained that there were

teachers who did not possess laptops and this limited their technology use in class. In

addition,shebelievedthatalaptopshouldbeprovided.Shesaid,“Thereareteacherswho

donothaveacomputer,so[theyare]obligedtobuyonetoprovidethestudentswiththe

technology inside the class. So, all this should be provided by the MOE or the

administration.”Mariamexplainedthattheyhadanevaluationformattheendofthefirst

termwhere theycouldmakea request for the itemsneeded. “Forexample,whatare the

things that I want to add to the school so [that] we can write training programs for

computers,forexample,addingDataShowtoeachclass.”Sheaddedthattheformwentto

107

the MOE and they looked at it, but unfortunately it tool a long time until they were

providedwiththeirneeds,asinthecaseoftheDataShow.“TheDataShow,wehaveasked

foritthreeyearsagotobeineachclassanduntilnowwedidnotgetit.”Shebelievedthat

themain issue fornothaving technologieswas the lackof financial resources. “TheData

Show is expensive and theMOE saw that theywould lose [money] if theyprovide it for

eachclass.”

Theconclusiononthistopicisthatteacherswerefacedwithalackoftechnologies

dueto limitedbudgetsandovercamethisconstraintbypurchasing itemsfromtheirown

personalfunds.

The following section will describe the themes that emerged from the research

relevanttotheattributesoftechnology.Undereachattribute,thethemesthatemergedwill

beillustrated.

RelativeAdvantageandCompatibility

Onecategoryof researchquestions focusedonasking the teachersaboutwhether

theybelievedtechnologywasusefulandbeneficial(relativeadvantage)intheirprofession

andwhether technologywas consistentwith the teachers’ pedagogical beliefs andneeds

(compatibility).The issues thatemergedshowedan interrelatedconnectionbetween the

advantageandneedofusingtechnologybytheteachers.

InformationAccessandSharing

Onepointthatemergedwhendiscussingusefulnessandbenefitsoftechnologywas

that teachers from both schools noticed that technology saved resources, saved

108

preparationtime,reducedeffort,andevensavedonstationerysupplies.Abeer,thescience

teacher at the A. E. School, emphasized that by using technology “less time is spent in

delivering the information to the student. . . . It also saves time, saveseffort, savesoffice

work, and saves a lot of paper.” Amira, the social studies teacher at the A. E. School,

discussed how technology helped her in teaching the students. She said, “Instead of

explainingand45minutesgetswastedallonexplanation, Iget tired.Butwhen I showa

video,Idrewtheattentionofthestudents.”Shecontinued,“Soit isbeneficial formeasa

teacherandmakingtheinformationunderstandabletothestudent.”ThecaseofAsmaaand

Mai from the I. S. Schoolwas similar. Asmaa, the science teacher, stated that before she

usedtechnology,shewouldtalkalotaboutthetopictothestudents,butthenshenoticed

that the effort exerted in discussion inside the class seemed to decrease. She explained,

“Forexample,...Idownloaded[avideo]fromtheInternet,ashortmovie,[and]insteadof

explainingthelesson,thegirlswatchitandunderstandthepointsgiventothem,andsoI

reduce explanation and so it [relieves] the teacher.” Mai, the social studies teacher,

concurred by saying that the Internet saves time and effort. “It shortens for us the time

[and]effort,soIseeitisbettertousetheInternet.”Shefurtherexplained,“Evensometimes

[a]magazineisconsideredatechnologicaltool; thestudentsseeit[and]I feel it isuseful

[and]betterthananythingtraditionalorwritingontheblackboard.”

In addition, teachers believed that through the use of technology, obtaining

information was easier and faster. They discussed how the Internet facilitated getting

accesstoanyinformationtheyneeded,whetherfortheirprofessionorlifeactivities.Leila,

theIslamicstudiesteacherattheA.E.School,gaveanexampleofhowtheInternethelped

her in finding resources and carrying out personal tasks such as making travel

109

arrangements.Shestated,“Itsavestimeandeffortandbeingabletogetanything,Imeanif

I need any information, I can get it.” Mai, the social studies teacher at the I. S. School,

concurred that instead of going and looking for educationalmaterials in the bookstores,

everythingnowadayscouldbefoundintheInternet.“Icansearchforacertaintopiconthe

Internet,printitout,showittothestudents,anditisconsideredanadvancedmethod.”

ThisconceptwasillustratedduringmyobservationofMaiwiththefourthgraders.

ThetopicofthatdayaddressedthevarioustypesofresourcesfoundinKuwait.Sheusedan

overheadprojectorandslidestowriteKuwait’soutsideinvestmentsaswellasthetypesof

manufacturingindustriesfoundinKuwait.Shealsousedher laptopandreadexcerptson

Kuwait’sforeigninvestment,whichshedownloadedfromtheInternet.

OrganizationoftheLesson

One discussion point that emerged related towhether technologywas consistent

withtheteachers’pedagogicalbeliefsandneedswasthatteachersperceivedtechnologyas

better than the traditionalmethod as it allowed for better organization of their lessons.

Teachers from both schools discussed that technology helped them in organizing their

lessons,aswellastheirthoughtsandideaswhentheypreparedlessonmaterialandeven

when they taught the curriculum. The thoughts of Nodah, the English teacher were, “It

organizesmy lesson, I knowwhere touse theword cards, I knowwhere touse the real

objects, I know where to use the real numbers, I know where to use the pictures, it

organizes the lesson.” Amira, the social science teacher, also supported this premise by

saying:

110

It organizes the way I teach, the way I search.When I prepare a lesson without

technology,thelessonisunclear/fuzzy/notwell‐organized.SowhenIseethelesson

...Icanusetechnology,Icanusevideo,music,theoverheadprojector,sotheideas

comeoutandpreparationbecomesmoreorganizedanddoesn’t tireme.Even the

timeislessincomparisontopreparationthatdoesnothavetechnology.

Asmaa,thescienceteacherfromtheI.S.School,alsoindicatedthatthatshefeltthe

lessonsweremoreorganized,especiallywhenusingPowerPoint.Shecommented,“WhenI

preparethePowerPoint,thestepsareallinorder.Imean,whenIexplainit,itisinorder,

butwithPowerPointitismoreorganized.”

FacilitationoftheLearningProcess

Teachers indicated that by teachers using a variety of technology tools, students

learned the topic at handwithmore ease. Amira, the social studies teacher at the A. E.

School,stated:

[In] the old teaching, only discussion, only questions and answer, question and

answer,thereisnovariationonthemethods.[Now]thereisaTV,aDVD,[a]laptop,

and so having a variety of toolsmakesmy lesson enriched. It becomes excellent;

evenwhenavisitorentersmyclass,theyalsohavefun,theywillnotbeboredofthe

lesson.Ithelpedmeinteaching,helpedthestudents,andhelpedeverybody.

During my two observations of Amira teaching social studies for fifth grade, I

noticed that sheused several technologies ranging fromherpersonal laptop,plasmaTV,

newspaperarticles,overheadprojector,posters,flashcards,anddownloadedmoviesfrom

YouTube.InbothobservationssheusedtheSocialScienceClub,inwhichaplasmaTVand

111

anoverheadprojectorwereinstalled.Hereisanillustrationofwhattookplaceinoneofthe

observations:

Shewritesontheblackboardthetitleofthelesson.Shethenconnectsherlaptopto

theplasmaTV.Her lessonbeginsby talkingabouthow the14thprinceofKuwait

became prince andwhat his achievementswere during his reign. Usingmagnetic

flashcards,shesticksthemontheboardeverytimeshediscusseswith[students]a

certain issue regarding the prince. Following the discussion, she shows them a

documentary, which talks about the prince and his achievements. Some of the

studentsweretakingnotesintheirtextbooks,whileothersjustconcentratedonthe

movie shown.As themovie continues, shewrites on theblackboard andmakes a

tableusing threedifferentcolors.After themovie finished,sheaskedthestudents

what achievements were mentioned in the movie. When students answered

correctly, sheused theoval‐shaped flash cards that had statements of the correct

answerandstuckthemontheblackboardusingmagnets.Shethenaskedstudents

toworkontheexercisesinthetextbook.Sheusedanexerciseworksheetandplaced

it on the projector, whichwas directed toward the blackboard. The exercisewas

composed of questions related to the topic. When the students gave the correct

answers,theteachermotivatedthembyaskingeachstudenttocomeupandwrite

theanswerontheworksheetontheoverheadprojector.

Similarly, teachers from the I. S. School used various teaching tools to assist the

students during the learning process. Mariam, the social science teacher from the I. S.

School, indicated thatsheused technologyespecially forchildren;since itenabledher to

extract pictures ormaterials thatwere attractive to them, she could gather and present

112

new information and accordingly facilitate learning for the students. She commented, “I

facilitatetheirunderstandingofthelessonbygettingstufffromoutside,notonlyfromthe

school textbook, so Imake it easier for them.Formy topic, social studies, I getpictures,

objects,thingsfromtheInternet.”Furthermore,sheaddedthatthesuperintendentorthe

principalenjoyedherclassbecauseoftheextrainformationshegathered.“Theyenjoymy

lesson because I get information from the Internet. I correct information found in the

textbook; I enter the class and I am comfortable, and I have extra information and self‐

confidence.”

DisseminationofInformation

Teachers also emphasized that certain information could only be conveyed using

technologyandthat the topicaswellas thesubjectareadeterminedwhether technology

was used. Abeer, the science teacher from the A. E. School, provided an example of her

thoughts:

It depends on the nature of the lesson; some lessons you do not have to use

technology,youmustcommunicatedirectlytothestudents,youmustseetheireyes,

theirfaces,theirreactions,ithelpsthem;butsometimesyouneedtousetechnology

becausetheycannotimaginethepicturethatyouwantthemtoimagine.

She gave the following as an example: “How a bird flies. Technology shows them

visuallyhowabirdcanflyandifyouactedhowabirdfliesyouwillnotconveythesame

messagelikewhenusingtechnology.”Anotherexamplewhichshedescribedwas“burning

ofthecandle,itisbettertheyseeitwiththeireyes.Youneedtousetoolsinthiscase.”She

furtherindicatedthattherewerecertaintopicsforwhichtechnologywasnotrequiredand

113

youneeded to convey the information in front of the students.Her examplewas “in the

lessonregardingmovement.Howdoyoudosportexercises,itisnotpossiblethatyouuse

technologybecausethestudenthastodotheexercise.”

DuringmyobservationofAbeer teaching first graders, the topicwas “How things

move,” during which she performed the movements to communicate the message in a

manner thatwasunderstandable to the students and that conveyedwhatmovingmeant

andhowobjectsmoved.Thefollowingisanexcerptofwhattookplace:

Theteacherasksthestudentstoopentheirtextbooksandlookatthepicturesthat

show the types of movement. The first picture shows someone jumping. She

performed the action of jumping and the students stood up and copied her. The

secondpictureshowedapersonwalkingontoes.Sheperformeditandstudentsdid

thesame.

Whenitcametothenextexercise,theteacherusedadifferentwayofexplaining:

Thesecondexercisewasapoemonrabbits.SheusedaPowerPointpresentationto

showthemapictureofarabbitsothatthestudentsknewwhatit lookedlike.The

teachertoldthemthatthepoemsays“pretendyouarearabbit.”Sotheteacherputs

herhandsontopofherheadshowingthemhowtheearsofarabbit looklikeand

thestudentsimitatedher.

Abeerusedadifferentapproachinanothersituationduringmyobservationofher

teachingfifthgradersa lessononenergy. Inthiscasesheusedamovietoexplainkinetic

and static energy.Themovie showedahigh swingmovementandhow it swingsupand

down. Therewere no sound linked to themovie, justmovement. The teacher discussed

withthestudentstheactionsthatweretakingplaceinthemovie,emphasizingthatwhen

114

theswingswaysup,thisiscalled[kinetic]energy.Whentheswingmovesdown,itiscalled

static energy. After the movie finished, she drew on the blackboard a movement (see

Figure8),andthenmadethestudentscomeuptotheblackboardtoindicatethelocations

ofthestaticandkineticenergy.

Figure8.DiagramofkineticandstaticmovementusedduringAbeer’sfifth‐gradesciencelesson.

After the lesson I asked Abeer where she got the movie. She explained that the

moviewasprovidedby theMOEand that theMOEprovides themovies for someof the

lessonsbutwhentheydonot,thentheteachersgettheirown.

Whendiscussingwhethertechnologycanbeusedinallsubjectareas,teachershad

variousideas.Leila,theIslamicstudiesteacher,discussedhowtechnology,inheropinion,

wouldnotbeusefulwhenteachinghertopic.Herresponsewasasfollows:

I use also the audio‐recorder more than anything because Islamic studies are

different,maybeothersubjectsuseotherthings.Thetypeofsubjectaffectsmyuse

oftechnology.Forexample,insocialstudiestheyusemaps,andinsciencetheyusea

lot of pictures. As for religion,most things are static;most of the things that get

presentedareverses,Hadith,simplepictures...formethetypeoftopiccontrolsthe

Static

Kinetic

Static

115

technologyused.[Toteachthe]Quran,Iusetheaudio‐recorderandtextbook;[that]

isallthatweuse.

In conclusion, teachers from both schools perceived technology to be useful and

applicabletotheirneedsastheywereabletocarryouttheirteachingtaskswithmoreease

anditmatchedtheirneedsandstyleofinstruction.

Complexity

Duringtheinterviews,theteacherswereaskedaboutthechallengesanddifficulties

theyfacedwhenusingtechnology.Thesequestionsprovidedanunderstandingofwhether

teachers facedproblemswhenutilizing technologyandwhat thoseproblemswere.From

the discussion, emphasis was made on difficulty in using some of the devices and

applicationsandnotbeingabletodealwithtroubleshootingissues.

DifficultyofUseofDevicesandApplications

Two teachers at the A. E. School responded to the issue of difficulty of use by

indicating that the Data Show and Moviemaker were the most difficult technology. The

English teacher indicated that getting access to the Data Show and getting it readywas

difficult,andtheIslamicstudiesteacheremphasizedthatsheavoidedusinganytechnology

that she perceived as difficult; these two testimonies showed that each teacher had her

own thoughts and levelsof comfortwith technologyuse.The followingare the teachers’

statementsregardingthisissue.

Leila, the Islamic studies teacher, stated that she did not use anything that was

complicated.“AnythingthatiscomplicatedIdonotuseatall.AnythingthatiseasyIchoose

116

anduseit,evenifitisadevicelikeacellphone.”Sheexplainedthatcomputerswerenot

complicatedbutrequiredpracticeandtimethatshe feltshedidnothave. “I feel Idonot

havetimesoIdonotuseitatall.IlikeitIwouldliketolearnonitthings,butIdonothave

time.”Sheelaboratedthatshecheckedemailsonlyeverytwotothreeweeksandthatusing

onlinechattingneededtimeathomeandshedidnothavetime.

Nodah, the English teacher, found the difficulty in obtaining the devices, as they

were not installed in the classrooms. She discussed that preparation of the devices took

time,butonceeverythingwasconnected,itwaseasyforhertouse.Forexample,shesaid,

“the Data Show [is not in the classroom, so] I have to ask permission from the

administration, theymay give it tome, then I take it tomy classroomand I have to call

anotherteachertoopenitforme.”However,shesaid,”Usingtechnologyisveryeasy.”

Incontrast, thescience teacherAbeerwasconcernedaboutnotbeingable todeal

with the devices if anything went wrong. She identified the Data Show as an example

because“ifyoupressthewrongbutton,youwillnotbeabletoreturnbacktothescreen.

Maybeyouwillaskforassistance.Sometimesitstopsinthemiddleoftheclassduringthe

explanation.”TheperceivedunpredictablenatureoftechnologywasanissueforAbeer.

Ontheotherhand,Amira,thesocialstudiesteacher,thoughtofusingtechnologyas

notbeingdifficultexceptfortheMoviemaker.“IdonotknowbecauseIlovetechnology;I

donotfeelthatitiscomplicated....MaybetheMoviemaker...Ididnotstudyitsoit’sabit

difficultforme.Everythingelseisfine.”

Similarly,theI.S.School’steachersindicatedthattheyfounddifficultyinusingthe

DataShow,PowerPoint,andFlash.Asmaa,thescienceteacher,consideredPowerPointto

bethemostdifficult,andsosheaskedhercolleaguesforassistanceifshewantedtomake

117

anindex.Sheexplained,“WhenImakemyquestions,Idonotknowhowtomakeanindex.

..notthatIdonotknowthewholeapplication,butIfinddifficultyinit.NowIamlearning

thesethings.”

Mai,thesocialstudiesteacher,foundtheDatashowtobedifficultsincesheandher

colleagueswerenotusedtoitbecauseitisanewtechnique.Withexperience,theystarted

toknowhowtouseitandhowtomakeaPowerPointpresentation.“Installingthedevice

itselfandshowing it to thestudents, connection to the laptopwasdifficult,butwhenwe

useditalot,itbecameeasy.”

Lojain,thescienceteacher,statedthatFlashis“very,verydifficult.” Shediscussed

that she used it for things that need to be animated, “for example to show how a plant

growsslowly,sothisissomehowdifficult.”Shefurtherexplainedthatshedidnottrainon

usingFlash,but learned itbypractice,andsoshebelievesthat ifshehadtrainingonthe

wholeprogram,itmightbecomeeasierforher.“IwanttotakethistrainingcoursesothatI

feelthatitisnotdifficultformetouse.”Shealsocommented,“Itisdifficult,ittakestime—

eachanimationmovementyoucreate,ittakesmelikehalfanhour,soformeitisdifficult;

thosewhoareexperienced,[itonly]takesthemaminutetodoit.”

Lastly,Mariam,thesocialstudiesteacher,indicatedthatPowerPointwassomewhat

difficult.“Itisnotthatdifficult,butbecauseIliketoputpicturesandshapestoattract[the

students]...itisdifficultformetoextractthesethingsandorganizeitonaslide.”

DealingwithMalfunctions

Afterdiscussingdifficultiesinusingthedevicesandapplication,thediscussionthen

focusedonissuesrelatedtodifficultyindealingwithtechnicalissues.Teachersfromboth

118

schoolshadvariousopinionsonhowtheydealwiththismatter.Someteachersexplained

thattheydealtwithsimplemalfunctionsorcalledtheircolleaguesforhelp,butanengineer

oratechnicianfixedthemainproblems.Othersindicatedthattheytriedthedevicesahead

oftimetoensurethattheyworkedorfoundalternativeteachingtechniques.Thefollowing

aretheirresponsesthatillustratehowtechnicalissuesarehandled.

Amira,thesocialstudiesteacherattheA.E.School, indicatedthatshetriedtouse

the technology by herself at the beginning but would call an engineer when all efforts

failed.Shesaid:

There are times when facilitation comes from Allah; yes, maybe it doesn’t work,

[but] I make two technical changes, [and] five minutes later it starts to work.

Sometimestheissuecanbesimplebutitdoesnotwork. . . .Wecallanengineer,a

computerengineer,tohelpus....Iftheproblemisdifficultforusandweaskedfor

anengineer tocome,we learn fromhimso that thesamemistakedoesn’thappen

again,sooncetheengineerarrivesall theteachers in thedepartmentare thereto

seethereasonoftheproblemandhowitcangetresolved.

DuringmyobservationofAmiraandherfifth‐gradeclass,atechnicalissueoccurred

and she demonstrated several attempts to resolve the technological problem. The

followingisadescriptionofwhattookplaceduringthelessonmentionedpreviouslyabout

the14thprinceofKuwait.

Theteacherwritesthedateontheboard.Shehasherlaptopattachedtotheplasma

TV.Today’slessonisonthe14thprinceofKuwait.Shehasaposter,andshesticks

magnets to theposterandhangs iton thewall.Shebeginsbyasking thestudents

whose picture is on the poster. A student answers, “Princes of Kuwait.” She then

119

asksthemwhoistheprincenowinKuwaitandwhendidhebecometheprince.One

student answers, “Alsheikh Alsabah” and another student answers, “February,

2006.”Whilesheisaskingthesequestions,sheistryingtoshowthemamovieabout

theprince.Thescreenisblank.Theconnectionbetweenthelaptopandtheplasma

TVdoesnotwork.The teachersunplugs theconnectionand thenplugs itback in,

butitstilldoesnotwork.Sheasksoneofthestudentsiftheyknowhowtodoit,but

noneknows.Theteacherthenrebootsthelaptop.Whileitisrebooting,sheasksthe

students questions related to the prince. The screen on the TV shows, but Real

Player does not open the movie. She asks the students to read a section on the

prince.Whilethestudentstaketurnsreadingfromthetextbook,shetroubleshoots

theproblemonwhythemoviedidnotwork.Afterafewtrials,themovieworks.She

showsthemthemovieaboutthe14thprince.

After the lesson I asked Amira on what she did if the movie did not work. She

explained that she would either let the students read aloud the information from the

textbookorgetthemanexternalbookthattalksabouttheprince’sachievements.

Ontheotherhand,Abeer,thescienceteacherattheA.E.School,didnottrytodeal

withmajorissuestoavoidtheimplicationofliability.

Wewerenot trainedonusing themachineorwedidnotuse it before.When the

machinegetsdamaged,theresponsibilityfallsonthelastpersonwhousesit.SoifI

face any problem it is better to contact an experienced person because the

responsibility will fall on that person and not me. It is better that I don’t try by

myselfbecausethereispenalizationifproblemsoccur,andsoitisbetterthatIget

assistancefromanexpert.Soyoubecomeafraidoftryingduetotheconsequences.

120

Toavoid technical issues,Nodah, theEnglish teacherat theA.E.School,prepared

thetechnologypriortoteachingthelessonorusedalternativeteachingtools.

Iprepareitbefore.Likethislesson,Imadeitlastweek;twodaysbeforemylesson,I

tooktheDataShowfromtheadministration,Ipluggeditin,[and]Ipracticedmore

thanonce. Iwas sure it isOK, sowhen the classbegins, I know it’s fine. I used it

manytimesbefore. . . .SometimeswhenIgototheclass,thetapedoesn’twork;of

course,Icandealwithit.Ireadtothegirls.Iftheoverheadprojectorisnotworking,

it’sOK;Itellthem,“openyourworkbook,readthequestion,answeritforme,”andI

writetheanswerontheblackboard.

The social studies teachers at the I. S. School faced the same issue asNodah.Mai

prepared the device and/or application ahead of time, while Mariam used alterative

methods,aswillbeillustrated.Maistated:

Look,itdepends.Imeanmypersonalcomputer,Iknowhowtodealwithit,butfor

example, like Data Show or overhead projector, I definitely call the technician

becausesheisresponsibleforthis.Itrytoresolveitbymyself;ifIdonotknowhow

to,Icontactthetechnician,butmostlywetryitbeforewegointothelesson.Imean,

ifthelessonisintheclub,Ihavemyworkreadybefore[by]fiveortenminutesto

know if it does not work. It is difficult that I embarrass myself in front of the

students, so I try it in advance; if it doesn’twork I call the technician before the

students arrive or get help from other teachers who have more experience. The

problemsrelatedtomylaptop,Ilearneditbyexperienceandtrialanderror.Using

thecomputersallthetimemakesthepersonawareoftheproblem.

121

Mariam also shared the issues related to accomodating the malfunction of

technologyinthefolowingdiscussion:

Ofcourse,Idealwithit.Withmyexperienceinteaching,Isurpasstheproblem,soif

therecorderdoesn’twork,Isingwiththegirls.Isingandthegirlssingwithme,and

wefinishthelesson.Icanliftthetextbookandtheycanseethemaporthequestions

that Iwant to clarify, or Iwrite it on the board if the projector doesn’twork. Of

course,Itry,andifIdon’tknow,wehaveinourdepartmentateacher,sheisclever

with technology. For example, Iwas showing a PowerPoint to the girls using the

DataShowandtheDataShowdisconnected.Ifranklydonothaveexperience;Ijust

connectthewiresandthat’sit.Iaskedforhelpfromtheteacher.AfterthelessonI

askedherabouttheproblem,asIwasafraidthattheproblemwouldberepeated.

Lojain, thescience teacherat the I. S. School,on theotherhand,hadacompletely

differentapproachtoallofthis.ShesavedherworkonaUSBincaseaproblemoccured.

Sheexplained:

Sometimes,forexample,weagreedwiththeteacherstosaveeverythingonUSB....

Yes,wetrytosaveeverythingonitsothatifthecomputerbreaks,Allahforbid,our

workwillstillbethere.. . .Duringthelesson,ifIfacedaproblemorthelaptopdid

notwork,Itakemycolleague’slaptopandusetheUSB,whichhasallmyworkonit,

soIwon’tfaceaproblem.

In summary, teachers faced some technical challengeswhenusing technologybut

managed todealwith the situationsbyaskingassistance from their colleagues, ensuring

functionality ahead of time, or substituting technology with other materials that were

available.

122

Observability

Subsequenttofindingoutfromtheteachersaboutthedifficultiestheyfacedinusing

technologies,itwasimportanttofindoutwhethertheyfacedissuesinbeingprovidedwith

thetechnologiestheyneededandwhethertheyhadaccesstothem.Thisinformationwould

show thedegreeandamountofuse. Inaddition, itwas important todeterminewhether

thereweretangibleconsequencesthattheyexperiencedwhenusingtechnology.

VisibilityandAccessibility

Duetothelackandaccessibilityofdevicesandteachingtools,constantusebythe

teachers at both schoolswas limited. Teachers resorted toworking at home and taking

turnsinusingcertaindevicesaswellastheclassroomsthathadtechnologiesinstalledin

them.Furthermore,theA.E.School’steachersdiscussedthecontrolenforcedbytheschool

administrationoverthedevices.

Amira,thesocialstudiesteacherfromtheA.E.School,talkedabouthowsometimes

herhourscoincidedwiththoseofotherteachersinherdepartmentinwantingtousethe

plasmaTV in theClub. She gave an example: “Sometimes, like last time I had aproblem

withthefirstlessonandthatofAblaX[anotherteacher],Italkedtotheadministration[to

see] if theycanexchangemylessonorher lesson.”Sheexplainedthattheadministration

switchedthelesson.“Theymovedmylessonandpostponedittothefourth[period],[and]

shegavethelessonhereandIgavethelessonhere[intheclub].”Duringmyobservation,I

found out that therewas one Social Studies Club that had a plasmaTV (Figure 9) to be

shared by all the teachers of the department. In addition, when talking to Amira, she

123

indicated that she uses the clubwhen she needs to use technologies for her lesson, and

wouldusetheregularclassroomwhenthelessondoesnotrequiretechnologies.

Figure9.TheSocialstudiesclubattheA.E.School.

Leila,theIslamicstudiesteacher,respondedthatsheneededtogoandreservethe

Data Show, and the school administration would provide it for her, but she found the

process toodifficult. “I find itdifficult; therefore, Iuseaneasiermethod,or flashcard,or

anythingthatIhave.AnythingIcanuse.Butifitisprovidedintheclass,itisbetter.”

Duringmy observation of Leila, I discovered that the Islamic StudiesDepartment

hadoneClub(seeFigure10)thathadaplasmaTV.Duetolackofspaceintheiroffice,the

clubhasacomputerforteacherstotypeandprintouttheirworksheetsandexams.

Figure10.TheIslamicstudiesclubattheA.E.School.

124

Similarly,Abeer,theA.E.School’sscienceteacher,indicated,“IfwehadInternet,for

example,it[would]makethingsveryeasyforus.Insteadofdoingourschooltasksathome,

we[would]doitintheschool.Wedepend90%ontheInternetformovies,pictures,etc.”

Duringmyobservation,InotedthatseveralteachersusedanInternetUSBmodem

tobeabletoaccesstheInternet.TheInternetwasusedonlybytheschooladministration,

andtheteachersdidnothaveaccesstoit.Inaddition,teachersfacedproblemsduetothe

lackofDataShowdevices.TheA.E.SchoolhadaDataShowroom(seeFigure11)thathad

a Data Show installed in it, and this was to be shared by the different departments;

therefore,itwasnotavailableallthetimeforteachers.

Figure11.TheDataShowroomattheA.E.School.

All teachers at the A. E. School emphasized that the administrative procedures in

controllingwhoused thedevices limited theiruseandaccessibilityof technology.Abeer,

thescienceteacher,commented:

Their concernon thewelfareof themachines impedesusebecause theywant the

machinestobesafe,sotheyhavealotofcomplicatedprocedurestouseitbecause

theyjustwanttoblamesomeone,whowasthelastpersontousethemachine,soit

is your fault, so you must hold responsibility. These are administration

125

complications. The main issue they are concerned about is the safety for the

machines,sotheyhavelong,longprocedures.

Nodah,theEnglishteacher,reiteratedthisideabysaying:

AnyonewhowantstousetheDataShowhastohavepermission....TheDataShow

iswith the administration; I have to take it from the administration. I use it and

returnit.Idonothaveitallthedayinmyclass.

Duringmyobservationofbothherclasses intheEnglishclub(seeFigure12),she

used her own laptop and connected it to the Data show, which she got from the

administration.Shealsohadtogettheprojectionscreenandsetupeverythingbyherself.

TherewasoneEnglishclubthatwassharedbetweenalloftheteachersofthedepartment.

Figure12.TheEnglishclubattheA.E.School.

Similarly, I found that teachers from the I. S. School had issues regarding

accessibilityofsomeofthetechnologies.Mariam,thesocialstudiesteacher,statedthat it

waseasierforhertousetheDataShowifitwaspresentintheclass,butsinceitwasnot,

shelimitedheruse.

126

Beforegivingthelesson,IaskcanItakeitornot,becauseasyoucansee,itisone

device.IfIneedit,Igoandtakeit,andgototheclass,andbythetimeIprepareit...

ifitisineachclass,itiseasieranditwillencouragemetouseit.

Asmaa, the science teacher from the I. S. School, also discussed that not having

accesstotechnologiessuchastheDataShowlimitedheruse:

NowwehaveoneDataShow,andsometimesitoccursthatthreeteacherswantto

present a PowerPoint, which causes for us a very big problem. Previously, they

thought that all the teachers should do a PowerPoint, but they faced problems

becauseit’sonedevice.

Shecontinued,explainingthattheycarriedoutwhattheycalled“PlanB,”whichwas

thenormalpreparation for groupactivities and that theproblemof technologywas that

shecouldnotuseitatalltimes.Forexample,“IcomeinthemorningandIfindoutthatone

oftheteacherswillbedoingaPowerPoint,IamOK,Ihavealreadyarrangedforthat.”She

continued, “We dowish thatwe [had]moreData Show devices.” She indicated that one

teacherevenofferedtopurchaseherowntouseforworkpurposes.

Clearly,havingtechnologiesavailableforuseandtheaccessibiltiyoftheclassrooms

inwhichtheywereinstalledplayedanimportantroleinthedegreeoftechnologyusageat

theschools.

TangibleResults

Despite all of these complexities, teachers’ technology use with their students

showedthattheirexperiencewithtechnologywasnotallnegative.Duringourdiscussions,

teachers emphasized that they experienced tangible resultswhen using technologywith

127

their students. Their focus was that students performed better in class and acquired

informationaswellasindependenceskills.

ClassPerformance

Teachers from both schools pointed out thatwhen technologywas used in class,

studentstendedtoconcentrateandbeattentivetothelesson.Theybecameactiveinclass,

memorizedthingsbetter,andperformedbetter.Amira,thesocialstudiesteacher,andLeila,

the Islamic studies teacher, from the A. E. School discussed this issue.With technology,

Amira said she can “simplify the information to the students and that it draws their

attention.” She further explained thatwhen therewasonly explanation, the students fell

asleepandbecamesluggishorlazy.Butwhensheusedarecordedclip,video,orlaptop,“it

draws the students’ attention.” She noticed that everybody concentrated on the film or

song thatwasbeingshown.Likewise,Leila stated that shenoticed that the studentshad

“moreinterestandconcentratedmore.”Sheexplainedthatstudentsbecameattentiveand

interactedwithnewthingsthatwereaddedbecauseitwasmoreinteresting.

Furthermore,teachersattheA.E.Schoolrecognizedthatstudentstendedtomake

connections of the information to things they knew, absorbed informationmore rapidly,

and remembered the informationgiven to them.Nodah, theEnglish teacher commented,

“Theinformationwillremainintheirmindsmuchlongerbecausetheyseesomething,not

just talking.” Abeer, the science teacher, talked about how students made sense of the

information,explaining:

Inoticedthattheylinkedtheinformationwiththerealitytheylivein.Forexample,

theyseehowicemeltsthroughwatchingthePowerPointpresentationorthrough

128

watchingavideo,andsotheygiveexamplesfromtheirlife,linkthingsthattheysee

totheirreality.

TeachersfromtheI.S.Schoolsupportedthepremisethatstudentsperformbetterin

classwhentechnologyisused.Lojain,thescienceteacher,discussedhowtechnologywas

betterforstudentsthannarration.Sheexplainedthatwhensheusedtheoldway,wasisto

narratebyexplaining,sheusedtonoticethat“thestudentswouldnotgainanyinformation

andthelessonwasnotinteresting.”Whenthestudentsweregivenproblemstosolve,they

wouldn’t solve them because the narration was boring, so they wouldn’t listen. She

explained that “their concentrationdisperses; theyplaywith things in frontof them, the

textbook, whatever.” However, she explained, when she uses technology, which she

referredtoas“emergingpedagogy,”shenoticedthatthestudents’attentionwaswiththe

teacher.Shesaid,“youfeelthattheinformationremainswiththestudents,sowhentheygo

totheuppergrades,theyhavenotforgottentheinformation.”Furthermore,sherecognized

that students acquire independence when technology is used. She talked about how

students depended on themselves when doing experiments, reading, and implementing

steps,andthattheyenjoyedworkingtogetheringroups.

Mariam,thesocialstudiesteacher,talkedaboutusingmusictoencouragestudents’

interaction. Shebeganby stating that informationbecameembedded in the child’smind

whensheshowsthemafilm,putonmusic,orshowedthempicturesotherthantextbook

pictures.Shegaveanexample:“Iusetheaudio‐recorderformusic,especiallyforthefirst,

second, and third graderswho are young in age.When they listen to a song linked to a

lesson,theyinteractmorewiththeteacher.”

129

SheindicatedthatsheencouragedstudentstogatherinformationfromtheInternet

relevanttothelessonandthenshewouldpresenttheirworktotherestoftheclass.She

believedthatthestudentsbecameproudoftheirworkwhentheysawitshowntoothers

andtheclassbenefitfromit.ThefollowingisanillustrationofwhatMariamdidduringmy

observationofherfifth‐gradeclass:

Theteacherhadherlaptopconnectedtothe(portable)DataShowandshebeganby

showingamovieonAl‐Sheikh JaberAlsabah.She thenreadaloudwhat themovie

said. She used aWord documentwith pictures of the prince on it and asked the

students, “When did Al‐Sheikh Jaber become a prince?” One student replied, “29

February, 2006.” The teacher then asked the students to read out excerpts about

him. She had a poster to which the work of each student was attached, and the

student read from it. The students’ work had pictures, including type‐written

paragraphs.Shethenplayedasong(fromavideodownloadedfromYouTube)about

theprincewhileshecirculatedamongthestudentsandmarkedtheirtextbooks.

Next,Mariambegantopresentthestudents’projects:

Shethenusedherlaptopandshowedaprojectmadebyoneofthestudentsthatwas

savedonaCD.TheCDconsistedofaWorddocument, and therewas information

about the prince typed on it. It also had pictures of the prince. The teacher read

whatwaswrittentothestudents.AnotherstudenthadherworksavedontheUSB,

andshegaveittotheteacher.TheteacherconnectedtheUSBandreadsomeofthe

informationgatheredbythestudent.

In conclusion, the teachers observed that technology made students absorb and

learnthematerial,aswellasimprovedtheirperformanceinclass.

130

Trialability

Afterdiscussingtheobservableissuesfromusingtechnology,thediscussionturned

towhereteacherslearnedtousetechnology.Thishelpedinunderstandingthetypeofskills

thatweregainedandhowittheseskillscontributedtotheiruseoftechnology.

ProfessionalDevelopment

TeachersfromboththeA.E.andI.S.Schoolsindicatedthattheyattendedcomputer

courses either throughuniversity coursework or training institutes. In addition, someof

themstatedthattheytaughtthemselvestheuseofsomeapplications.Allteachershadthe

same opinion that prior exposure to technology and the daily use of it played a role in

making themuse technology in theirprofession.Teachers talkedabout the ICDLand the

CLP as being the most common training programs recommended by the MOE and the

schooladministration.

Abeer,thescienceteacherattheA.E.School,commented,“Thosewhodidnottake

theICDLtaketheCLPofferedbytheMOE,somostoftheteachershaveeithertheICDLor

CLP. It is mandatory for us to take it as prescribed by the school administration.” She

believedthatforsometeachers,theICDLandCLPwerebeneficial,butforotherstheICDL

wasnotentirelyuseful.ShepersonallybelievedtheICDLwasusefulandthatshelearneda

lotofthingsfromit.“TheICDLisreallyimportant,andIlearnedalotofthingsfromit;the

ICDLtaughtmemorethanthecollegecourses.”Sheexplainedthattherewereapplications

thatshelearnedatcollegeandapplicationsshelearnedattheICDL.Shegaveanexample:

“Excel,wetookitinabasicwayatcollege,butintheICDLsession,wehadmorein‐depth

exposure.” She also said that she did not learnOutlook at college, but she took it at the

131

ICDL. She further explained, “EvenWord andPowerPoint, how touse it andmanyof its

functions,IlearneditattheICDL,whichwasacompletiontowhatIlearnedatthecollege.”

Mai,thesocialstudiesteacherattheI.S.School,reiteratedasimilaropinion:

IntheICDL,forexampleIlearnedPowerPoint.IlearnedhowtoshowitontheData

Show...[andhowto]preparealessononitandpresentitthroughtheDataShow.

UsingWord, I learned how to type exams and reports, and in Excel I put grades.

Previously,duringuniversityItookcomputerprograms,buttheICDLstrengthened

it.InowknowmorewiththeICDL.

Ontheotherhand,IfoundthatAmira,thesocialstudiesteacherattheA.E.School,

andLojain,thescienceteacherattheI.S.School,hadadifferentviewpointabouttheICDL

andthattheydidnotentirelybenefitfromattendingit.AmiradiscussedhowtheICDLdid

notaddanythingforher.“Frankly,theICDLdidnotaddorsubtractanything,becausefor

me,ExcelistheonlythingIdidnothavebackgroundinformationon...anddidnotstudy.”

She said that she stopped attending the ICDL courses for personal circumstances. She

continuedbysaying,“IhadpreviousexperienceinPowerPoint;Iusedtomakelessonswith

itbeforetheICDL.Word,Iusedtouseitbefore.IthinkifIcompletedtheExcel,thisisthe

onlythingthatcouldhaveaddedtome.”

LojaindiscussedthattheICDLdidnotplayaroleforher,butshetookthetraining

course. She explained that “everything they gave us in PowerPoint or the Internet are

things I know by practice.” She further explained that if shewere to comparewhat she

learnedfromtheICDLandthethingsshelearnedbypractice,practicewasbetterthanthe

ICDLbecause“itisnot100%comprehensive.”

132

The teacherswere then asked aboutwhat theywould like to see changed in the

ICDL. Each of the teachers provided different recommendations on what needed to be

changed.LojainindicatedthattheICDLshouldincludethethingsthatarebeneficialtothe

person’sspecialtyandtheirprofessionasateacher“Imean,Iamateacher,whatdoIneed

from the ICDL? I need PowerPoint, Moviemaker, and the Internet, so they should

concentrate on the things that the teachers need.” She also suggested that the trainers

should concentrate on specific topics and not provide general topics and that there are

topicsthatwouldapplymoretotheadministrativepersonnelandnotteachers.

Leila,theIslamicstudiesattheA.E.School,andMai,thesocialstudiesteacheratthe

I.S.School,bothindicatedthatthetimeperiodoftheICDLexam,whichis45minutes,was

insufficient forthemtocomplete it.Leilasaid,“TheproblemwiththeICDLispassingthe

exam,itisverydifficult.Theexamis45minutesandtheexamispractical . . .sothetime

wasnotsufficient,soanyerror,youwouldbeaccountableforit.”Maiconcurredbysaying:

Theexamhasacertain time.Therearequestionsand ithasa time limit.Yes, it is

nicethatyouworkquickly,buttheproblemisthatyoufeelthatmentallyyouarein

amess,youfinishquickly,somaybeyouputsomethinginsteadofanother,sothat

impactsyou,sotimeisabitofaproblem.

Other recommendations for the ICDLwere provided by Amira, the social studies

teacherattheA.E.School,whosuggested:

I think the ICDL should be in twoparts, advanced and beginners.When I took it,

therewereteacherswithmewhodidn’thavepreviousexperience,sotheICDLwas

anachievementforthem.Ifyouaskme,theICDLdidnotaddanythingforme,[but

for]anotherteacher,theICDLaddedforhersomanythings.TheMoviemaker—why

133

should it not be as part of the courses—I think it is more advanced than the

PowerPoint,soitshouldbepartoftheprogram.

Abeer,thescienceteacherattheA.E.School,alsoprovidedsuggestions:

OneofthetopicsgivenintheICDListheoretical,likethecomputer,computerparts,

and itsstoragecapacity.Thesethingsare theoretical, it is just informationneeded

fortheexam,itisbetterifitgetsremoved...likehowyouopen[thecomputer];Ido

notthinkthereisanyonewhocannotpressthebuttonandopenthedevice.

Some teacherswho took the CLP discussed the benefits of attending it. Leila, the

IslamicstudiesteacherattheA.E.School,commented,“Wetookitattheschoolhere.The

school organized training. . . . They gave us Word and PowerPoint, so I learned the

PowerPoint.” She said “itwas nice,” but believed that if they left the training up to the

school, it would be better. “Training at school is so much better. . . . The MOE had an

instructionalbookthathadPowerPointandWord,andtheytrainedus.Iftheygiveittous

attheschool,itisbetterforusthantheICDL.”Similarly,Mariam,thesocialstudiesteacher

at the I. S. School, also benefited from the CLP training because she learned how to use

features within PowerPoint. She said, “CLP helped me but not significantly because

originally I have prior experience with computers, but maybe it helped me more with

PowerPoint.”SheexplainedthatshehadpreviousexperiencewithExcelandWord,butnot

somuchwithPowerPoint. “PowerPointhelpedme in insertingpictures; these tasks that

wereabitdifficultforme.IneedapictureorshapesorFlash,[so]itfacilitatedthesethings

forme.”

134

Nodah, theEnglishteacherat theA.E.School, despitenot takingthe ICDL, talked

abouttheadvantageanddisadvantageofeachtrainingprograminregardstocertification,

varietyofcoursesgiven,andtime.Shesaid:

ICDL, it is better than the CLP because it has a test, a certificate, and it includes

Word,PowerPoint,Excel,Access,allofthem....Well,theICDLtakesmoretime;ifI

wanttotaketheICDL,nowIhavetotakeitfrommyowntimenotfromtheschool

time because I cannot leavemy students and go take the ICDL, so it’s a little bit

difficult....CLPisshorter...theygaveusthistrainingduringthelasttwoweeksof

theendoftheschoolyear,sotherewerenokids,gradeswerealreadyin,soitwas

good,thetimewasgood....Well,itwasgood;Ilearnedalot.Thereisnothingtobe

changed....No,itwasgoodasastarter.Ilearnedalot.

Overall,theconclusionregardingprofessionaldevelopmentisthattheICDLandthe

CLPtrainingsessionsprovidedanopportunityforteacherstogainskillsandtotrycertain

applicationsandaccordinglyusethemintheirteachingprofession.

Summary

This chapter presented the themes generated from the interviews, which were

linkedto theparticipantobservation that tookplace, includingphotos fromtheA.E.and

I.S.Schoolsettings.Thefollowingthemesemergedregardingteachers’characteristicsand

supportenvironment:transitionandadjustment,experienceandpractice,supervisionand

management(motivationalsupport),employingtechnologyinadministrativeandteaching

tasks, direct and indirect involvement, and budget constraint. The themes that emerged

relatedtoattributesoftechnologywereinformationaccessandsharing,organizationofthe

135

lesson, facilitationof the learningprocess, anddisseminationof information.Difficultyof

useofdevicesandapplication,dealingwithmalfunctions,accessibilityandvisibility,class

performance, and professional development also emerged as relevant topics. Teachers

from both schools showed similarities as well difference in many aspects related to

technologyuse.ThekeydifferencewasthatteachersfromtheA.E.Schoolspokeabouthow

certain information can only be conveyed using technology and that the subject matter

determinedwhethertechnologyisused. TheA.E.School’steachersalsospokeaboutthe

control enforced by the school administration over use of some of the devices. The I. S.

School’steachersdidnottackleanyoftheseissues.TheI.S.School’steachersemphasized

thataccesstoavastamountofinformationallowedthemtobuildtheirself‐confidence;the

A. E. teachers did not discuss this point. Finally, in regard to class performance, the

difference between teachers at the A. E. and I. S. Schools was that the A. E. teachers

discussed how students acquired knowledge,while teachers from the I. S. School talked

aboutstudentsbecomingindependent.

136

CHAPTERFIVE:DISCUSSIONANDCONCLUSION

Thischapterwilldiscussthefindingsofthestudy.Thediscussionoffindingswillbe

followed by an overall conclusion of the study and recommendations. Implications and

areasforfurtherresearchwillalsobehighlighted.

DiscussionoftheFindings

Thissectionwilladdresseachresearchquestionindividually.Undereachresearch

question, the themes generated will be discussed, including their relationship to the

literatureandthetheoreticalframeworksusedinthisresearch.

ResearchQuestionOne

The first research question addresses the extent to which Kuwaiti teachers have

adopted and integrated technology. Teachers’ characteristics that affect the way they

perceivetechnologyandthesupportenvironmentthatfacilitateorimpedetheirusewere

examined. The following themes that emerged are anxiety, experience and practice,

support from administration, decision‐making, technology used and its purposes, and

budgetissues.

Anxiety

Anxiety was one factor that Kuwaiti teachers faced during the transition and

adjustmentstageastheymovedfromnon‐userstousersoftechnology.Feelingsofanxiety

camefromthreemainissues:time,equipmentfailure,andlackoftraining.Thefirstissue,

time, can be broken into three challenges. The first challenge relates to the fact that

137

technology requires a change inhow the classmaterialswereprepared—extra timeand

effortwereneededtopreparethelessons.Asecondproblemrelatedtotimeisthat,since

most of the equipment was not installed in classrooms, teachers needed to obtain it,

whetherfromthestorageroomortheschooladministration.Finally,gettingtheequipment

setupandmaking sure it functionedalso requiredextra timeandeffort. In their study,

Oncuetal. (2008) found that teachers thoughtof technologyasbeingconvenientduring

the lessonsince it speedsandenhances thepresentationof the content.Butbecause the

teachers in this studyhad to “figureouthowtouse [technology]andwhere it fits in the

lesson”(Oncuetal.,p.35),teachersspentextratimepreparingthelessons.Furthermore,

Zhao and Frank (2003) emphasize that simple technology options that “require little

changeand[do]notrequirereconfiguringteachingpractices,costlessintermsoftimeand

energy,areusedmostfrequently”(p.821).

The second reason why the Kuwaiti teachers reported being anxious was their

uncertaintyaboutfunctionality—thefearofasuddenfailureoftheequipmentinclass.This

anxiety was heightened because Kuwaiti teachers are bound by a specific timeline and

timetable for completing the curriculum. Therefore, any delay would not only affect

students’learningbuttheteachers’finalprofessionalassessments.

AfinalissuelinkedtoanxietywasthattheKuwaititeachershadlittleornotraining

in the use of certain applications and/or devices at the time the technologies were

introduced in their school. Authors discuss that teachers’ knowledge and skills are an

influencing aspect on their use of technology in schools (Hew & Brush, 2007) and that

knowledgeandskilldevelopmentarenecessarytobeabletousetheinnovationEly(1999).

138

In summary, due to feelings of anxiety, Kuwaiti teachers’ limited their use of

technology.Theteacherswouldoftenuseaccessibleandsimpleteachingtoolssuchasthe

blackboardorflashcardsinsteadofatechnologyoptionsuchasaPowerPointpresentation

ExperienceandPractice

Experienceandpracticewiththeinstructionaltechnologyoptionswereaspectsthat

positively influencedKuwaiti teachers’useoftechnology.Priorexposureanddailyuseof

technology encouraged teachers’ usage. Rogers (2003) indicates that previous practice

usinganinnovationdecreasestheuncertaintyofaninnovation.Withcontinuouspractice,

teachers were able to maximize their use of technology for the best interests of their

studentlearningandteachingtasks.Keengweetal.(2008)emphasizethatteachersneedto

have a “comfort level and consistently implement technology tools as part of their own

repertoire of tools in subjects in which they teach” (p. 561). For example, some of the

Kuwaititeachersmotivatedthestudentstoparticipateinclassprojectsbyaskingthemto

searchforinformationontheInternetanduploaditonaCDoraUSBtopresentittotheir

peers. Other teachers provided experiments and group activities to teach scientific

concepts. Nevertheless, the obligation of the Kuwaiti teachers to follow the national

curriculum tended to direct theirpedagogical orientation. Teachers did not change their

overallteachingstyle.Rather,theKuwaititeacherswouldmostlydemonstrateandprovide

the students with the information and then allow students to follow and replicate the

instructions, aswell as use the traditional question‐and‐answer teaching approach. This

result supports studies that show that in teacher‐centered environments, students are

taught throughnarrativesor theuseofdrills and repetitionof information (Wenglinsky,

2005).Drillsareusedasareinforcementtoolandpromotetheacquisitionofknowledgeor

139

skill through repetitive practice as well as question‐and‐answer interactions in which

studentsgetappropriatefeedback.

SupportfromAdministration

TheKuwaiti teachers in the studyweremotivated to use technologyby receiving

supportfromboththeschooladministrationanddepartmenthead.Ely’s(1999)condition

commitment emphasizes that the availability and provision of support by immediate

supervisors and administrators can have significant influence on the successful

implementation of the innovation. The results showed teachers receive guidance on the

appropriatetechnologiestobeusedinspecificlessons,and,insomecases,wereprovided

with instructional tools. Insomecases, thestrictrules fromtheadministrationregarding

accessibilitytosomedeviceswassurpassedbysomedepartmentheadswhotookpersonal

responsibilitytoensurethattheteachershadaccessall thetimetothetechnologiesthey

needed.

Furthermore, Ely (1999) emphasizes that rewards or incentives facilitate

technologyadoption.ThisisconsistentwithRogers’(2003)suggestionthatincentivesand

thetypesofincentivesusedcanspeedthediffusionprocessofanewinnovation.Incentives

takeavarietyofdifferent forms,oneofwhich ismonetaryandnon‐monetary incentives

(Rogers,2003).Kuwaititeachersdonotreceiveanyformofmonetaryencouragementfor

using technology but receive non‐monetary incentives, which is “a commodity or object

that is desired by the recipient” (p. 237). In the case of the Kuwaiti teachers, the non‐

monetary incentives mentioned by Rogers (2003) were in the form of receiving

recognitionsandexcellentend‐of‐yearassessmentswhentheyusedtechnology.

140

In summary, support from the supervision andmanagement of the school was a

contributingaspectforKuwaititeachers’utilizationoftechnology.

Decision­Making

ThepurchaseofequipmentwasunderthedirectionoftheMOEwithsomelatitude

given to the local school administration. Teachers were not involved in deciding what

technologies were purchased but did provide their recommendations. Purchases were

madebasedonthefundsavailableandontheviewpointsofboththeschooladministration

andtheMOEaboutwhetherthesetechnologiesweredeemedbeneficial.Forinstance,the

overhead projector and the audio‐recorder, available in each classroom, were decided

upon and provided by the MOE. This instance supports studies that indicate that

technologyisintegratedregardlessofteachers’needsandusageandinmostcaseswithout

their consultation (Baylor & Ritchie, 2002). Rogers (2003) discussed that school

administratorswhohavepower and status are likely to encourage their subordinates to

adoptnew ideas, also referred to as “authority innovationdecisions” (p.38).The rateof

adoption is faster when potential adopters’ decisions to adopt have been influenced or

madebysomeone inauthority(Rogers,2003).However,authoritativedecisionstoadopt

aninnovation“mayonlyhelpinitialadoptionbutmaydecreasethelikelihoodthatitwillbe

implemented” (Rogers, 2003, p. 429). When adopters are obliged to use a certain

innovation based on hierarchical decisions, they lack the motivation and willingness to

proceedunlesstheyperceivethatproceedingisuseful.InthecaseoftheKuwaititeachers

they believed that technology was useful and therefore limited their use to what was

providedtothem.

141

On the other hand, studies show that when teachers take part in the decision

process,twobenefitsarise.Thefirstbenefitisthatitimproves“teachers’competencyand

moraleandallow themtomakedecisions thataccomplish their specificgoals” (Baylor&

Ritchie, 2002, p. 19). This supports the condition of participation (Ely, 1999), which

suggests that shared decision‐making and communicating among all parties develops a

sense of ownership of the product and thus, increases, the likelihood that it will be

implemented successfully (Ensminger & Surry, 2008). Second, taking part in decision‐

makingdeterminesthemostimportanttechnologiesneededbytheteachersandeliminates

those that are not needed. Oncu et al. (2008) emphasized that “fine tuning technologies

accordingtoteachers’needs,insteadofmakingdecisioninatop‐downfashioncanhelpto

wiselyuselimitedresources”(p.43).

While they did not have control over the technologies purchased, teachers from

both schools had full discretion on the use of technologies inside the class. Teachers

decidedwhether technologywas needed or not needed for the lesson and used various

types of technologies based onwhat they perceived as appropriate to help the students

understand the material. This supports Moore and Benbasat’s (1991) construct

voluntarinessofuse,whichisthe“degreebywhichtheuseofaninnovationisperceivedas

voluntaryorfreewill”(p.195).Havingthistypeofauthorityallowstheteacherstocater

specifically to students’ needs and to be creative in utilizing technology. This discussion

willleadtothetypeoftechnologiesusedbytheteacherandhowteachersusethem,thus

showingthemostandleastusefultechnologiesasperceivedbytheteachers.

In summary, the hierarchical decision‐making was a limiter, while the voluntary

decision‐makingwasacontributortotheiruseoftechnology.

142

TheTechnologyUsedandItsPurposes

Teachersfrombothschoolsutilizedtechnologyinbothteachingandadministrative

tasks.Thevariation inuseaswillbeshown, indicates thatKuwaiti teacherswereable to

applytechnologyastheysawfitinordertobeabletoachievetheirneeds.Teachersuseda

variety of tools and applications in teaching. These included using PowerPoint

presentations, using the overhead projector for transparencies and slides, inserting

pictures and text inWord, using theData Show topresentmovies from their laptops or

PowerPoint presentations, and using the audio‐recorder for playingmusic, and learning

English languageandQuranic verses.The cell phonewas alsoused for activities suchas

listeningtotheweatherforecast.

Furthermore, teachers used both the department computers and their personal

laptopsforadministrativetasks.Wordwasusedfortypingtests,preparingworksheetsand

insertingpicturestomakeflashcards.Excelwasusedforstudents’grades.Teachersused

theirpersonalUSBInternetmodemforaccessatschooltodownloadpictures,movies,and

information linked to the lesson. The teachers to exchange information with the

departmentheadabouttests,preparation,worksheets,etcalsousedemail.Someteachers

also had experience with Moviemaker to edit video footages. Other than computers,

teachersalsousedvideotapes,DVDs,andCDs.

Teachersuseddifferentdevicesandapplicationsaccordingtothecontentareaand

grade level. Presentations, transparencies, and Word documents were used with older

students in grades three to five, while tools promoting interactivity, role modeling, and

hands‐onskillswereusedwith theyoungerstudents ingradesoneand two.Teachers in

eachcontentareaalsohadcertaintechnologiesthatwerecommonlyused.Forinstance,the

143

Islamic studies teacher mostly utilized the audio‐recorder and posters, while in social

studies the teachers used the overhead projector and the Data Show. These findings

supportstudiesthatindicatethatteachers’usesoftechnologyvaryfromonegradelevelto

another(Niederhauseretal.,2006)andthecontentareadeterminescomputerapplications

utilized(Alkhezzi&Alqahtani,2007).

BudgetIssues

Both schools featured in the study lacked technology tools and resources due to

budgetconstraints,whichhadanimpactonteachersaswellasthedepartmentheadsand

school administration.This supportsEly’s (1999) conditionofadequate resources,which

referstotheneedtohaveavailableandaccessibleresourcestoimplementtheinnovation.

Teachersoftenpurchasedtheirowntoolsandstationeriestoovercomethescarcityandthe

mismanagement of the funds. Furthermore, the department head as well as the school

administrationutilizedpart of their allocatedbudgets forpurchases, despitebeing these

being the responsibility of theMOE. Studies have shown that funding is a constraint on

technologyadoption since ithinders thepurchaseanduseof technology (Rogers,1999).

Evenwhenfundsareavailable,thesefundsareoftennotgearedtowardtechnology.Rogers

(1999) emphasizes that the viewpoint and attitude of those in charge toward the

importanceoftechnologydetermineswherefundsareplaced.Thiswasthesituationfound

in both schools—the budget was spent on activities and an insufficient amount was

allocatedforpurchasingtechnologicaltoolsandsupplies.

In summary, insufficient funds is allocated for technologypurposes leading to the

scarcityof technological resources inbothschools.This shortage limited teachers’useof

technology.

144

ResearchQuestionTwo

Thesecondresearchquestionexaminedinwhatwaydotheattributesoftechnology

affect the perceptions of Kuwaiti teachers’ towards technology adoption and use by

examining the attributes relative advantage, compatibility, complexity, trialability, and

observability(resultdemonstrability,visibility)andaccessibility.

RelativeAdvantageandCompatibility

Kuwaiti teachers perceived technology to be useful and advantageous for several

reasons. Technology saved time and effort because it facilitated access to all types of

information and allowed for rapid delivery of information to students. This supports a

study by Oncu et al. (2008), who found that time‐saving in presenting information,

preparing classmaterials, and locating educational resourceswith easewere among the

aspects that encouraged teachers to use computers. The teachers also found that

technologywas consistentwith their pedagogical beliefs and needs. Technology allowed

forbetterorganizationoftheirlesson.Teacherswereabletohaveaclearsenseofwhatto

present inwhat order and how to organize theirmaterial in amanner attractive to the

students. By using a variety of technologies, teacherswere able to provide an enriching

environmentforstudentsthatcontributedtotheirlearninggoals.Teachersalsofoundthat

certain information could only be conveyed to the students when technologywas used.

Examplesincludedprehistoricperiodsorscientificconceptsthatcouldnotbecarriedout

in classrooms. Rogers (2003) refers to this as compatibility with needs. The topics

addressed by the Kuwaiti teachers were interrelated and reciprocal in nature. This

supports studies that indicate that there is a high correlationbetween compatibility and

relativeadvantage(Al‐Gahtani,2003;Moore&Benbasat,1991).

145

In summary, Rogers’ concepts of relative advantage and compatibility were two

attributes that contributed to teachers’ use of technology in this study. Kuwaiti teachers

perceived technologyasbeingadvantageousand inharmonywith theirneedsbecause it

allowedthemtoaccomplishtheircurricularactivities.

Complexity

Teachersfaceddifficultiesusingdevicesandapplicationsduetomalfunctions.The

mostdifficultdeviceforthemajorityofteacherswastheDataShow,althoughdifficultyin

using applications varied from one teacher to another. For some, the most difficult

applicationwasPowerPoint,while forothers itwasFlashandMoviemaker. Inregardsto

technicaland troubleshooting issues, teachers frombothschoolsdidnotdealwithmajor

technical issues but resorted to receiving assistance from a technician or a colleague, or

ensuring equipment functionality ahead of time. Others used alternative teaching tools

suchas textbooks, flashcards,oranyteachingtools thatcouldcommunicatethe intended

informationtothestudentswhentechnicalissuesoccurredduringthelesson.Ontheother

hand,teacherswereabletomanageminorissuessuchastheconnectionproblemsbetween

thelaptopsandtheDataShow.

Furthermore, when the Kuwaiti teachers were unable to resolve major technical

issuesduetotheirlackofexpertise,theywereconcernedthattheproblemmightworsenif

theytriedtoaddressitbythemselvesandthattheymightbeheldaccountable.Astudyby

Al‐Gahtani (2003) showed that training alleviates this type of complexity. Hands‐on and

user‐friendly interfaces would also lead to familiarization. This familiarization can

“overcome the issue of fear and inherited complexity arising from uncertainty of using

technologicaltools”(p.66).

146

In summary, Rogers’ complexity was an attribute that limited teachers’ use of

technology.TheKuwaiti teachersperceived some technologies tobedifficult in termsof

usageandlackoffunctionality.

Trialability

Kuwaiti teachers atboth schoolswereexposed to instructional technologyduring

collegecoursework,byattendingvarioustrainingprograms,andfromthemandatoryICDL

or CLP training programs. Someof the teachers found the ICDL to be beneficial because

they learnedhowtousesomeapplicationsandaddedtechnologyskills towhat theyhad

learnedduringcollege.Forothers,theICDLdidnotmatchtheirneedsinclass,norwasit

usefultothem.Studieshaveshownthat“trainingprogramstendtobetootheoreticalordo

not apply to their classroom applications” (Venezky, 2004, p. 14). Thiswas the case for

some of the Kuwaiti teachers, who were already acquainted with using computers and

their applications.The teachers’ viewpointwas thatnot all of the coursesofferedby the

ICDLwerecomprehensive,thattheICDLshouldbesplitintobeginnerandadvancedlevels,

andthatthetheoreticalsectionsshouldberemoved.Incontrast,theCLPprovidedbythe

MOEforthosewhodidnotcompleteortaketheICDLwasconsideredusefulforthosewho

tookit. Itprovidedbasic instructioninPowerPoint,Word,Excel,andtheInternet,andit

includedaninstructionalhandbook.

Studieshaveshownthatnotallschoolsprovideprofessionaldevelopmenttotheir

teachers, nor is time allocated for them to attend training classes outside of the school

(Venezky,2004).Inthecaseofthesetwoschools,itwasmandatoryfortheteacherstotake

theICDLortheCLPtrainingprogram,thuscontradictingthisconcept.However, thetime

allocatedfortheICDLwasnotconvenientforsometeachersbecauseitwasofferedinthe

147

eveningsafterschoolhours.TheICDLalsoofferedclassesduringtheweekdays,whichdid

notalignwith teachers’ schedulesandschoolhours.TheCLPwasofferedduring the last

twoweeksoftheschoolyearandontheschoolpremises,whichwasmoreconvenientfor

the teachers, but it didnotofferor coverdiverse topicsor a certificateof completionas

withtheICDL,whichwasconsideredadrawback.

Insummary,Rogers’ trialability isanattributethatcontributedto teachers’useof

technology.TheICDLandtheCLPofferedanopportunityforthemtoexperimentanduse

variouscomputerapplications.

Observability

Teachersfrombothschoolswereabletoobservethatstudentsperformedbetterin

class,becamemoreattentive,andweremoreinterestedinthetopicwhentechnologywas

used. The differencewas that teachers at one school noticed that studentswere able to

acquirealotofknowledgebyconnectingwhattheysawordidinrealitywiththematerial

tobe learned through theuseofmoviesorexperiments.Teachers from theother school

noticed that students became more independent, carried out their own projects, and

worked and collaborated together in groups as a result of the technology used in

instruction.This supports a studybyOncuet al. (2008),which found that teachersused

technology because it helped the students to apply what they had learned, encouraged

them to become more involved within the classroom, and helped them to carry out

activitiesmorequickly.

The lackof somedevices limited teachers’useof those technologies. Studieshave

shown that a scarcity of technology resources still exists, which refers not only to the

technology itself but also includes accessibility issues (Hew & Brush, 2007). This was

148

supported in the study when Kuwaiti teachers used their own personal laptops, USB

Internetmodems,andoftenworkedathometoovercometheshortage.Thelackofdevices

also led to two inconvenient circumstances for the Kuwaiti teachers; first, sharing of

devices such as the Data Show, and second, sharing of classrooms that had devices

installed.Thesecircumstancesledtoproblemsofschedulingandcontinuousaccessibility.

Adding to that, teachers fromone school specifically discussed administrative control of

someofthedevicesandnothavingcontinuousaccesstothemduetofearofmisuse.This

supportOncuetal.(2008),whofoundthatteachershadtogetpermission/authorizationto

usesomeofthetechnologiesand,insomecases,mightnotbepermittedtousethem.

Insummary,Rogers’observabilityisanattributethatcontributedtoteachers’useof

technology,astheywereabletoobservestudents’ improvementintheclassroom.Bythe

sametoken,observabilityrelatedtovisibilityandaccessibilitylimitedteachers’usedueto

thelackofdevicesandaccessibilitytowheretheyarelocated.

AssociatingtheFindingswithRogersandFarquharandSurry

Teachers’characteristics,theattributesoftechnology,andthesupportenvironment

provided influenced the Kuwaiti teachers’ use of technology. Teachers’ perceptions and

attitudestowardsthechangeprocesswerepositive;however,therewerevariousaspects

that influenced the teachers’ extent of technology use. Rogers’ (2003) theory on

consequencesof innovation,whichare“changes thatoccur toan individualor toasocial

systemasaresultofaninnovation”(p.31),issupportedinthecaseoftheteachersstudied.

Desirable consequences, “which are the functional effects of an innovation” (p. 470), are

recognizable when teachers discussed how technology tended to facilitate the

149

implementation ofmany professional and personal activities. Furthermore, the teachers

werealsoexposedtoundesirableconsequences,“whicharethedysfunctionaleffectofan

innovationforanindividual”(p.470).Inthisregardteacherswereexposedtofeelingsof

anxietyduetothefactthatthedevicesoftendidnotfunctioncorrectlyandbecauseextra

timewasneededforpreparingclassmaterials.Furthermore,anxietywasalsolinkedtolack

ofskillsandknow‐howindealingwithtechnologies,whichhadnegativeconsequenceson

the teachers, but which dissipated with continuous use. This supports the first step of

Yildrim (2000), who emphasized that individuals go through three stages during

technologyadoption:anxiety,confidence,andliking.

FarquharandSurry (1994) indicate that thecharacteristicsof individualwhowill

ultimately use an innovation play an important role in whether or not the product is

adopted. There were several teachers’ characteristics that played a positive role on the

teachers. Motivational support provided by the school administration and department

head,thevoluntarydecisionsonthetypeoftechnologiestheycoulduse,andteachers’daily

practiceandpriorexperienceencouragedthemtousetechnology.SomeKuwaititeachers

were able to adapt to the technology more rapidly and used technology extensively in

comparisonwithothers.

Rogers (2003) talked about innovativeness and how each individual decides to

adoptaninnovationdifferentlybasedonhisorherviewpoints.Reflectingonthesituation

intheseschools, it ispossibletoidentifythatsomeoftheteacherswere“earlyadopters.”

Theseteachersnotonlyperceivedtechnologyasveryusefulfortheirprofessionandusedit

constantly, but they strove to try newdevices and applications. For instance, one of the

teachers introduced the interactive whiteboard to her colleagues and school

150

administration, and provided an illustration of how it could be used. Another teacher

learned to use advanced applications such as Moviemaker and Flash. Other teachers

represented the “earlymajority” group.These teachersbelieved the importanceofbeing

awareofandusingnewtechnologiestomeetthedemandsofthepresenttime,and,thus,

used various tools in class. In addition, they focused on updating themselves with new

trends,teachingthemselvestousecertainapplications,andattendingtrainingprogramsto

gain more experience. The teachers who fell into the category of “late majority” used

technology but had doubts and uncertaintywhile using them. Thus, in some cases, they

avoidedusingtechnologyandinsteadreliedontypicalmaterialsandexperiments.Finally,

oneteacherstudiedwasa“laggard”anddidnotuseanytechnologyperceivedtobedifficult

ortakingtimeandefforttolearn.Preferencewasgiventothesimplestandeasiestteaching

toolsand,insomecases,tonon‐use.

The attributes of the instructional technology also contributed to and limited

teachers’ use of it. The contributors were that teachers were offered two training

programs—theICDLandtheCLP—(trialability)tobeabletogainskillsandtheknow‐how

tousetechnology.Technologyusecanbefacilitatedwhenteachersobservethattheskills

theygained throughtrainingandprofessionaldevelopmentsessionscanbe linkedto the

contentsofthecurriculumandtheirteachingstrategies,aswellaswhentheyareableto

observe an improvement in students’ achievement (Byrom& Bingham, 2001). This idea

wassupportedinthisstudy.First,byusingavarietyoftechnologies,teacherswereableto

carryouttheiradministrativetasksandteachingactivities(relativeadvantage)andwere

able to achieve their goals and needs (compatibility). Second, through the use of

technology,teachersalsoobservedthatstudentsgainedandimprovedtheirlearningskills

151

(observability).Ontheotherhand,theattributesthatlimitedteachers’useweredifficulty

inusingsomedevicesanddealingwithmalfunctions(complexity),andthelackofdevices

andaccesstoclassroomsinwhichtheywerelocated(visibilityandaccessibility).Providing

theproperamountandtherighttypesoftechnologyinlocationswheretheycanbeusedis

relevantfortechnologyusage(Fabry&Higgs,1997).

Surry and Farquhar (1994) indicate that the role of the organizational factors—

whetherphysicalorsupportenvironment—playsamajorroleintheinitialadoptionofan

innovation as well as in whether it will facilitate or hamper the continuous use of the

innovationby the adopters.The factorsof the support environments (Farquhar&Surry,

1995) that limited the use of technology by the Kuwaiti teachers were limited budget,

centralizeddecision‐making,and formalization.Limitedbudget led to lackofdevicesand

office supplies, and therefore teachers spent fromtheirownpersonal funds toovercome

theshortage.Centralizeddecision‐makingontechnologypurchaseslimitedtheamountand

typesoftechnologiesprovided.Centralizationis“thedegreetowhichpowerandcontrolin

a systemare concentrated in thehandsof a relatively few individuals” (Rogers, 2003, p.

412). Formalization is the “degree to which an organization emphasizes its members

followingrulesandprocedures”(Rogers,2003,p.412).

Rogers (2003) talks about how centralization is usually found to be negatively

associated with innovativeness. The means by which the decisions are made regarding

technologypurchasesshowsthathierarchyiscentraltothepubliceducationalsystemsin

Kuwait. A similar situation is the case with the school administrations that follow the

guidelines set by the MOE and accordingly run the school in a top‐down fashion.

Formalization was also observed in these schools. Formalization tends to inhibit the

152

consideration of innovation by members of an organization but encourages the

implementation of innovations (Rogers, 2003). The teachers studied were bound by

policiesandprocedures,includingthoserelatedtoaccessibilitytocertaintechnologiesand

nottakingpartindecisionsregardingtechnology‐relatedpurchases.

In conclusion, various individual and organizational aspects that were close in

nature and overlapped each other determined technology use by the Kuwaiti teachers.

TheseaspectsareshowninTable4.

Table4IndividualandorganizationalattributesaffectingtechnologyuseInfluencingAspects

Teachers’Characteristics

TechnologyAttributes SupportEnvironment

RelativeAdvantage

SupportfromtheAdministration

Compatibility

Trialability

Contributors

Experienceandpractice

Observability(resultdemonstrability)

Voluntarydecisions

Complexity Centralizeddecision‐makingandformalization

Limiters Anxietyfromextratimeneededtopreparematerials,lackoffunctionality,andlackoftraining

Observability(visibilityandaccessibility)

Budgetissues

ConclusionsandRecommendations

Technology is a social phenomenon and is developed by people in a particular

environment and culture. The study of adoption, diffusion, implementation, and

institutionalization of an innovation is an inherently social process (Surry & Farquhar,

153

1995). Many factors combine and affect technology adoption and use, and, thus, it is

essentialtounderstandtheunderlyingaspectsinvolved(Surry&Ely,2002).Studieshave

postulated that the focus shouldnot solelybeon technical superiorityof the innovation;

rather,theadoption/diffusionprocessshouldstartatthelevelofthepotentialadopterand

addresstheissuesinthecontextoftheenvironmentinwhichtheywillusethetechnology.

This study focused on teachers’ perception towards technology by examining teachers’

characteristics, attributes of technology, and the support environment that might have

contributed to or limited their adoption to showwhether Rogers’ (2003) DOI theory is

applicable in Kuwaiti primary public schools. By examining these aspects, the study

showedthatKuwaititeachersperceivedtheadoptionandutilizationoftechnologyasbeing

constructive.Theywereabletogothroughthechangeprocessandaccustomthemselvesto

technologydespite their feelings of anxiety. Some teachers adapted easily to technology,

while others took more time. However, in all cases, technology acted as a facilitating

mechanism in carrying out both their teaching and administrative tasks. Technology did

not alter their teaching styles, and classes continue to be teacher‐centered. Overall, the

teacherstendedtoutilizetechnologytotheirbestoftheirabilityperwhatwasprovidedin

bothschools.

Whiletherewereseveralcontributorstotechnologyuse,therewerealsolimiters.It

isrecommendedthatsupportinitiativesbeprovidedfromleadersateachsupervisionlevel

to facilitate technology use for future innovations. Yavas et al. (1992) emphasize that

leadershipisconsideredafacilitatingmechanismfortheadoptionofinnovation;however,

“itsroleinachievingthisendwithrespecttodiffusionofcomputersisoverlookedinhigh

context cultures like the Middle East” (p. 76). The MOE’s ultimate authority regarding

154

technologyinitiativesandtheirperceptionstowardtheeffectivenessoftechnologytendsto

bereflectedinthetypeoftechnologiesavailableintheschoolsaswellasinthetechnology‐

relatedtrainingprogramsprovided.TheMOEneededtoensurethattherewereasufficient

number of technologies available in schools and a budget that would cover technology‐

relatedexpenditures. Initiativeswereneeded thatwould leadstakeholderswithinschool

contexts to be updated with new technologies that adhered more to effective learning

processes. Training sessions prior to and during technology adoption and usewere also

required.

Training should not only focus on operational skills but should include personal

skills that build self‐confidence to overcome technological‐related fears and anxieties, as

well as technology‐related teaching techniques that promote more critical thinking and

problem‐solvingskillsforthestudents.Inaddition,technicalskillsthatareparalleltothe

needs of the teachers should be included in the training sessions. The school

administrations needed to provide support initiatives for teachers by reducing the

restrictionsplacedonaccesstodevicesortoclassroomsinwhichdevicesareinstalledto

ensure constant use of technology. The school administration needed to ensure that the

fundsallocatedbytheMOEwereearmarkedforbuyingsuchthingsasteachingtoolsand

technologies,whichbenefitstudents’learning,ratherthanonrecreationalactivities.

Themost crucial recommendation tobe taken into considerationwas theneed to

involve teachers in the technology‐related planning and decision‐making process. This

would ensure that the technologiesmade availablewere those perceived by teachers as

significantandrequiredinaccomplishingtheirteachingneeds.Rogers(2003)talksabout

how decentralized systems allow the users to participate in key decision such aswhich

155

innovation best meets their needs and which of their perceived problems most needs

attention. The “high degree of user control over these key decisions means that

decentralizeddiffusionisgearedcloselytolocalneeds”(p.395).Furthermore,itwillhelp

ensure that teachers do not make a disenchantment discontinuance decision (Rogers,

2003)andrejectthetechnologyasaresultofdissatisfactionwithitsperformance.Overall,

the MOE needed to work very closely with the school administration to provide the

appropriate solutions to ensure that the teachers utilized technology in an effective

manner.TheserecommendedsupportinitiativesareillustratedinFigure13.

Figure13.SupportinitiativesfromtheMOEandschooladministration.

156

ImplicationsforFutureResearch

Thisstudyshowsthattherearethreemainpropositionsthatwouldbenefit future

researchstudiesinsimilarcontexts:

1) The constructs of visibility, in terms of lack of technologies in locations, and of

accessibility, in terms of not having regular permission to all technologies or conflicting

classroom scheduling, were very important factors in determining the degree of use of

technologyby the teachers. These two constructs showa slight divergence fromRogers’

(2003) five perceived attributes. In addition, the construct of accessibility also shows a

divergencefromMooreandBenbasat’s(1991)criteriaofperceivedattributes.Therefore,

further research iswarranted on how the constructs of visibility and accessibility affect

teachers'technologyadoption.

2) The AAmodel (Farquhar & Surry, 1994) described the organizational and individual

attributes that affect technology adoption but neglected to refer to the impact of the

outsideenvironmentontheseattributes.Futureresearchonschoolsthataregovernedby

centralizedsystems,suchasinthisstudy,needstofocusonanalyzingboththeinternalas

well as the external environment in order to have a more precise and accurate

interpretationofthefactorsthatplayaroleontechnologyadoption.

3)Severalapproachesareusefulforhelpingpredicttherateofadoptioninthefuture.One

of these factors is “extrapolation from the rate of adoption of past innovation into the

future for other similar innovation” (Rogers, 2003, p. 227). This research study

recommended support initiatives based on the findings. Kuwaitis working in the public

sectorcanrefertothesesuggestedsupportinitiativesattheplanningstagetofacilitatethe

adoptionandintegrationprocess.

157

AreasforFurtherStudies

Severalfutureresearchinvestigationsrelatedtothisstudycanbebeneficialforthe

field of instructional technology in order to bridge a gap in the literature. Based on the

limitations of this study, research that involves teachers from other disciplines would

provide a more inclusive overview on how other content areas and their need for

technologyaffectstheiruse.Anotherstudythatwouldaddressthelimitationofthisstudy

istocarryoutresearchthatcatersforteachesages40andaboveorteacherswhohadten

yearsofteachingexperience.Thiswouldportrayhowthatparticularagerangeandyears

of teachingexperiencecontribute to theuseornouseof technology.Furthermore,other

recommendedstudieseitherqualitativeorquantitativeinnaturethatalignswiththisstudy

canalsofillthegapinliterature.AcomparisonstudybetweenprimaryteachersinKuwait

andtheUnitedStateswouldidentifythechallengesthatteachersfaceandhowdifferentor

similar the issues are regarding technology use. A study involvingKuwaiti professors of

educationinhighereducationandtheirperceptionstowardstheuseoftechnologyintheir

teacher‐preparation programs would show how and in what ways technology will be

applied in schools. Finally, an experimental study examining primary, middle, and

secondarystudents’useof computersandother technologiesand its role in the learning

process will illustrate the positive or negative outcomes technology has on students’

educationalachievements.

158

References

Ahmad, A. A. (2000). An evaluation of the primary school teacher preparation in thecollege of education at Kuwait University. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,UniversityofSussex,EaseSussex,UK

Agarwal,R.,&Prasad, J. (1997).TheRoleof InnovationCharacteristicsandPerceivedVoluntarinessintheAcceptanceofInformationTechnologies.(3),557‐582.

Al‐Asmari,A.M.(2005).TheuseoftheinternetamongEFLteachersatthecollegesoftechnology in Saudi Arabia. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ohio StateUniversity,Columbus

Al‐Enezi,M.M.(2002).AstudyoftherelationshipbetweenschoolbuildingconditionsandacademicachievementoftwelfthgradestudentsinKuwaitipublichighschools.Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and StateUniversity,Blacksburg,Virginia

Al‐Fulih, K. (2003). Attributes of the Internet perceived by Saudi Arabian faculty aspredictorsfortheirInternetadoptionforacademicpurposes.DissertationAbstractsInternational,63(08),2842A.(UMINo.3062771)

Al‐Gahtani, S. S. (2003).Computer technologyadoption in SaudiArabia:Correlatesofperceivedinnovationattributes.InformationTechnologyforDevelopment,10(1),57‐69.

*4Al‐Khezzi, F., & Al‐Ghatani, A. (2007). The impact of ICDL on public educationinstitutionsinKuwaitbythosecertifiedintheICDL:Astudyinexternalefficiency.[Inpress].

Al‐Sahel, R. A. (January 01, 2005). Teachers' Perceptions of Underachievement inElementarySchoolsinKuwait.SchoolPsychologyInternational,26,4,478‐493.

Al,K.andari,K.M.(2004).Islamicschool:Challengesandpotentialsinthe21stcentury,acasestudyofAl‐Amal,aprivatebilingualschool inkuwait.Unpublisheddoctoraldissertation,VirginiaPolytechnicInstituteandStateUniversity,Blacksburg,Virginia

Ali, J. M. (2004). Information Technology in the Middle East. Journal of Global

4 * Indicates references in Arabic from which used text was translated

159

Information Technology Management, pp. 1‐4. Retrieved fromhttp://ezproxy.lib.vt.edu:8080/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=iih&AN=12517565&site=ehost‐live&scope=site

Alias, N. A., & Zainuddin, A. M. (2005). Innovation for better teaching and learning:Adoptingthelearningmanagementsystem.MalaysianOnlineJournalofInstructionalTechnology,2(2),p.27‐40.

Almobarraz, A.(2007). Perceived attributes of diffusion of innovation theory aspredictors of internet adoption among the facultymembers of ImamMohammedBinSaudUniversity.Unpublisheddoctoraldissertation,UniversityofNorthTexas,Denton.

Alqahtani, A. A. (2007). An exploratory study of students' expectations of differentacademicprogramsEnglishlanguage‐relatedprogramsasacasestudyUnpublisheddoctoral dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University,Blacksburg,Virginia

Alsenaidi, S. S. (2009). An investigation of factors affecting Omani faculty members'adoption of information and computing technology. Unpublished doctoraldissertation,UniversityofNorthTexas,Denton

Bauer, J., & Kenton, J. (2005). Toward Technology Integration in the Schools:Why itisn'tHappening.JournalofTechnologyandTeacherEducation,13(4),519‐546.

Baxter, P., & Jack, S. (2008). Qualitative Case Study Methodology: Study Design andImplementationforNoviceResearchers.QualitativeReport,13(4),544‐559.

Baylor,A.L.,&Ritchie,D. (2002).What factors facilitate teacherskill, teachermorale,and perceived student learning in technology‐using classrooms? Computers &Education,39(4),395.

Belland,B.R.(2009).Usingthetheoryofhabitustomovebeyondthestudyofbarrierstotechnologyintegration.Computers&Education,52(2),353‐364.

Byrom,E.,&Bingham,M.(2001).FactorsInfluencingtheEffectiveUseofTechnologyforTeaching and Learning: Lessons Learned from the SEIR­TEC Intensive Site Schools:SERVE:SouthEasternRegionalVisionforEducation,Greensboro,NC.SouthEastandIslandsRegionalTechnologyinEducationConsortium,Durham,NC.

Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design : qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methodapproaches(2nded.).ThousandOaks,Calif.:SagePublications.

160

Creswell, J.W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (3rd ed.). London: Sage Publications.

Cuban,L.,Kirkpatrick,H.,&Peck,C.(2001).HighAccessandLowUseofTechnologiesin

HighSchoolClassrooms:ExplaininganApparentParadox.AmericanEducational

ResearchJournal,38(4),813‐834.

Culp, K. M., Honey, M., &Mandinach, E. (2005). A Retrospective on Twenty Years of

Education Technology Policy. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 32(3),279‐307

*Dashti,F.A.,&Behbhani,I.E.(2005).Theeffectivenessofusingtechnologyinteachingon achievement in English language for first grader: An experimental study. .TheEducationalJournal,20(77),13‐53.

Davis,F.D.(1989).PerceivedUsefulness,PerceivedEaseofUse,andUserAcceptanceofInformationTechnology.MISQuarterly,13(3),319‐340.

Ebrahim, A. (2004). The effects of traditional learning and a learning cycle inquirylearningstrategyonstudents'scienceachievementandattitudestowardelementaryscience.Unpublisheddoctoraldissertation,OhioStateUniversity,Columbus

Elmasry, S. K. (2007). Integration patterns of learning technologies. Unpublisheddoctoral dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University,Blacksburg,Virginia

Ely, D. P. (1999). Conditions that facilitate the implementation of educationaltechnologyinnovations.EducationalTechnology,39(6),23‐27.

Ensminger, D. C., & Surry, D.W. (2008). Relative ranking of conditions that facilitateinnovation implementation in the USA. Australasian Journal of EducationalTechnology,24(5),611‐626.

Ertmer,P.A.,Addison,P.,Lane,M.,Ross,E.,&Woods,D. (1999).Examining teachers'beliefsabouttheroleoftechnologyintheelementaryclassroom.JournalofResearchonComputinginEducation,32(1),54‐72.

Ertmer,P.A.,Ottenbreit‐Leftwich,A.,&York,C.S.(2006).ExemplaryTechnology‐usingTeachers: Perceptions of Factors Influencing Success. Journal of Computing inTeacherEducation,23(2),55‐61.

Fabry, D. L., & Higgs, J. R. (1997). Barriers to the Effective Use of Technology in

161

Education: Current Status. Journal of Educational ComputingResearch, 17(4), 385‐395.

*Farag,A.H.(2005).TheuseofInternetinEducation.TheEducationalJournal,19(74),110‐150.

Farquhar, J.F, and Surry, D.W. (1994). Adoption analysis: An additional tool forinstructional developers. Education and Training Technology International, 31(1),19‐25.

Goktas, Y., Yildirim, Z., & Yildirim, S. (2008). The keys for ICT integration in K‐12education:teachers'perceptionsandusage.AsiaPacificEducationReview,9(2),168‐179.

Grainger, R., & Tolhurst, D. (2005).Organisational factors affecting teachers' use andperception of information & communications technology. Paper presented at theProceedingsofthe2005SouthEastAsiaRegionalComputerScienceConfederation(SEARCC)Conference‐Volume46.

Gulbahar, Y. (2007). Technology Planning: A Roadmap to Successful TechnologyIntegrationinSchoolsComputers&Education,49(4),943‐956.

Gwayi, S. M. (2009). Perceptions of innovations as predictors of TALULARimplementation levels among secondary school science teachers in Malawi: Adiffusion of innovations perspective. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, VirginiaPolytechnicInstituteandStateUniversity,Blacksburg,Virginia

Hennessy,S.,Ruthven,K.,&Brindley,S.(2005).TeacherperspectivesonintegratingICTinto subject teaching: Commitment, constraints, caution, and change. Journal ofCurriculumStudies,37(2),155‐192

Hermans, R., Tondeur, J., van Braak, J., & Valcke, M. (2008). The impact of primaryschoolteachers'educationalbeliefsontheclassroomuseofcomputers.Computers&Education,51(4),1499‐1509.

Hew,K.F.,&Brush,T.(2007).IntegratingtechnologyintoK‐12teachingandlearning:current knowledge gaps and recommendations for future research. EducationalTechnologyResearchandDevelopment,55(3),223‐252.

Hofer, M., & Swan, K. O. (2008). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge inAction: A Case Study of Middle Schol Digital Documentary Project. Journal ofResearchonTechnologyinEducation,41(2),179‐200.

162

John, P. D., & La Velle, L. B. (2004). Devices and Desires: Subject Subcultures,Pedagogical Identity and the Challenge of Information and CommunicationsTechnology.Technology,PedagogyandEducation,13(3),307‐326.

Karagiorgi, Y. (2005). Throwing Light into the Black Box of Implementation: ICT inCyprusElementarySchools.EducationalMediaInternational,42(1),19‐32.

Keengwe,J.,Onchwari,G.,&Wachira,P.(2008).ComputerTechnologyIntegrationand StudentLearning:BarriersandPromise.JournalofScienceEducation&Technology,17(6),560‐565.Lambert, J., Gong, Y., & Cuper, P. (2008). Technology, Transfer, and Teaching: The

ImpactofaSingleTechnologyCourseonPreserviceTeachers'ComputerAttitudesandAbility.JournalofTechnologyandTeacherEducation,16(4),385‐410.

Martins,C.B.M.J.,Steil,A.V.,&Todesco,J.L.(2004).FactorsInfluencingtheAdoptionof the Internet as a Teaching Tool at Foreign Language Schools. Computers andEducation,42(4),353‐374.

Merriam,S.,B.(2009).QualitativeResearch:AGuidetoDesignandImplementation.SanFrancisco,CA:Jossey‐Bass.

Mertens, D. M. (2005). Research and evaluation in education and psychology:Integrating diversitywith quantitative, qualitative, andmixedmethods. ThousandOaks,Calif.:SagePublications.

Moore, G. C., & Benbasat, I. (1991). Development of an instrument to measure theperceptionsofadoptinganinformationtechnologyinnovation.InformationSystemsResearch,2(3),192‐222.

Moore, J. M. (2007). Virginia technology education teachers' implementation ofstandards for technological literacy. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, VirginiaPolytechnicInstituteandStateUniversity,Blacksburg,Virginia

Mosley, B. F. (2005). Development of a technologymentoring programusing Rogers'Diffusion of innovations. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Virginia PolytechnicInstituteandStateUniversity,Blacksburg,Virginia

Niederhauser, D. S., Lindstrom, D. L., & Strobel, J. (2006). Addressing the NETS forstudents through constructivist technology use in K‐12 classrooms. Journal ofTechnologyandTeacherEducation,15(4),483‐51

163

Nyirongo,N.K. (2009).Technologyadoptionand integration:Adescriptivestudyofahigher education institution in a developing nation. Unpublished doctoraldissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg,Virginia.

O'Mahony,C.(2003).Gettingtheinformationandcommunicationstechnologyformularight:accessability=confidentuse.Technology,PedagogyandEducation,12(2),295‐311.

Oncu, S., Delialioglu, O., & Brown, C. A. (2008). Critical Components for TechnologyIntegration: How do Instructors Make Decisions? Journal of Computers inMathematicsandScienceTeaching,27(1),19‐46.

Ozaygen,S.Altay,(2005),DiffusionofFreeandOpensourceSoftwareasInnovation:ACaseStudyofMETU,STPS ‐ScienceandTechnologyPolicyStudiesCenter,MiddleEastTechnicalUniversity,Turkey

Patton,M.Q.(1990).Qualitativeevaluationandresearchmethods(2nded.ed.Vol.532p.:).NewburyPark,Calif.::SagePublications.

Patton,M.(2002).Qualitativeresearchandevaluationmethods.3rded.ThousandOaks,CA:SagePublications

Perkins,R.A.(2003).Theroleofcontextininstructionaldesignacasestudyexaminingthere‐purposingofweb‐basedmaster'sdegreecoursesforuseinMalawiAvailablefromhttp://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd‐09142003‐141456

Pierson, M. E. (2001). Technology Integration Practice as a Function of PedagogicalExpertise.JournalofResearchonTechnologyinEducation,33(4).

Rogers,E.M.(2003).Diffusionofinnovations(5thed.).NewYork:FreePress.

Rogers, P. L. (January 01, 2000). Barriers To Adopting Emerging Technologies inEducation.JournalofEducationalComputingResearch,22,4,455‐72.

Rosenfeld, B., &Martinez‐Pons,M. (2005). Promoting classroom technology use.TheQuarterlyReviewofDistanceEducation,6(2),145‐153.

Rossman,G.B.,&Rallis,S.F.(2003).Learninginthefield:anintroductiontoqualitativeresearch(2nded.).ThousandOaks,Calif.:SagePublications.

Safar,A.H.(2001).SelectiveperspectivesofimplementingcomputertechnologyinK‐12education in the State of Kuwait. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of

164

Tennessee,Knoxville.

Seavers,V.(2002).Goingbacktotheclassroom:canIpracticewhatIpreach?(FeatureNo.0731‐4388).

Seidman, I. (2006). Interviewing as qualitative research : a guide for researchers ineducationandthesocialsciences(3rded.).NewYork:TeachersCollegePress.

Sooknanan, P., Melkote, S. R., & Skinner, E. C. (2002). Diffusion of an EducationalInnovationinTrinidadandTobago:TheRoleofTeacherAttitudesandPerceptionstoward Computers in the Classroom. International Communication Gazette, 64(6),557‐571.

Sugar, W. (2002). Applying human‐centered design to technology integration threealternative technology perspectives. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education,19(1),12‐17

Surry, D. W., & Ely, D. P. (2002). Adoption, diffusion, implementation, andinstitutionalizationofinstructionaldesignandtechnology.InA.Reiser,Dempsey,J.V.(Ed.),Trendsandissuesininstructionaldesignandtechnology.NewJersey:MerrillPrenticeHall.

Surry,D.W. (1997).Diffusion theory and instructional technology. Paper presented atthe Annual Conference of the Association for Educational Communications andTechnology(AECT)

Surry, D. W., & Farquhar, J. D. (1995). Adoption Analysis and User‐OrientedInstructionalDevelopment.

Taylor, J. A., & Duran, M. (2006). Teaching Social Studies with Technology: NewResearchonCollaborativeApproaches.HistoryTeacher,40(1),9‐25.

TheNationalMid­DecadeReportonEducationforallintheStateofKuwait(2002‐2006).MadinatAl‐Kuwait:KuwaitNational Commission forEducation, Science&Culture(UNESCO)MinistryofKuwait.

The National Report: Development of Education in the State of Kuwait (2004‐2008).Madinat Al‐Kuwait: Kuwait National Commission For Education, Science ANDCulture(UNESCO),InternationalBureauOfEducation,MinistryOfKuwait.

Tiene,D.,& Ingram,A. (2001).Exploring current issues in educational technology (1sted.).Dubuque,IA:McGraw‐Hill.

165

Usluel,Y.K.,Askar,P.,&Bas,T.(January01,2008).AStructuralEquationModelforICTUsageinHigherEducation.EducationalTechnology&Society,11,2,262‐273.

vanBraak,J.(2001).Factorsinfluencingtheuseofcomputermediatedcommunicationbyteachersinsecondaryschools.Computers&Education,36(1),41‐57.

Venezky, R. L. (2004). Technology in the classroom: steps toward a new vision.Education,Communication&Information,4(1),3‐21.

Warschauer,M.(2007).InformationLiteracyintheLaptopClassroom.TeachersCollege Record,109(11),2511‐2540.

Wenglinsky,H.(2005).Usingtechnologywisely:thekeystosuccessinschools.NewYork:TeachersCollegePress.

Williams, J., & Easingwood, N. (2007). Primary ICT and the foundation subjects. NewYork:ContinuumInternationalPub.Group.

Wishart,J.(2008).ChallengesFacedbyModernForeignLanguageTeacherTraineesinUsingHandheldPocketPCs(PersonalDigitalAssistants)toSupportTheirTeachingandLearning.ReCALL,20(3),348‐360

Wozney,L.,Venkatesh,V.,&Abrami,P.(2006).ImplementingComputerTechnologies:Teachers'PerceptionsandPractices. JournalofTechnologyandTeacherEducation,14(1),173.

Yates,B. L. (2001).ApplyingDiffusionTheory:AdoptionofMediaLiteracyPrograms inSchools.PaperpresentedattheInternationalCommunicationAssociation.Retrievedfromhttp://ezproxy.lib.vt.edu:8080/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=ED453564&site=ehost‐live&scope=site

Yavas,U.,Luqmani,M.,&Quraeshi,Z.A.(1992).Facilitatingtheadoptionofinformationtechnologyinadevelopingcountry.Information&Management,23(2),75‐82.

Yildirim, S. (2000). Effects of an Educational Computing Course on Preservice andInservice Teachers: A Discussion and Analysis of Attitudes and Use. Journal ofResearchonComputinginEducation,32(4),479‐495.

Yin,R.K.(2003).Casestudyresearch:designandmethods(4thed.).LosAngeles,Calif.:SagePublications.

Yin,R.K.(2009).Casestudyresearch:designandmethods(4thed.).LosAngeles,Calif.:

166

SagePublications.

Zhao, Y., & Frank, K. A. (2003). Factors Affecting Technology Uses in Schools: AnEcologicalPerspective.AmericanEducationalResearchJournal,40(4),807‐840.

Zhao,Y.,Pugh,K.,Sheldon,S.,&Byers,J.L.(2002).ConditionsforClassroomTechnologyInnovations.TeachersCollegeRecord,104(3),482‐515.

167

AppendixAInvitationLetter

Date:February2010

DearVolunteer:

As many of you know, technology integration is beneficial as it can facilitate your teachingmethodsandassistyou in teachingstudents.Thisstudy isdesignedtobetterunderstandtheperceptionsoffemaleteachersontechnologybasedonRogers’theoryonperceivedattributesandwhetherthistheoryisapplicableinKuwaitischools.ThestudyisbeingconductedaspartofmydissertationprojectthroughtheDepartmentofCurriculumandInstructionandisbeingsupervisedbyDr.JohnBurton.Toinvestigatethisaspect,weaskforyourassistancebysharingyourviewpointswithus.Webelievethatyourexperiencesandthoseofotherfemaleteacherswill helpus tobecomeawareof the issues you face and accordinglyhow tobetter integratetechnologywithinthepublicschoolsystemswithinKuwait.

Thestudyconsistsoftwophases.Youwillbeaskedtoparticipateina45minutetooneandahalfhourinterviewbymeinthefirstphase.Intotal,thetimecommitmentisnotexpectedtobelonger than one‐and‐a‐half hours. However, we would appreciate you answering all of theinterview questions because we feel that each question is relevant to understanding yourexperiences. Furthermore for verification of some of your answers, I might need to get incontact with you again. Youwill not be identified by name in thewritten paper, or in anyreportordissertationresultingfromthisstudy.Thesecondphasewouldbetoobserveyouforan hour or so each week. I will be taking notes related to how you deal with technologywhetherwithyourstudentsorinyouradministrativeworketc.PleasebeawarethatIwillnotdistractyouinanywayduringyourteachingbutIwouldneedtobeinclassorinyourofficewhendoingthat.AftertakingthenotesImightneedyoutoclarifysomeaspectsofmynotessoImightcontactyouagainwheneveryouyourtimepermits.

Thefinaldecisionaboutwhethertoparticipateinthisstudyisyours.Allinformationprovidedby the participantswill be combined, and the findings from this studywill be shared in thedissertation but the names of the participants will not be revealed and will be assignedpseudonym. These findings may prove to be a valuable resource for other primary publicschoolsinKuwaitandotherGCCcountriesaswellasschooladministratorsandteachers.

Ifyouwouldlikemoreinformationconcerningthisresearchprojecttohelpwithyourdecisionaboutparticipating,pleasefeelfreetoemailDr.JohnBurtonatjburton@vt.edu.IwouldliketoassureyouthatthisstudyhasbeenreviewedandreceivedapprovalbytheInstitutionalReviewBoardatVirginiaTech.Ifyouhaveanycommentsorconcernsresultingfromyourparticipationinthisstudy,pleasecontactDr.JohnBurtonatjburton@vt.edu.

Thankyou,inadvance,foryourconsiderationofthisrequest.Wehopethisstudywillfurtherstrengthentheabilityofpeopletohelponeanother.

Yourssincerely,

RandaAbdelmagidPhDGraduateStudentVirginiaTech

168

AppendixB

SampleSelectionQuestionnaire

Pleaseanswerallthefollowingquestions:

1. Whatisyourfullname?

2. Whatisyournationality?

3. Howoldareyou?

4. Whatsubjectareadoyouteach?

5. Whatgradeleveldoyouteach?

6. Howmanyyearsofexperiencedoyouhaveinteaching?

7. Doyouteachonly_____ordoyouteachandsupervise___?

8. Doyouusetechnology(computers,projectors,laptops,TV,CD‐Rom,andDVDetc)?

9. Areyouwillingtobeinterviewed(audiorecorded)?

10. Areyouwillingtobeobserved?

169

AppendixCIRBApprovalLetter

170

APPENDIXDKuwaitiMinistryofEducation(MOE)ApprovalLetter

Letter#1

171

MinistryofEducationCapitalRegionEducationalAdministrationOfficeoftheDirectorofEducationalAffairs

Madam: DirectorofAlishbiliyaElementarySchoolforGirls DirectorofAaminaElementarySchoolforGirls Director of Latifa Albarak Elementary School for

Girls DirectorofSumayaElementarySchoolforGirls

Greetings

WeareaskingyourassistanceinfacilitatingthemissionofDr.FahadAbdallahAlkhezziandtheworkingteamfromtheInstructionTechnologyDivision,CollegeofEducation,KuwaitUniversityduringtheirvisittoyourschools.Theirmissionistogatherinformationneededforastudyregardingtheuseoftechnology in education. They are expected to visit yourschoolsduringtheperiodFebruary1–March13,2010.

WeappreciateyourcooperationinthismatterSignedManagerAdministrationofEducationalAffairs

Letter#1:Translation

172

Letter#2

173

MinistryofEducationCapitalRegionEducationalAdministrationOfficeoftheDirectorofEducationalAffairsMadam: DirectorofMaryamAbdelmalikAlsalehElementary

SchoolforGirls DirectorofAl’adiliyahElementarySchoolforGirls

Greetings

WeareaskingyourassistanceinfacilitatingthemissionofDr.FahadAbdallahAlkhezziandtheworkingteamfromtheInstructionTechnologyDivision,CollegeofEducation,KuwaitUniversityduringtheirre‐visittoyourschools.Theirmissionistogatherinformationneededforastudyregardingtheuseof technology in education. They are expected to visit yourschoolsduringtheperiodFebruary1–March13,2010.

WeappreciateyourcooperationinthismatterSignedManagerAdministrationofEducationalAffairs

Letter#2:Translation

174

AppendixEInterviewQuestions

InterviewprotocolMynameisRandaFouadAbdelmagidandIamdoingmyresearchontheadoptionanduseoftechnologybyKuwaititeachersandwhetherRoger’stheoryisapplicableontheKuwaitischool system. The questionnaire will be divided into groups addressing several coreissues.Generalinformation1. Whatisyourname?2. Howoldareyou?3. Whatisyoureducationallevel?4. Howmanyyearshaveyoubeenteaching?5. Howmanyyearshaveyoubeenteachingatthisschool?6. Whatsubjectareadoyouteach?7. DidyoutaketheICDLtraining?

• Ifyes,didyoucompleteit?• Ifno,whydidyounottakeitorwhydidyounotcompleteit?

UsefulnessandApplicability(RelativeAdvantageandCompatibility)8. Doyoubelievethattechnologyisuseful?

• Ifyes,inwhatwayisituseful?Doyouseeanybenefitforyourprofession?• Ifno,whydoyoubelievethatisnotuseful?

9. Doyoubelievethattechnologyshouldbeusedinteachingchildren?Givereasons?10. Doyoubelievethatusingtechnologyinteachingisbetterornotthanteachingthe

traditionalwayandgivereasonsforthatbelief?ChangeProcess11. Inyouropiniondidtheuseoftechnologychangethewayyouteach?12. Did that change affect you? In what way? Was it a problem? (anxiety teacher

characteristics)Results&Outcomes(Observability)13. Didyouwitnessanychangeinyourstudentswhenyouusedtechnologywiththem?14. Didyouwitnessanychangeinyourselfwhenusingtechnology?

AccessibilityIssues(Observability)15. Doyouhaveaccesstothetechnology?

• Ifyes,doyouhaveaccesstothetechnologyatalltimes?Wheredoyoufindandusethem?

• Ifyoudonothaveaccesswhatarethereasonbehindnothavingaccesstothem?16. Doyouthinkthathavingtechnologyaccessiblewillencourageyoutouseit?17. Ifyouhadthechancetohaveaccesstotechnology

175

• Whattechnologywouldyoumostlyuse?• Whattechnologyyouwouldleastuse?

TechnologyUse18. Whattypeoftechnologiesdoyouuseandwhatdoyouusethemfor?19. Doyouusetechnologyforadministrativeorteachingorboth?Howdoyouuseitin

either?20. Whichofthetwodoyoumostlyusetechnologyfor?Howfrequentdoyouuseit?

EaseofUse(Complexity)21. Whatisthemostdifficulttechnologyyouuseandinwhatwayisitdifficult?22. Whatistheleastdifficulttechnologyusedandinwhatwayisitnotdifficult?23. Whatotherdifficultiesdoyoufacewhenusingtechnology?24. Areyouabletodealwithtroubleshootingissues?

• Ifyes,howdidyoulearntodothat?• Ifno,whodoesitforyouandwhyareyounotabletodoitbyyourself?

Training(Trialability)andPriorKnowledgeandExperience25. Wheredidyou learn touse technologyandwhat technologieswereyou taught to

use?26. Arethesethesametechnologiesyouareusingnow?

• Ifyes,howlonghaveyoubeenusingit?• Ifnodifferentiatebetweenwhatyoulearntbeforeandwhatyouareusingnow?

27. Doyouthinkyourpriorexperiencewithtechnologiesmakeyouuseitnowinyourprofession?

28. Inwhatway did the ICDL/ Computer Literacy training play a role in your use oftechnology?

29. WhataspectsoftheICDL/ComputerLiteracydidyoubenefitmostlyoff?30. WhataspectsoftheICDL/ComputerLiteracywouldyouliketoseechanged?31. Doyouthinkothertrainingprogramswouldbebeneficial?

AdministrativeSupport32. Doestheschooladministrationpromotetheuseoftechnology?

• Ifno,whatdoyouthinkistheproblem?• Ifyes,howdotheyencourageyou?

33. Howcantheschooladministrationimprovetheirsupporttoyou?34. Doesthedepartmentheadpromotetheuseoftechnology?

• Ifno,whatdoyouthinkistheproblem?• Ifyes,howdoessheencourageyou?

35. Howcanthedepartmentheadsupportyoumore?Decision­Making36. Areyouinvolvedindecidingtouseornotusethetechnology?

• Ifno,whatdoyouthinkistheproblem?• Ifyes,howareyouinvolved?

37. Areyouinvolvedindecidingwhattypeoftechnologiesyouuse?

176

• Ifno,whatdoyouthinkistheproblem?• Ifyes,howareyouinvolved?

ClosingQuestion38. What other issues that was not covered here that you believe is relevant to this

studyandyouwouldliketodiscussit?

177

AppendixFTechnology­relatedLearningProgramsQuestionnaire

Technology­relatedLearningPrograms

PleasecompletethefollowingtableindetailinArabic.Pleasereturntomeassoonaspossible.Foranyquestions,pleasedonothesitatetocontactmebyemailrfabdelmagid@gmail.comorbyphoneat99592478.Thankyouforallyourkindefforts.Wheredidyoulearntechnology?e.g.college,trainingprograms,etc.��� ������ ������������ ���� ������� ����� �������� ���.

Whatisthenameofthetrainingcourse?�� ��� �������� �������� / ������ ��������

Whendidyoulearnit?��� �������

Howlongdidittake?�� ��� �������� �������� / ������ ������� ���� ��������

Whattopicsdidyoulearn?�� �� �������� ���� ���������

Didyoucompleteit?�� ����� �������

Whoarrangedit?�� ��� ������ ��� ��������

1.

2.

178

AppendixGObservationsofPhysicalArtifacts

Description CaseStudyNo._____

DepartmentHead&TeachersRoom

a)SettingsHowmanyteachersstayintheroom?

Whatistheroomsize?

Howisspaceorganizedtofitall?

Arethereanycomputersavailableandhowmany?

Arethecomputerssharedoristhereavailableonesforeach?

Whatothertechnologiesareavailablefortheiruse?

Whatisthephysicalenvironmentoftheroom?E.g.lights,fans,electricalsocketsetc

b)TeachersUseWhatdotheteachersusethecomputersfor?

Whatdotheteachersusetheothertechnologiesfor?

Doteachersassisteachotherwithtechnologyissues?

Doteachesdiscussissuesregardingtechnology?

Doteachersdiscusstechnologicalissuesregardingthesubjectareataught?

179

AppendixHOrganizationalStructureoftheKuwaitiMinistryofEducation

AdaptedFrom:TheNationalReport,2004‐2008,MinistryofEducation,StateofKuwait.UsedunderFairuseguidelines,2011

180

AppendixIDefinitionsofTermsandAbbreviations

DOI: DiffusionofInnovationTheory.

GCC: GulfCooperationCouncilCountries.ThesecountriesareOman,Bahrain,Kuwait,Qatar,SaudiArabiaandtheUAE.

MOE: MinistryofEducation.

ICDL: International Computer Driving License. It is composed of 7 units: Information Technology; Using Computer and Managing Files; Word Processing; Spreadsheets; Presentations; Database and Email and Internet.

CLP: Computer Literacy Program. It consists of Word, PowerPoint,ExcelandtheInternet.

Abla: ReferstoteacherintheArabiclanguagespecifictofemales.

Datashow: AterminologyusedbyKuwaititeacherstorefertoadocumentprojector.

OverheadProjector: Aprojectorthatusestransparenciesandslides.

TheClub: Aterminologyusedbytheteacherstorefertotheroomswheretechnologies other than the audio‐recorder and overheadprojectorareinstalledandused.Eachcontentareahasitsownclub and is decorated with representations related to thecontentarea.

Technology: Comprisesalldevices, applicationsand teaching tools that areusedbyKuwaititeachers.

TraditionalTeaching: Refers to teaching using narration, repetition of information,andstudentsareactivity‐directedinthistypeofteachingstyle.