Resistance to Technological Change in the American Education System
The American educational sector continues to recognize the need to integrate digital technology in the delivery of school curriculum. However, educational experts posit that to transit to a fully technologically integrated and blended learning system is dotted by significant challenges that must be resolved to harness the potentials of the 21st-century learning (Straub, 2009). It is never a surprise that the realm of education is not exempted from technological changes. This is especially as conventional boundaries are rolled back, and schools in light of this are adapting to these new technologies, to the changing academic interests, and student demographics (Henderson & Romeo, 2015).
The paper aims at presenting, first, by setting a context through giving a broad consideration of the main reasons for changes in American education, and the grounds of resistance. Explored within the framework of this paper also are ways in which culture in educational technology linked policies and changes in the curricula have arguably led to the minimalist improvements in learning and teaching. Arising critical questions explored include: Why is the integration of digital technology in education and learning necessary? What are some of the reasons as to why the practice of teaching has not fully integrated technology in teaching considering the increased access to digital technologies? What are some of the approaches that teachers, their schools, and the educational sector, in general, can adopt to commence pathways to exploring teaching and learning through technologies?
Issues Related to Resistances in the Adoption of Educational Technology
Technology and Educational Assessments
Ertmer (2005) explains that garnering understanding on institutional technological change is vital for both teachers and schools where they carry out their practice; particularly since the engagement with the various prevalent technologies and change are expected to occur during their careers. Educational change in the literature reviewed is commonly used to refer to educational reform, which thereof implies change public education in one form or the other (Mohammed, 2013). Educational change, as pertinent to this discussion indicates changes happening at various level: teacher level, student level, school level, the surrounding school community, the state level and the national level. Educational changes are aimed at incorporating more digital technologies into mainstream learning and have in particular been the American school system goal for over a decade now (Straub, 2009).
Correctly ascertaining whether the volume of change initiatives in the American education sector have had dramatic positive effects over the past few years is an insurmountable hurdle. Whereas this is tough, but one nevertheless can posit that there have been continued efforts from both the government and private stakeholders to ‘fix’ teaching and learning (Blin & Munro, 2008). The incorporation of digital technology into learning is just but one type of educational changes. Within literature, there exist significant foci of institutional changes, including improving numeracy, literacy and the performance of disadvantaged students. However, a rather new prominent change has been the increase global importance on accountability and testing in the learning of students.
In his scrutiny of academic changes, Juma (2016) posits that as early as the 1990s, educational activities have significantly grown to center their attention and energy majorly on the creation of decreed curricula and set guidelines, which additionally have in effect brought about an increase high-stakes criterion to cadence the accomplishments of students based on these set standards. Straub (2009) further posits that the aggregate performance of schools on exams has publicly been employed to gauge the performance of a school and the subsequent allocation of funds. Subsequently, intense pressure is put on both teachers and schools to perform based on these tests. Hokanson (2016) notes that projecting ones’ focus on testing in some contexts may consume, or leave less instructional time for other tasks or subjects that are not in direct relation to these tests. Such thereof outlines that one of the key elements in the school context to be the commencement of unpacking the use of digital technologies and garner deeper understanding into changing teacher practices (Marzilli et al., 2014).
Technological Change and Schools
Within the American school system, the last two decades have been marked by an increase in investments in technology within education by more than a hundredfold (Goldin & Katz, 2008). Such investment has resulted in an increase in the availability of many digital technologies including tablets, personal computers, and laptops in learning institutions. Therefore, these tools have seen an increased use in both learning and teaching. Nowadays, it is a commonplace to see an impressive display of digital technologies in American schools (Ertmer, 2005). These technologies have been majorly used to replicate the existing teaching practices. The arising problem is that cases have emerged where these technologies are not being used efficiently or in ways that would present with the opportunities to create, explore, problem-solve and collaborate (Juma, 2016; Marzilli et al., 2014).
Within the literature examined arising are three major factors related to schools that have been proved to have a significant effect on the teacher’s use of digital technologies. They include shared group visions, school leaderships, and pedagogical and technical support (Lawless & Pellegrino, 2007; Blin & Munro, 2008). Leadership in the literature relates to the administration of the school – especially the school principal. Research has managed to point out that the way educators with executive authorities prioritize digital technology is one of the powerful contributory factors to how educators utilize it and other logically connected student-centered pedagogy (Ertmer, 2005).
Goldin and Katz (2008) note that within this include a readily apparent perceptual experience of how digital technology is to be used within an institution, such as in engaging students in analyzing texts within each subject area critically. Moreover, the participation of teachers in the creation of this vision should be paramount, leading to the idea of “shared vision” (McLeod, Lehman, & Warlick, 2012). Participation leads to the creation of a “shared vision” among teachers and thereby makes teachers likely to feel more invested in the use of the technology and thereof play a part in the change. In turn, this fosters the culture if change within a school; change therefore becomes a communal activity (Chandler, 2013).
Component to the intended course of action, the educational executive also appropriately provides the required/necessary logistical assistance structures for effecting the change. Such entails both the technological support necessary for learning and on the effective use of educational technologies, including the pedagogical support of the development and experimentation with the new technologies in teaching and the incorporation of student-centered practices (Ertmer, 2005). The institution of these three elements communicates to teachers that the school values change and the use of digital technologies.
These three elements, however, have been systematically pointed to lack in many, if not, most change initiatives related to technology (Marzilli et al., 2014). Often, this is not intended, but rather is an outcome of lack of time, clashing school change initiatives, and limited funds for the full support of these projects. Exemplifying this is that schools are under constant pressure to perform based on standardized tests; tests that focus on numeracy and literacy, mathematical skills and reading. Principals, therefore, apparently can opt to value more the use of educational technologies, but then concurrently require his teacher to focus their efforts on literacy tasks and targeted reading programs, contrary to the development of educational means of bettering the integration of digital technology (Blin & Munro, 2008).
Technological Resistance: Teachers and Standards
The decisions surrounding the use of technology in student instructions primarily rests on the shoulders of the classroom teacher. A widely accepted fact is that educational technologies have the capacity to enhance student achievements and learning outcomes when used in combination with student-centered practices (Hokanson, 2016), but so often proved uncertain on what practices within the digital world produce these results. The uncertainties surrounding the precise technological advancements to be implemented in learning imply that the teacher’s adoption of technology in their practice is significantly affected (Ertmer, 2005).
Chandler (2013) posits that whereas some educators may likely incorporate technologies into the fabric of their practice, many on the other hand may never be willing to accept such. Of the teachers who adopt the technology, variances in approaches used to incorporate it into mainstream learning are enormous. Within the literature reviewed, three important points that influence the teacher’s decisions on integration emerge: the school culture is one major point, the other two relate to the confidence, and beliefs held by the use of technology in instruction (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010).
Educators have become disconnected with technological change initiatives in schools. Possible reasons include: shared visions that are not developed, the lack of leaderships that prioritize such changes, and lack of the technical and pedagogical support to fully engage in the changes (Marzilli et al., 2014; Ertmer, 2005). The failure to fully support and adequately address change is a sufficient communication to teachers that such a change is not a school priority and thereof ought not to be valued. The existent nexus betwixt what is valued at the level of the school and what the value of the educators are crucial to the success of technological implementation in schools. Moe, Cuban, and Chubb (2009) posit that teachers will more likely value educational technologies that they believe hold a great potential to overall teaching and student learning; particularly important if both the school administration and their peers then support these beliefs. The same also applies to the use of student-centered teaching initiatives. Teachers are less likely to integrate these initiatives into their practice if they perceive that the school does not hold value for these approaches (Henderson & Romeo, 2015).
Secondly, Ertmer (2005) notes that the confidence of teachers in using technology, in addition to their beliefs on the technology in learning and teaching are likely to affect technological changes. Researchers have in fact managed to identify that confidence is the most important factors in the teacher’s use of technology (Blin & Munro, 2008). Teachers who prove to be confident in the use of technology are more likely to integrate such technologies into their classrooms (Goldin & Katz, 2008).
Teacher confidence in using technology does not only suffice but also that they believe to possess the required skills to problem-solve and troubleshoot arising issues related to technological glitches and unreliable equipment. Contrariwise, educators feeling queasy on their abilities to use technology are less likely to use it in their craft (Moe, Cuban, & Chubb, 2009). Such anxiety at most times results from feelings that they might come short in fixing technological glitches while instructing. Educators with minimalistic self-assurance often develop a perception of the greater risks and adverse outcomes on instructions, which may result from technological questions and associated difficulties in comparison to educators with high confidence (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010).
Educators will be more than willing to integrate digital technologies into their practice if they hold beliefs that the instituted technology is relevant to their specialized teaching areas and that the utilization of digital technology is in alignment with the goals and aims of learning (Moe, Cuban, & Chubb, 2009). As such, Henderson and Romeo (2015) note that a good portion of the use is a replication of the widespread esteemed practices, which can be accomplished more efficaciously by incorporating technology. The research explored posits that teachers who are likely to integrate digital technologies into their teaching are more apt to use student-centered teaching approaches (Goldin & Katz, 2008).
Political Resistance and Public Policy
According to Facer (2011), global revolutions in IT have led to the globalization of world economies, made communication both cost less and fast, placed immense information storehouses within a hand’s reach and, on countless occasions transformed how life is lived. Within this context, the American education has not been left behind. The drive for change is that educational technology presents humongous goodness for education and thereof has the promise of changing the nature of schooling to heighten its productiveness (Chandler, 2013). The methods of teaching, the curricula, and all other organized plans of action can be tailored to meet the individual student needs and learning styles.
According to Blin and Munro (2008), education potentially can be liberated from the geographical constraints of brick and mortar schools; students experience better interactions with one another and their teachers; courses of work from the most remedial to the most advanced can be easily made available for everyone. Additionally, highly sophisticated and efficient data systems may be employed in the measurement and guidance of performance; parents can be easily factored into the education process, and with the advent of technology, schools will be operated at lower costs when labor (expensive) is substituted for technology (cheap) (Monahan, 2005).
However, Yilmaz and Kilicoglu, (2013) note that technological advancements in education are threatening the powerful, and they will often resist it utilizing political processes. Such is exactly so because technology holds the promise of transforming the essential elements of schooling; it brings investable disruption to routines, jobs, and the available source of wealth for persons who derive their livelihoods from the current system (Moe & Chubb, 2009). These individuals are most prominently represented by organizations – the American teacher’s union – who extraordinarily are powerful in the political world, and even now repeatedly quoted as taking action to hinder the transformation of the American education by Technology (Chandler, 2013).
The united states school reforms have a rich history of underutilizing technological innovations. Therefore, the chances of widespread integration of new technologies in schools for the next decade have been estimated to be of between 70% to 90% range (Moe et al., 2009). To the contrary, “the probability of routine use in most schools for offering instructions will remain much lower, ranging between 20% to 30%” (Moe et al. pp. 45-46). Through the social networks of researchers, policymakers, tech-promoters, and practitioners, pace-setting suburban and urban districts adoption of innovations and then adapting them to fit within their goals and local contexts (Monahan, 2005). Over time then, laggards also undergo the same process, retaining parts of the innovation before moving to the next one (Mohammed, 2013). In public schools, changes take place in a piecemeal and incremental fashion. Regardless of the predations of technological enthusiasts, there exist no “revolutions’ in the use of technology that have taken place in the United States’ classrooms and schools (Lawless & Pellegrino, 2007).
Socioeconomic Diversity Complicating Technological Change and Inclusion
In addition to mixing and matching, persons may move in and out of different ways of being. Facer (2011) notes that various institutions may necessitate or promote certain acceptable ways of being. As several cultural priorities and regulatory regimes develop, some characteristics may come to be equated with different national cultures and characters (D’Agustino, 2011). Some ways of being are likely to gain more status than others. In the long term, the significant unanswered question is whether they will be the commencement of radically divergent trajectories for human beings (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010).
Juma (2016) notes that such developments present immediate challenges to educators. The next decade is likely to become a commonplace that some children, parents, and teachers in wealthy nations to have access to massively powerful computing devices as personal tools and for them to expect constant connectivity to people, resources and information through the digital landscape that overlays the physical environments of the places they live in and the schools (Chandler, 2013). Additionally, the digital tools that they are connected with the need to increasingly taking the ‘intelligent’ functions in the management of their information resources; children will capture on an ongoing basis all their experiences and recall them on demand (Howard & Mozejko, 2015; Ertmer, 2005).
In the designing of future schools, it is paramount that change initiators recognize that the members of a class will be mobilizing in their lives and outside the setting of a school, a range of digital resources in highly diverse ways as patterned by the set regulatory regimes, material and economic resources, by cultures, and by personal preferences (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010). As the various families and cultures respond to these new socio-technical capabilities in varying ways, depending upon material resources and their values, children will then bring highly diverse resources into their schools (Facer, 2011). According to Majocha, (2015), some children may bring into the educational arena the capacity to draw on massive informational resources through their digital networks. Others may bring the ability to attend, concentrate, and rapidly analyze through cognitive enhancements the prevalent situation; and others through the choice of circumstances may rely solely on their wits. Some children will have easy access to all resources, whereas others will not (D’Agustino, 2011). Some of these augmentations importantly will bring the function of empowering and extending the children’s agency, whereas others may be administered to control and limit them, and these different patterns may play along with the lines of gender, ethnicity, and wealth (Lunenburg & Ornstein, 2008).
Facer (2011) explains that diversity, as it stands today, will be the default setting outside schools. The arising question would be then on how future schools will respond to these diversities. Today, whereas formal schools exacerbate rather than reduce the economic disadvantages in most western countries, it remains theoretically possible for children from highly divergent social and economic backgrounds to be educated together in the same space and to claim that educational aspirations are attainable by all (D’Agustino, 2011; Straub, 2009). Over the next decades when technical enhancements continue to develop, the stakes of the debate on how education respond to this inequality and diversity outside the setting of schools will be even higher.
Resistance to Technological Change, What are the Connections?
According to Trucano (2015), the politics surrounding the adoption of new technology in schools remains an elite drive (vendors, business, and civic leaders), top-down (school board and superintendent) undertaking. To a larger part, this is determined by the available resources, a district’s innovation history and the responsiveness of the primary educational stakeholders. Teachers unions in part have hugely played a near edge function in either approving – some union chapters have garnered support from districts for learning institutions where novel educational technology is key (Moe & Chubb, 2009; Monahan, 2005) or opposing classroom technological innovation (cyber charter schools) (Chandler, 2013). Parents and school boards, however, put ferocious efforts in fights to resist the substitution of technology for educators, even in the face of champions of significantly lowering the overall labor costs dress up the acquisition of new technologies as a technological utopia and overall savings (Moe, Cuban, & Chubb, 2009). They as such resist these efforts because they perceive the intent of publicly funded schools as beyond the efficiency and functioning to bolster the American economy through the supply of skilled workforce (Goldin & Katz, 2008).
Mohammed (2013) notes that teacher unions will almost always resist technological change. Their central missions are grounded on protecting the jobs of teachers, and the real technological changes – which allows for students and money to leave, which will outsource work to distant locations, substitute capital for labor, and in several other ways disrupt the present job structures – is a menace to their jobs (Juma, 2016). Teacher organizations and their associates have been greater stumbling blocks to the reformation of learning; repeatedly employing their unnerving political powers to either attenuate or blunt housecleaning that did not auger well with then, from the choices of schools to pay for performance to accountability (Yilmaz & Kilicoglu, 2013; Howard & Mozejko, 2015). It is nevertheless a surprise that they already are working to limit or kill virtual charters, and make certain that educational technology finds no place in the existing status quo (Chandler, 2013).
New technology as noted by Juma, (2016) construes an extensive capability to change the land politics. Moe et al., (2009) explain that as the proliferation of remote learning continues, for instance, educators are to be more dispersed, to a lesser extent geographically concentrated in localities, and harder for their organizations to manage. The permutation of technology for labor is likely to reduce the demands for educators (Majocha, 2015). Teaching as a profession is likely to transform into a much more diversified field and less tolerant to sameness and solidarities (D’Agustino, 2011). Many new schools will rise, such will lead to a startling increment in competition and choice. When these developments operate in reciprocally bolstering ways, will function in conjunction to deplete the unions’ strength, erode their political influence and lessen their powers to undermine policy processes (Monahan, 2005; Bauer, 1992). As the power of teachers in blocking reforms decreases, all kinds of transformations – not only educational technology – will find their place in society (Henderson & Romeo, 2015).
A bit more nuanced are school boards. School boards apparently do not want to lose both revenue and students to competition – such as cyber schools (Yilmaz & Kilicoglu, 2013). Many of these council associates are still obligated to their unions, and these board members have on more than one occasion worked tighter with these unions – in state legislatures and courts – to vigorously oppose competitive threats (Moe et al., 2009). District school boards, especially those with attenuated unions, constrained funds, active parents and children who have their needs rarely met, may have garnered positive motivational influence to become early adopters and embrace technological change (Chandler, 2013). School boards in rarity may have a perception that by entrepreneurially carrying out their activities, can establish their cyber charters and attract both revenue and students from competing localities, thus bettering themselves through competition; indeed, communities in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania are already blazing this trail (Monahan, 2005).
The Complexity and Future of Technological Change in Education
It is a dreadful mistake to make a general assumption that if learning institutions incorporate schoolroom technologies, then teaching will dramatically change, academic achievement will improve, and learners will exceptionally be prepared to face the dynamic 21st-century workplace (Lunenburg & Ornstein, 2008). Posited evidence for every single reason outlining why we should adopt technology in our classrooms both skimpy and missing.
According to Howard and Mozejko (2015), many activities carried out by school administrations can be (and have been) mostly computerized (exemplifying scheduling, purchasing, student data and financial accounting). The assemblage of student performance data and then quickly availing it to teachers potentiates the delivery of individual help and lessons to special students “just in time” (Lunenburg & Ornstein, 2008). However, the achievement of the core goals of public schools, more so in urban areas, principles of schooling remain to be the organization structures which were brought forth during the 19th century. The age-old gradation schooling, where teachers, their classrooms, and learners of approximately the same age absorb a substantial amount of the curricula heretofore earning promotion to a higher grade (Marzilli et al., 2014). Critics of technological change in education, including Moe and Chubb (2009) explain that technological advances have to a lesser extent gouged this permanent structure. Embracing this organizational format are for-profit schools, charter schools, private schools and cyber schools.
All the technological Nirvana predictions make an assumption that age-graded schools will melt off. This as yet has not been realized, majorly because of the rooted societal beliefs on schools and the profoundly ingrained economic and political arcades that keep it alive (Yilmaz & Kilicoglu, 2013). It is in this age-graded schools that the knowledge of teachers, experience, and skill repertoire matter most in making connections with their students. Such a relationship has continued to be a social, moral and cognitive center for both the occurrence of learning and teaching and can never be smoothly substituted by technology, no matter how cleverly built (Ertmer, 2005). Until the mechanisms of school funding and age-graded systems are changed, the use of technologies in the classrooms will still continue to remain peripheral (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010).
From another point of view, other researchers posit that technology will extend beyond just present superior information relevant to the educational process (Hokanson, 2016). Educational technology offers the potential of changing the system itself, altering or occasionally replace the teacher’s role, in addition to changing the centerpiece means of instruction. Straub (2009) notes that future schools will essentially be hybrid in nature, where students will be taught in classrooms – partly; and more time then spent by students directly acquiring knowledge by often remote technology. Younger learners will necessitate more personalized attention (Marzilli et al., 2014). But as these students mature and gain the necessary skills to perform tasks independently, periods spent with technology will exponentially rise while times spent with educators will decrease (Ertmer, 2005).
Straub (2009) further explains that educational technology will distinguish the sections of learning. Educators will always be the first base of instructions, aiding students consummate essential craftsmanship. Technology will then furnish tailor-made redress for learners who are slow in grasping core concepts and acceleration for learners ready for specialization (Howard & Mozejko, 2015). Curricula designed to impart skills in literacy, from the basics of decipherment on upwards are in place; so are procedures designed to exposit math, from the essentials to advanced levels. Practical differentiations thereof will imply narrower gaps in achievement (Lawless & Pellegrino, 2007). This also implies a variety and increase the number of career options availed to all learners, without due considerations of the society they live in: technology as equity (Hokanson, 2016).
For students with special academic interests or needs, or whose locations and schedules make it unmanageable to attend regular schools, the centerpiece processes of expositing instructions will be online based (Chandler, 2013). Virtual School communities with a lot of teacher-student interactions will be built. Traditional schools will drastically change: fewer but abler teachers; more technology will be used; teachers will be able to work with much better information, and the delivery of instructions will be tailored to match the student needs (Howard, & Mozejko, 2015).
Potential Solutions
` According to Yilmaz and Kilicoglu, (2013), efficient management of change is based on a clear understanding of human behaviors within an organization. Due to the challenges that change presents, individuals are likely to react as a manifestation of emotions such as frustration, fear, uncertainties, feelings of being threatened ,or disoriented (Lawless & Pellegrino, 2007). In light of this, people will often be defensive and portray negative attitudes towards change initiatives. As the power of change is characteristically a complex, its effects need to be respected and managed effectively. Consideration of the individual impact of technological change in school and outsourcing of dedicated workforces to oversee completion of such projects are some of the factors that need to be considered (Marzilli et al. 2014).
Ertmer (2005) notes that the influence of technological change in education is not different as compared to technological changes in conventional industries. In such a setting, resistance results largely from uncertainties, fear or are frustration from the modification (Haymes, 2008). Favorable changes demand an affirmative action from both school administrators and principals; which includes the adoption of contingency approaches tailored to factor in prevalent situations when dealing with resistance (Majocha, 2015).
Involvement and participation: allow key educational stakeholders, including teachers and parents to contribute ideas in the planning, designing and implementation of technological changes. The strategy is useful when the initiators of change lack the necessary information needed in the design of the technology. These key stakeholders are carefully chosen based on a hierarchical power to resist.
Communication and education. School teachers and other key individuals within schools need to be enlightened on the need and nature of the technological change before embarking on implementation. The logic of the changes also needs to be expounded. This strategy works best when the resistance is perceived to result from the lack of accurate information.
Agreements and negotiation. Offering incentives to actual or potential resistors is categorized under this method. The arrangement of tradeoffs for unique benefits with potential resistors is likely to assure unblocking of the proposed changes. The method is useful when individuals within the education system will potentially lose their valued positions and thus liable to resist (teachers’ unions and the fear of teachers losing jobs).
Support and facilitation. Emotional and material assistance are offered here with the aim of helping deal with resistance; people experiencing hardships to the change will have their ideas actively listened to. Problems or arising complaints considered significant are taken into consideration. Supportive principals in this step will likely make the work environments more enjoyable and pleasant for the change processes. The strategy is utilized when members are frustrated by the difficulties and work constraints encountered during the modification. The method has also proved useful to stakeholders experiencing problems in adjusting.
Manipulation and co-option. attempting to influence other persons within an organization can also be attempted. In this method, the necessary information is availed and the events for change structured. This comes in handy when the above tactics fail or seem expensive.
Implicit and explicit coercion. Initiators of change can employ the force of their authorities to implement changes. Resistors will be threatened with undesirable situations if they do not play along with the proposed changes. Such a mechanism comes in handy when speed is essential – especially in crisis situations – or when initiators have considerable power. However, the use of coercion may lead to fear, frustration, alienation and outright revenge which in turn may give birth to poor performance, low turnover, and overall dissatisfaction.
Summary and Conclusion
Resistance is not a new concept: The only thing that has changed is that educational technology has now become the target of institutional blocking. Can this be overcome? The answer is a resounding yes. Technology not only promises to bring transformative effects in education but also politics – its effects will potentially weaken the opponents and open the innovation gates. In years ahead, educational transformation holds the key to making change possible. For any effective technological change to garner acceptance, it must be firstly evident to the user that it will potentially make her/his life easier. Expectations about benefits and cost must be correctly set. The new craft should appeal to the user, expand the class horizons and showcase the possibilities offered. Secondly, technology must be easy to use to avoid arousing feelings of inadequacy. Software and hardware designers mostly miss this second point. Technology should be easy to use for the majority of the target audience – or they will resist it. Technological complexity, however, remains a hurdle still to realize. Thirdly, technology ought to be essential to the user, particularly in enhancing productivity among the staff and faculty. Technology that presents another task in the face of accountability will be abhorred. As often as trustees, state legislators, and other educational leaders seldom understand the technology they mandate, their directives most often have negative impacts on the people they lead. Staff who understand the utility of technology will be more than willing to accept it.
References
Bauer, M. (1992). Resistance to Change: A Functional Analysis of Responses to Technical Change in a Swiss Bank. Doctoral Dissertation: University of London, London.
Blin, F., & Munro, M. (2008). Why hasn’t technology disrupted academics’ teaching practices? Understanding resistance to change through the lens of activity theory. Computers and Education, 50(2), 475-490.
Chandler, N. (2013). Braced for turbulence: Understanding and managing resistance to change in higher education sector. Management, 3(5), 243-251.
D’Agustino, S. (2011). Adaption, resistance, and access to instructional technologies: assessing trends in education. Hershey PA: Information Science Reference.
Ertmer, P. A. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: the final frontier in our quest for technology integration? Educational technology research and development, 53(4), 25-39.
Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T. (2010). Teacher technology change: How knowledge, confidence, beliefs, and culture intersect. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(3), 255-284.
Facer, K. (2011). Learning futures: Education, technology and social change. London, UK; New York, Taylor, and Francis.
Goldin, C. D., & Katz, L. F. (2008). The race between education and technology. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Haymes, T. (2008). The three e-strategy for overcoming resistance to technological change. Educause Quarterly, 31(4), 67-69.
Henderson, M., & Romeo, G. (2015). Teaching and digital technologies: Big issues and critical questions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hokanson, B. R. A. D. (2016). Design in educational technology. [Place of publication not identified]: Springer International PU.
Howard, S. K., & Mozejko, A. (2015). Teachers: Technology, change, and resistance. Teaching and digital technologies: Big Issues and critical questions, 307-317.
In McLeod, S., In Lehman, C., & Warlick, D. (2012). What school leaders need to know about digital technologies and social media. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Juma, C. (2016). Innovation and its enemies: why people resist new technologies. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Lawless, K. A., & Pellegrino, J. W. (2007). Professional development on integrating technology into teaching and learning: Knowns, unknowns, and the ways to pursue better questions and answers. Review of educational research, 77(4), 575-614.
Lunenburg, F. C., & Ornstein, A. C. (2008). Educational administration: Concepts and practices. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Majocha, E. (2015). Passage through the threshold of technological change: insights into leading qualities of a teacher. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Marzilli, C., Delello, J., Marmion, S., McWhorter, R., Roberts, P., & Marzilli, T. S. (2014). Faculty attitudes towards integrating technology and innovation. ArXiv Preprint arXiv: 1404.4334.
Moe, T. M. & Chubb, J. E. (2009). Liberating Learning: Technology, Politics and the future of American education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Moe, T., Cuban, L., & Chubb, J. (2009). Virtual schools: Will education technology change the role of the teacher and the nature of learning? Education Next, 9(1), 42-52.
Mohammed, A. A. (2013). Assessing resistance to technological change for improved job performance in UAE (public sectors). Doctoral dissertation, University of Sanford.
Monahan, T. (2005). Globalization, technological change, and public education. [Place of publication not provided]: Routledge.
Straub, E. T. (2009). Understanding technology adoption: Theory and future directions for informal learning. Review of educational research, 79(2), 625-649.
Trucano, M. (2015). Will Technology Replace Teachers? No, but… Edutech: The World Bank. Retrieved from https://blogs.worldbank.org/edutech/tech-and-teachers
Yilmaz, D., & Kilicoglu, G. (2013). Resistance to change and ways of reducing resistance in educational organizations. European journal of research on education, 1(1), 14-21.
