Interaction between science teachers and school

principals and its influence on technology

implementation: A retrospective analysis
Longitudinal
Infusion
Peled, Y., Kali, Y., & Dori, Y.J.
Technion, Haifa 32000

Abstract
This paper describes a longitudinal study, in which the interaction between junior-high
school principals and science teachers is characterized, and its influence on technology
implementation is explored. Thirteen 13 principals and 19 teachers who participated in a
former study, which took place from 1998 to 2001, were re-interviewed and observed in
between 2003 to and 2005. The teachers were classified into four types—initiator,
follower, evader, and objector—based on the mode and extent to which the teachers used
theseimplemented advanced educational technologies in their teaching. Additionally,
pPrincipals were also classified into four categories— initiating, empowering, permitting,
and resisting— withbased on respect to the way they motivated or discouraged their
science teachers to incorporate educational technologies into their teaching, identified as
initiating, empowering, permitting, or resisting. Findings indicate that the principals were
fairly consistent in the type of support they provided to their teachers throughout the
seven years of the study. Teachers, however, shifted inimproved their pedagogical use of
technology the ways they used technology; they leveraged their pedagogical use of
technology when they worked inwhile working in a supportive environment. The findings
indicate that the principals’ longitudinal support or discouragement plays a crucial role in
teachers’ ability and motivation to use incorporate educational technologytechnologies as
an integral part of their teaching.

Introduction
Educational reform processes are usually slow and often bring forth crisis and
opposition (Bybee & Loucks-Horsley, 2000; Fullan & Stiegelbauer, 1991; Fessler, 1985).
Educational technologies that embody pedagogical principles can make a significant

1
change in the learning environment. Changing Specifically, changing the teaching
environment through the introduction of Web-based activities requires that the teachers
modify their beliefs about their profession. This is a challenging adaptation process that
needs to be assimilated within the school system with the encouragement of the school
principal.
As part of the 1990’s national reform (Harari, 1994), science teachers of Israeli
junior high schools (grades 7-9) participated in continuing in-practice professional
development programs at the Technion and other universities, in which they were
prepared and encouraged to employ technology-based learning environments. Since then,
academic instructors provided byfrom regional teacher centers and district instruction
centers in Israel have been offering in-school support. In spite of these support activities,
the level of incorporating technology and Web-based teaching and learning into junior
high school has been lower than expected (Mioduser, 2001; Pelgrum, 2001; Judson,
2006).
Despite greater access to computer equipment and software, the gap between the
technology presence of educational technology and its use exploitation in high schools is
still wide. - We have seen that the presence of technology alone seldom leads to
widespread teacher and student use (Cuban et al., 2001). Key factors known as important
for successful incorporation of Web-based learning in schools are:include a) teachers’
professional motivation (Krajcik, Marx, Blumenfeld, Fishman & Soloway, 2000; Dori,
Tal & Peled, 2002), and b) teachers’ professional life cycle (Huberman, 1989).
Environmental factors are as important as teachers' individual factors (Supovitz & Turner,
2000; O'Dwyer, Russell & Bebell 2005; Clausen, 2007). Teachers who reported higher
levels of confidence in using technology were more likely to use technology for
deliveringin their instruction. In addition, while teachers who reported having difficulty
integrating technology into the curriculum were less likely to use technology it for
content delivery in classroom (O'Dwyer, Russell & Bebell 2005). Levin & Wadmany,
(2006) report that spending three years in a technology-rich learning
environment produces substantive change in teachers’ educational beliefs and
classroom practices.
One area of competence often suggested is the need for sSchool technology
leaders need to have a vision for the role of educational technology in schools (ISTE,
2002). The NETS-A standards outline in Section 1 on “Leadership and Vision” outline
how technology leaders need to develop a school-wide shared vision for technology and
ensure that the resources, coordination, and climate are in place to realize it (National
educational technology standards for administrators, 2002REF?) (ISTE, 2002).
‫ ולהוציא משם מאמר או שניים‬.‫לחפש את שם כתב העת של לין סרום‬

2
 In this research we have focused on Tthe organizational environment, as
expressed by the school principal’s’ attitudes and involvement in leading or stalling this
technological change processes and bringing about the a pedagogical reform, is crucial
for incorporating computers that builds on educational technologies in junior high
schools in schools, and is the focus of this paper.
To present the context ofput this study in context, in what follows we briefly
describe here athe brief history of a teacher professional development project which
served as the basis for . Tthe current study. extents one of the aspects studied in that
project. In a previous study, Dori and Herscovitz (2005) presented the a framework for a
two-year long-term teacher professional development program that focused on case-
based teaching and took into account teachers' prior knowledge. Their study partially
overlaps the model of Bell and Gilbert (1996), which included three aspects of
professional development model: social, professional, and personal development. Dori
and Herscovitz initiated collaborative ways of working amongst 50 science teachers,
empowering them and fostering development of new ideas and classroom practices. Later
on, during the long-term professional development, they hadparticipating teachers
developed their own case-based learning materials and used them in their own
classrooms. Along the program, the participating teachers went through a major change
in their abilities to design high-quality case studies and student-centered activities. Within
this project, Aa focus on Web-based teaching in this project was described by Dori, Tal,
and Peled (2002), who investigated the level of success in assimilating online activities
developed by the teachers. The researchers found that the quality and cohesion of the
school teachers’ team-work between the school’s teachers and the principal’s care and
involvement were major factors affecting the implementation of educational Web-based
learningtechnologiesy use in the classrooms.
In a previous paper (Dori et al., 2002) we The researchers described in detail the
design of our a comprehensive professional development program, which included in-
campus workshops, work groups meetings, and in-school support. We They followed
these teachers, documented their beliefs regarding Web-based teaching, and analyzed the
artifacts they had submitted. The teachers communicated using a specially designed

3
Website, and experienced team development of Web-based learning materials and their
implementation in their own classrooms.
In this paper we briefly discuss the characteristics of the science teachers and the
four types of teachers based on their incorporation of Web-based teaching. We describe in
detail characteristics of the principals, as documented at two points in time: (1) at the end
of their professional development TPD program and again (2) after four years after the
end of the professional development program. We then make an attempt The objective of
the study is to understand and explain the long-term effect of the principal’s attitude on
her/his teachers' motivation or discouragement to adopt and assimilate technological
change processes. We also account forthe organizational factors, mainly the principals,
such as budget constrains, and the approach of the Israeli Ministry of Education, Culture,
and Sport that affect teachers' motivation or discouragement to adopt and assimilate the
change process after a long period of time.

The current study seeks to The study deepen our understanding of these factors.
Specifically, this study concerns the characterizesation and classifiesication of junior-
high school principals with respect to the way they motivated or discouraged their
science teachers to incorporate Webtechnology-based learning environments and
materials activities into their teaching.
When implementing a new curriculum, teachers often tend to “water down” the
innovation by transforming the curriculum new curricula to fit a more familiar, traditional
way of teaching (Olson & Loucks-Horsley, 2000; Ball, 1990). ThereforeIn view of this
phenomenon,, after about four years, we returned after about four years to the same
schools where our original research took place in order to investigate the school status
and learning environment in those schools from an educational technology infusion and
Web-based teaching and learning perspectives.

Research Goals and Questions

The goal of this retrospective research was to characterize the interaction between junior-
high school principals and their science teachers, and to explore the longitudinal
influences of this interaction on technology infusion and implementation in the schools.
To meet this goal, we set out to answer the following research questions:

4
  How and to what extent did teachers continue to implement technology in their
classrooms four to five years after participating in a two-year long technology-
oriented professional development program?
 What characterized the principals’ attitudes and level of support toward
technology implementation in each of the schools throughout the seven years of
the longitudinal study?
 What is the effect of the principals’ attitudes on teachers’ approach and level of
educational technology implementation of technology?

Theoretical background

A large body of literature has been devoted to the characteristics of principals who lead
changes in their schools (Hall, Rutherford, Hord & Huling, 1984; Thomas, 1978) and to
the role of schools as environments that encourage the teachers' professional growth
(Cusack, 1992; Graves, 1996; Kleine-Kracht, 1995; Kowch & Schwier 1997; Lipton &
Melameade, 1997; Shulman, 1997; Trimble, 1996, Quinn, 2002; Flanagan & Jacobsen
2003; Kelceoglu I 2006). As many researchers (e.g., Blumenfeld et al., 2000; Cohen &
Ball, 1999: Fishman et al., 2001; Fullan & Miles, 1992; Fullan, 1993; Linn, 1998) have
noted, the success of innovative approaches to education in general and of utilizing
technology in classrooms in particular, is heavily dependent on the school’s environment
and organization, and on the principal’s attitude towards the proposed change. The
principal is now alsoincreasingly expected to be the "leader of technology" (Creighton,
2002) for his or her school.
Baylor and Ritchie (2002) investigated the relative effect of the school’s technology
planning, leadership, professional development, curriculum alignment, technology use,
and openness to change on teacher technology skill, morale, and perceptions of
technology’s effect on learning. They found that these outcomes were mainly predicted
by the characteristics at of the teacher rather than the school level. An eExceptions was
thatwere teacher morale, which was also predicted also by professional development, and
technology’s effect on content acquisition, which was also predicted by the strength of
leadership.

5
 In a recent research, Quinn, (2002) has showed that there isfound a strong
correlation between principal leadership behaviors and the principal’s instructional
practice descriptors, which as a resource provider, an instructional resource, and a
communicator. among them there are:
(1) As a resource provider, the principal takes action to marshal personnel and
resources within the building, district, and community to achieve the school's vision and
goals. These resources may be seen as materials, information, or opportunities, with the
principal acting as a brokenbroker.
(2) As an instructional resource, the principal sets expectations for continual
improvement of the instructional program and actively engages in staff development.
Through this involvement, the principal participates in the improvement of classroom
circumstances that enhance Active active Teachingteaching.
(3) As a communicator, the principal models commitment to school goals,
articulates a vision toward instructional goals and the means for integrating instructional
planning and goal attainment, and sets and adheres to clear performance standards for
instruction and teacher behavior.
In a study which its aimsed were to determine the correlation between the principal’s
leadership patterns and the extent of computer integration in Israeli schools, Sasson
(1999), claims that, based on Bass (1985) claimed that the Transmitting principals’
leadership behaviors knowledge of Bass (1985) the principals can be divided into two
major groups: Ttransformational and transactional leadership behaviors. The
Transformational transformational Leaders leaders had strong motivation and set more
goals in each component concerning computers integration. They displayed a desire to
learn and become more acquainted with issues that needed to be addressed in order to
integrate computers into school, while the transactional leaders merely addressed
technical issues when those needed to be taken care of.
Based on a study of school principals in New Zealand, Yee (1998) proposed five
information technology leadership types from a study of
school principals in New Zealand, namely,: technology entrepreneur, technology
caretaker, technology trainer, technology modeler, and technology learner. In a qualitative

6
study of the principals in ten ICT-enriched schools in Canada, New Zealand, and United
States of AmericaUSA, Yee (2000) further defined eight types of ICT leadership types,
namely,: equitable providing, learning-focused envisioning, adventurous
learning, patient teaching, protective enabling, constant monitoring,
entrepreneurial networking, and careful challenging.

Principals set up their priorities and preferences within their daily workload
(Foster, Loving, Shumate, 2000). There are varying definitions for administrative styles
(Hunter-Boykin & Virdin, 1995) and for change leading (Thomas 1978; Foster et al.,
2000). The most successful systemic reform efforts are succeed where the local
organization either invents or assumes ownership of the core ideas in the reform (Honey
& McMillan-Culp, 2000). In these reforms, meaning principals often setting goals and
directions rather then than receiving receive them from higher authority.
A school that has successfully integrated computers and information technology
into its learning environment can be characterized by (1) an educational approach that
was decided upon by all the teachers (Yuen, Law & Wong 2003; Solomon, 2000), (2)
intense pervasive support for conducting changes from the school’s administration, and
most importantly, (3) the technology is incorporated into the pedagogical approach rather
than the educational framework subverting itself to the technology (Solomon, 2000).
When incorporating information technology into the educational framework, tThe
school’s characteristics reflect those of its principal when incorporating information
technology into the educational framework (Wiggins, 1970).
Technology Leadership havehas considerable effect on the quality of the
technology-supported learning environment. In addition, tTechnology leadership is also
greatly influenced greatly by background factors, such as the type of school, and by
infrastructural factors, but technology leadership has greater leverage on desired
outcomes than does technology infrastructure and expenditures. This indicates that
lLeaders’ involvement in a range of key technology leadership areas, (i.e., leadership and
vision; learning and teaching; productivity and professional practice; support,
management, and operations; and social, legal and ethical issues) is therefore very
important for a successful technology use implementation in a school (Anderson &

7
Dexter 2005). Technology leadership areas include leadership and vision; learning and
teaching; productivity and professional practice, support, management and operations,
and social, legal and ethical issues,

O'Dwyer, Russell & and Bebell (2005) found that the amount of restrictive
policies related to technology in place within a school or district was negatively
associated with the frequency with which teachers’ directed students to create products
using technology.

Leithwood, Jantzi and Steibach (1999) summarized the latest leadership theories in
education into six different approaches: instructional, transformational, moral,
participative, managerial, and contingent. They also identified four dimensions of
influence in relation to the six leadership approaches, each with its primary source of
leadership influence: who exerts influence, sources of influence, purpose of influence,
and outcomes of influence, and . each of the six approaches has its primary source of
leadership influence.
As Yuen, Law and Wong (2003) point out, sHence, successful implementation of change
in educational ICT implementation is not about equipment or software but influencing
and empowering teachers; it is not about acquiring computer skills, but supporting
teachers in the ongoing engagement with students in their learning (Yuen, Law & Wong
2003).
In many schools, informal leaders have emerged from classrooms, libraries and computer
laboratories to take up the difficult task of planning for technology integration, and
supporting distributed, and often- uncoordinated efforts by enthusiastic teachers
(Flanagan & Jacobsen 2003).
Yuen, et al., (2003) identified three clusters of characteristics related to the
Implementation of ICT pertaining to three different models of change management. They
eExploreding 18 Hong Kong schools which arethat were publicly recognized as schools
with the most experienced in using ICT in teaching and learning, Yuen, et al., (2003)

8
identified three clusters of characteristics related to the implementation of ICT pertaining
to three different models of change management in Hong Kong.
They found that the key distinctions between these three models are the established
vision and values of the school, the perceived role and impact of ICT in education and the
established culture and reform history of the school:. The models are the technological
adoption model, the catalytic integration model, and the cultural innovation model.
TThe technological adoption model - Tis the most prevalent model of ICT
implementation in schools. It conformsed to the managerial perspective in of technology
planning and emphasized emphasizes on managing the adoption of technological
infrastructure, organizational structure, and teachers’ technical skills.
The catalytic integration model - ICT use in this second cluster of schools wais
characterized by the deliberate integration incorporation of ICT into the teaching and
learning process as an integral part of the curriculum. This model also required the
principal to have a clear direction.
CThe cultural innovation model - Within the sample of schools studied, there
wereincluded two schools that embarked on the process of change in relation to ICT
implementation in a relatively smooth manner without apparently causing serious
conflicts or extra demands on teachers or the school leadership.
The key distinctions between these three models are the established vision and values of
the school, the perceived role and impact of ICT in education, and the established culture
and reform history of the school.
Langran, (2006) determinesd that although the National Educational Technology
Standards for Administrators (ISTE, 2002) sets a set of guidelines indicating for what
principals and other administrators should know and how they should make use of
technology, it's it is mainly the principals’ duty (among others) to build "Technology
Leadership" in their schools that is based ondriven by a teamwork of school technology
leaders which consistscomprised of the principal and the technology coordinator.
WUltimately, however, hen it comes to technology, teachers cannot deny the existence of
technology in schools, yet how effectively and how often the technology is used and how
the technology is used is heavily dependent upon individual teachers (Judson, 2006).

9
 In the previous research (Dori, et al., 2002), which served as the basis of this
study, we laid out a theoretical framework for professional development of science and
technology teachers who incorporate educational technologies and especially Web-based
learning into their teaching. The framework encourages adapting familiar subject matter
to a Web-based environment, thereby strengthening the confidence of the teachers in the
technology.
The framework has been applied to about 67 science teachers from in 16 schools.
They, who were classified into four basic types of science teachers: (1) The initiator and
path-finder, who is an autodidact, and can find ways to cope with technical and
organizational difficulties to apply technology-based instruction; (2) The follower and
conformist, who will applyies technology when it is convenient; (3) The avoider, who
will uses technology only when required; and (4) The antagonist, who will would not use
technology-based instruction under any condition. The research has also indicated that
the extent of technology assimilation and continued teacher’s professional development
depended on the messages that were transmitted by the school’s principal.
In order to examine the extent of the effect of the school management environment on
teachers’ attitude toward technology adoptions, additional data collection was carried out,
and as a result, four types of principals were identified: (1) The initiating principle, who
defines and leads change processes and mentors the required organizational changes; (2)
The empowering principal, who seeks to apply technology-based instruction and supports
various teacher initiatives in this direction, but does not lead the required pedagogical
reforms; (3) The permitting yet preventing principal, who theoretically approves
technology-based instruction, but does not support the organizational infrastructures that
are required for successful application; and (3) The resisting principal, who, for various
reasons, objects any element of technology-based instruction.

Methodology

10
Our research is longitudinal in nature, spanning a seven year period between 1998 and
2005. The current retrospective study involved two rounds of interviews with selected
teachers and principals.

Methodological Approach
.‫לספר את הסיפור של איך עבדנו‬
.‫ השענות על מחקר קודם כדי להגיע לחזרתיות‬+ ‫שני סבבי ראיונות‬: trustworthiness :‫יהודית‬
‫) הצהרה‬1 :‫ טרינאנגולציה של מדידת ההתפתחות המקצועית של המורה‬:‫דרך נוספת לחזרתיות‬
.‫) ניתוח תוצרים מבוססי מחשב‬3 ,‫) הצהרת מנהל‬2 ,‫עצמית‬
‫ (יעל תשלח) – לשלוח תשובה של יעל שהרבני ולהגיד משהו על מחקרי אורך (או‬:‫יהודית‬
.)‫רטרוספקטיבי‬
chi ,‫ כימות של מידע איכותני – מטריצת המורים‬:‫יעל‬
.)‫ – לשלוח ליהודית‬roth ‫ שילוב של מחקר כמותי עם איכותי (מאמר חדש של‬:‫יעל‬

Sample
Thirteen principals out of the original sample of 16 principals (who took part in the initial
study, 1998-2001), were interviewed twice again, once in 2003 and once in 2005, to
determine their attitudes toward incorporating technology into the school. In addition, 19
of the originally researched teachers who were still employed in these Thirteenten
schools participated in the retrospective research.
‫ התבצע אחריהם‬.‫ מורים הוגדרו לטיפוסים שונים‬67 ‫ מתוכם‬.‫ מורים‬100 ‫במחקר המקורי השתפו‬
)1998-2001( ‫מעקב לאורך כל התקופה הראשונה‬
‫ לבדוק שוב את המספרים‬+ ‫ הסבר‬+ )‫תיאור אוכלוסיית המחקר המקורית (איור העיגולים‬

11
 Figure 1: The containment relationship among the research groups

16 junior
16 Science teachers who took part high schools
in the extended PD program

Target group – 6
teachers who 67 science teachers
incorporated Web- who took part in four
based inquiry different PD programs
activities in their
classes

The research involved 67 science teachers from sixteen junior high schools in the
northern part of Israel who took part in four different teacher professional development
programs. The research groups are described in Figure 1 as four concentric circles. The
outer circle represents the principals of the nine junior high schools, who were
interviewed. The next circle represents the 67 teachers, of whom 57 were female and 10
were male. A group of 16 science teachers who took part in the extended teacher
education program is represented in the next-to-innermost circle. Finally, the inner circle
represents the target group – six teachers who incorporated Web-based inquiry activities
and were later followed in their classes. The six target teachers were a subset of these 16
teachers.

Tools and analysis

‫ לתאר את הכלי של המטריצה מהמאמר הקודם (כולל גם את טבלת אפיון מורים וגם‬:‫יהודית‬
Matrix ‫ נקרא לו‬.)‫את טבלת אפיון מנהלים‬
‫ לתאר כלי של ניתוח אתרים‬:‫יעל‬

12
13
 Table 1: Types of teachers who incorporate Web-based activities in their teaching

Type Description Characteristics Teachers' citations

•1Autodidactic and internally motivated to study the Web •5The teacher T. Z. from school 1
capabilities “I was looking for means to improve my use of the
Will apply Web- •2Realizes the potential found in Web-based teaching, uses internet and the computer. I learned the basics from
Type 1
based inquiry email and discussion forums to communicate with her students, my son. I am constantly learning in different PD
The initiator
teaching in any and and constructs class homepage with the help of the students programs. I am a member of several Web-based
and the path-
all instances •3Finds its own way to improve her teaching skills and development groups and I developed a Website with
finder
incorporate Web-based inquiry activities in her class inquiry activities for my science class. I continue to
•4Will find the way to deal with technical, organizational and improve and advance in developing these activities
other difficulties when they occur. for my students enjoyment and interest."
•1Participates in courses about Web-based teaching and is
exposed to such activities •6The teacher D. H. from school 2 “I have no
•2Willing to use components of Web-based inquiry teaching. problem devoting the time for the development of
Will apply Web-
Type 2 new learning materials as I always have. However, it
based teaching when When the conditions are suitable he will use it in a minor way
The follower is a fact that currently I am devoting even more of my
it is convenient •3He participates in discussion groups, allocates articles on the
-conformist time to prepare Web-based activities. I have a sense
net and prints them as working pages of satisfaction but I am not sure that the rewards suit
•4Web-based inquiry learning is not viewed by him as a the effort."
milestone or extremely relevant to students.
•7Has participated in technology-based PD programs or been
exposed to online activity •11The teacher M.S. from school 3 explained why he
Will only use Web- •8Appears to be willing to use Web-based teaching was not eager to use Web-based teaching in his
Type 3 based teaching if
•9Has agreed to utilize some aspects of Web-based teaching but science classes: “the organizational and technical
The avoider required
will not initiate anything in her school in order to do so problems I have to face are so huge and it leaves me
•10Will incorporate some components of Web-based teaching unmotivated."
only if required.
Type 4 Will not use Web- •12Rarely uses computers for minor tasks at home. Some of •16The teacher Y. A. from school 4, “I am not sure I
The objector - based teaching under these teachers are intimidated by computers (technophobia) have the financial capabilities to buy a computer for
antagonist any conditions. •13Has "her reasons" for not utilizing computers or the internet home. In school it is always in use and therefore I
and will never learn how to use it."

14
Type Description Characteristics Teachers' citations
•14Unfamiliar with advances in information technology (mostly
tenured teachers toward their retirement)
•15Resists incorporating Web-based activities into the science
classroom.

15
Table 2: Types of schools principals by their approach to Web-based teaching
Type Description
The principal leads the
The process of change, identifies
initiating the need, defines it, and
principal mentors the required
organizational changes.
The principal is interested in
change of teaching methods
and would like new
endeavors, including Web-
based teaching.
The principal allows teachers
The to proceed with their
initiatives.
empowering However, since the school
principal management does not have a
clear view about teaching
strategies, the different
initiatives do not serve the
school’s goal and sometimes
they even contradict each
other.
The school principal seems to
The support Web-based teaching
permitting initiatives, but persists in his
conservative policy as to
yet school’s timetable, lesson
preventing
structure and curriculum.
principal
The school principal
knowingly objects any
teaching method that involves
The Web-based elements of any
resisting kind. The reasons may differ,
but by and large they are
principal
linked to religion and
tradition.
Examples
"Nothing will happen without dedicated
visionaries. We need to cooperate and
organize work teams and put the right
people in the right positions. I look for
ways to extend the timetable and make
it possible for every student and
teacher to work according to their own
plans." (Principal O.M.)
"Our school has not recognized Web-
based teaching as a school enterprise,
but the website that the teacher T.Z.
had built received the support of the
school’s administration. At some point
we had nine different projects, which
were not coordinated." (Principal K.L.)
"No one said that Web-based teaching
is not welcome. I was frustrated
because I did not receive the financial
support." (Principal S.H.)
"People are only talking but nothing
really happens. None of the teachers
wants to really advance and make a
meaningful action… The school
principal has neither the ability nor the
willpower to move in the right
direction." (Teacher A.A., in S.H.'s
school)
In K.A.'s School all the computers are
linked to the Internet via one server.
Accessible Internet sites are strictly
filtered due to religious reasons: "Even
though ours is a technological school, I
object free access to the Internet
because we must educate our students
for values and religion." (Principal
D.B.)
16
A detailed analysis of the collected data provided the basis for re-categorization of the
principals and teachers into “types” according to the framework described above, which
was developed in the former study. This re-examination enabled us to examine the
influence of the principals on teachers’ practices in a longitudinal perspective.

17
‫‪Findings‬‬
‫להציג כך‪:‬‬
‫‪)1‬ניתוח מורים‬
‫‪)2‬ניתוח מנהלים‬
‫‪)3‬טבלא שמעבדת את הניתוחים באמצעות כימות‬
‫‪Table 3:‬‬

‫‪Type‬‬ ‫‪Teachers‬‬ ‫‪Type‬‬ ‫‪Principles‬‬

‫‪Original‬‬ ‫‪Retrospective‬‬ ‫‪Original‬‬ ‫‪Retrospective‬‬
‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪8‬‬ ‫‪7‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪3‬‬ ‫‪3‬‬
‫‪2‬‬ ‫‪7‬‬ ‫‪8‬‬ ‫‪2‬‬ ‫‪5‬‬ ‫‪5‬‬
‫‪3‬‬ ‫‪3‬‬ ‫‪2‬‬ ‫‪3‬‬ ‫‪3‬‬ ‫‪3‬‬
‫‪4‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪2‬‬ ‫‪4‬‬ ‫‪2‬‬ ‫‪2‬‬

‫יש לציין שלא שהנתונים האלה מייצגים ספירה של מורים ומנהלים שהיו בכל קטגוריה‪ .‬אי אפשר‬
‫לראות בטבלא הזו את התנודות של כל מורה באופן ספציפי‪ ,‬לכן אנחנו מציגים את הממצאים‬
‫באמצעות מטריצת הניתוח‬
‫‪ )4‬ניתוח האתרים והתוצרים (חיזוק הממצאים)‬
‫כדי להראות את הקשר בין השינוי שעבור המורים וסוג המנהל‪ ,‬זה גם מראה יותר טוב מהטבלא‬
‫למעלה את השינוי שחל אצל מורים‪ .‬נציג את איור מס' ‪( 1‬מטריצת מורים מנהלים עם חיצים)‪.‬‬
‫מטריצה (ממצא עיקרי)‪.‬‬

‫‪Using the The follow-up interviews with principals have indicated that after five‬‬
‫‪years, the approach toward technology of all of the thirteen principals remained the same.‬‬
‫‪Hence, each principal was classified to the same category as before (Figure 1).‬‬

‫‪Figure 1: Distribution into types of principals 1998-2005‬‬

‫להציג את שבעת המסכים שמציגים את המטריצה לפי טיפוסי מורים ‪ +‬ההשוואה של‬
‫מנהל ‪ Empowering‬עמ' ‪ .25-32‬איורים עם הסברים כנהוג‪ .‬להעתיק הטקסט שמופיע בשקופית‬
‫‪ +‬הסבר נוסף בעברית‪ .‬להוסיף את המלל של שקף הסיכום של המצגת‪)33( .‬‬

‫סדרת האיורים הבאים (‪ )Figure 5 ;Figure 4 ;Figure 3 ;Figure 2‬מראים את השפעת טיפוסי‬
‫המנהלים על טיפוסי המורים השונים‪ .‬החיצים מראים את כיוון התפתחותו של המורה‪,‬‬
‫התפתחות זו יכולה להיות "התפתחות מתקדמת" או "התפתחות נסוגה" (יהודית נראה לי שיש‬
‫לנו כאן מושג חדש שאנחנו יכולים להציע)‪ .‬המספרים על החיצים (‪ )X1,2,3‬מציינים את מספר‬

‫‪18‬‬

‫)‪VIII (x1‬‬
 ‫המורים המתועדים כטיפוסים השונים‪ .‬חץ מרובע מציין מורה שלא מראה התפתחות מתקדמת‬
‫או נסוגה‪.‬‬

‫‪Figure 2: Teachers and school principal types - mutual effect on incorporating‬‬

‫‪technology in teaching 2003-2005: The effect on the Follower type‬‬

‫‪ Figure 2‬מראה את השפעת טיפוסי המנהלים על מורה מטיפוס ‪ .Follower‬מורה מטיפוס זה‬
‫שפועל בבית ספר בהנהלתו של מנהל מטיפוס ‪ ,Initiating & Empowering‬יאמץ מודל שילוב‬
‫בתקשוב בהוראה של מורה מטיפוס ‪ .initiator‬מורים המלמדים בבית ספר בהנהלת מנהל‬
‫מטיפוס ‪ ,Permitting yet preventing & resisting‬יאמצו עם הזמן דפוס שילוב תקשוב בהוראה‬
‫של מורה מטיפוס ‪.Evader‬‬

‫‪19‬‬
‫‪Figure 3: Teachers and school principal types - mutual effect on incorporating‬‬
‫‪technology in teaching 2003-2005: The effect on the Initiator type‬‬

‫‪ Figure 3‬מראה את השפעת טיפוסי המנהלים על מורה מטיפוס ‪ .Initiator‬מורה מטיפוס זה‬
‫שפועל בבית ספר בהנהלתו של מנהל מטיפוס ‪ ,Initiating & Empowering‬ימשיך להתפתח‬
‫כמורה מטיפוס ‪ ,initiator‬יאמץ טכניקות חדשות וכלים חדשים שעשויים לדעתו לשפר את‬
‫ההוראה והלמידה‪ .‬מורים המלמדים בבית ספר בהנהלת מנהל מטיפוס ‪Permitting yet‬‬
‫‪ ,preventing & resisting‬יאמצו עם הזמן דפוס שילוב תקשוב בהוראה של מורה מטיפוס‬
‫‪.Follower‬‬

‫‪20‬‬
‫‪Figure 4: Teachers and school principal types - mutual effect on incorporating‬‬
‫‪technology in teaching 2003-2005: The effect on the Evador type‬‬

‫‪ Figure 4‬מראה את השפעת טיפוסי המנהלים על מורה מטיפוס ‪ .Evader‬מורה מטיפוס זה‬
‫שפועל בבית ספר בהנהלתו של מנהל מטיפוס ‪ ,Initiating & Empowering‬יאמץ מודל שילוב‬
‫בתקשוב בהוראה של מורה מטיפוס ‪ .Follower‬מורים המלמדים בבית ספר בהנהלת מנהל‬
‫מטיפוס ‪ ,Permitting yet preventing & resisting‬יאמצו עם הזמן דפוס שילוב תקשוב בהוראה‬
‫של מורה מטיפוס ‪.Objector‬‬

‫‪21‬‬
‫‪Figure 5: Teachers and school principal types - mutual effect on incorporating‬‬
‫‪technology in teaching 2003-2005: The effect on the Objector type‬‬

‫‪ Figure 5‬מראה את השפעת טיפוסי המנהלים על מורה מטיפוס ‪ .Objector‬מורה מטיפוס זה‬
‫שפועל בבית ספר בהנהלתו של מנהל מטיפוס ‪ ,Initiating & Empowering‬יאמץ מודל שילוב‬
‫בתקשוב בהוראה של מורה מטיפוס ‪ .Evader‬אין בידינו תיעוד של מורים מטיפוס ‪Objector‬‬
‫שמלמדים בבית ספר בהנהלת מנהל מטיפוס ‪.Permitting yet preventing & resisting‬‬

‫השוואה בהשפעת המנהל מטיפוס ‪ Empowering‬על המורים במהלך השנים ‪ 1998-2001‬ו‪-‬‬

‫‪( 2003-2005‬ראה ‪ Figure 6‬ו‪ )Figure 7 -‬מראה הבדלים בהתפתחות המורים לאורך זמן‪ .‬בין‬
‫השנים ‪ 1998-2001‬חלק קטן בלבד מהמורים עבר התפתחות חיובית‪ ,‬כלומר אימץ התנהלות‬
‫תיקשובית של מורה מטיפוס "גבוה" ממנו‪ ,‬חלק מהמורים לא עבר כל שינוי (מוצג על ידי חץ‬
‫מרובע) ואילו חלק ניכר מהמורים עבר התפתחות שלילית (ראה ‪ .)Figure 6‬התפתחות המורים‬
‫שפעלו תחת מנהל מטיפוס ‪ Empowering‬בשנים ‪ ,2003-2005‬כולה חיובית (ראה ‪.)Figure 7‬‬

‫‪22‬‬
Figure 6: Teachers and school principal types - mutual effect on incorporating
technology in teaching 2003-2005

23
Figure 7: Teachers and school principal types - mutual effect on incorporating
tecnology in teaching 1998-2001

Summary of mutual effect on incorporating technology in teaching

1998-2001 : 2003-2005

 External influences on teachers in an “Empowering” school

 Computer at home,
 Critical mass of materials in Hebrew on the web,
 Increase in number of teachers using IT at school,
 Peer and inspectorate pressure to utilize IT,
 Rise in IT experience due to accumulation of working time with the
computer including e-mail and basic research literacy.

In a number of cases, the approach of the principals became somewhat more extreme.
For instance, In one case, a principal (O. M.) who had been defined as an initiator in the
former study became even more supportive during the five years of the study. O.M who
introduced the use of computers for teaching and learning in her school seven years ago,

24
claimed in an interview in 2001 that although she believes technology should be
integrated into all teaching and learning activities in school, she does not hold a personal
computer on her desk . In a follow-up interview in 2005, there was a personal computer
on her desk. O. M. explained, that in time, the demand to answer teachers’ emails, and
respond to students’ postings on the school website, forced her "to join forces with the
teachers and take part in the fun... ..Once that happened, I was encouraged that the
process I was leading is the right one" O.M. also explained how technology became an
integral part of the school activities. She mentioned that a person who was hired to lead
the process under her supervision was necessary only at beginning stages and that after
he(?) retired, the process naturally continued in the school"… the concept of using
computers in everyday school- life was so deeply rooted, that the teachers just carried on
with their work … Through the years a new generation of teachers who used technology
as a pedagogical tool and could mentor other teachers developed". In another case, a
resisting principal became more confident in his resistance to incorporating technology
into his school. Y.E. is the principal at a junior high school (?) for girls. The technology
facilities in the school include a computer-lab, and an additional computer in the science
class. An example of Y.E.’s discomfort from technology is represented in the following
excerpt from an interview in 2005: "The computers here haven't been upgraded since
1999, there's no money for it from the municipality…. ….now, even if I had the money I
will not spend it on computers as I did years ago when I was persuaded to accept
computers from the ministry of education. That was a mistake. We can do much better
without them. There are other instructional tools much less dangerous than computers…"
Unlike the principals, the teachers’ approach to technology-based instruction changed
considerably during these seven years as can be seen in Figure 2 ‫ כאן צריך‬,‫יהודית‬
‫ ?להחליט לאן להפנות את הקורא האם למטריצה המרוכזת‬and Table 1. Analysis of the
interviews and observations indicates that with the encouragement, support and vision
provided by an initiating principal, teachers which were categorized in the former
research as followers, evaders, and even objectors, changed their attitudes toward
teaching with technology to a more positive one during the five years of study.

‫ כל המלל הקשור אליו‬+ ‫להוריד הגרף‬

25
 represents the effect of the type of principal type on the type of teacher, as categorized
with the rubric presented above. The arrows in the table indicate the direction and extent
of the change teachers went through in their approach to incorporating technology into
their teaching as were derived from the two interviews with teachers and the one with the
principal. A dotted arrow denotes findings based on the principal’s interview solely (and
not on direct interviews with the teachers). The Arabic number inside each arrow denotes
the number of interviewed teachers who went through the indicated change, while the
Roman numeral is used for reference in the sequel.
Examining Table 1 reveals that the initiating and the empowering principals (first two
rows in the table), caused their teachers to advance to higher level types of educational
technology implementation, while the permitting yet preventing and the resisting
principals (row 3 and 4 in the table) caused their teachers to regress to lower level types.
To illustrate these shifts we describe below ten (?) examples delineated by roman letters
in table 1.
Arrow I shifting. Teachers who were described as initiators and taught in schools with
an initiating principal continued to develop and benefited from the school’s attitude
toward technology use in the classroom, as is expressed in the following excerpt from
J.G. “The school supported all my computer-based activities… the support included
flexible class hours, and enabling me to use non- traditional evaluation methods”.
Another example for an arrow X shift is from P.D, a teacher who is in charge of science
instruction at the same (?) her school. When interviewed in 1999, P.D. was somewhat
hesitant about the principal’s (O.M., described above as an initiator type of principal)
vision for technology use in school. In the current study she says: “…”Now, after so
many years of consistent efforts on behalf of the principal to lead the school to where she
believes is ought to go, I can say that there’s a definite change in teachers’ attitudes
toward incorporating technology. For myself I can say that the school’s attitude enables
me to explore new ways of teaching and enables me to invest time in developing
curricular materials that make a good use of the technology available for teaching
Science and Technology”.

26
Arrow IA shifting. Another example of leveraging teachers’ use of technology is
indicated in Table 1 by arrow IA, when working with an empowering principal, a teacher
who was initially categorized as a follower (conformist) became an initiator: D.H., a
science teacher working with the principal D. A, (an Initiator type of principal). D.H. was
characterized during the 1998-2002 research as a Follower type of teacher. Her
participation in the teacher professional development program at the Technion was
enforced by D.A. who demanded that all teachers will acquire basic know-how of
computer use for teaching. “I wasn’t much interested then in computers, I had other
things on my mind then… D.A. the principal insisted that I’ll attend the course...” “…
Implementing what I’ve acquired in the workshop was not easy, but I received support all
along the way. During the first few months after the course, my mentor from the
Technion, came into school regularly to work with me, he was available through mail and
telephone. The most important element for me in those months was school attitude, which
was determined by the principal. He made it clear to all the staff, that ‘school has to
make sure that teachers will have all the support needed to implement educational
technology into their teaching’. This attitude allowed me to gain confidence in this new
environment. In time I became more and more competent - today I’m an expert. I
conduct regular interactions with my students through my forum, I run schools’ science
and Technology web site…”

Arrow II shifting. S.A., teaches high-school biology and junior-high-school level

science and technology. S.A is highly respected by the principal who according to our
classification, is an empowering principal. The principal describes S.A. as an “…
Initiative, optimistic and most positive… ….She’s good for school… …anything that
S.A. asks for is taken care of”. S.A. feels that she has a lot of support from the school:.
“During the last few years, this positive environment allowed me to pursue new
curricular activities and programs, designed to enhance motivation for learning. The use
of computers was part of it, It is not ’my heart and soul’ but I have the knowledge and
capabilities to utilize it as needed.” Although we did not categorize S.A.’s use of
technology as an initiator type, we do see enhancement, especially in her attitude towards
technology uses.

27
Arrow III shifting. . Y. H. represents an “avoider” type of teachers, who became a
“follower”when working with an Empowering principal. In the follow-up interview Y.H.
claims that during the last few years the school’s attitude toward incorporating
educational technology has not changed, but that the environment has changed and
brought him to incorporate more technology uses to his teaching: “...Computers are
everywhere...” “… The students are computer literate…” “As head of the environmental
studies at school, it’s my responsibility to lead changes, including the use of new teaching
techniques, new curricular materials…” “… There are regional and international
projects which are very attractive; they are all Web-Based activities…” “ We acquired a
computerized meteorological station…” “We compete for awards and grants from the
Ministry of Environment and education, which means writing papers, building
presentations..” “…All in all I found myself working with the computer as part of my
daily routine… and it’s not bad…”

Arrow IV shifting. Teachers who were classified as “objectors” were difficult to move,
even when they worked with empowering and initiating principles. An example is one
teacher who was originally defined as objector showed slight changes in his attitude
(indicated by arrow IV), but was still categorized as an objector.

The opposite effect, in which teachers decreased their use of technology when
working with the permitting-yet-preventing and the resisting principals, is illustrated by
arrows V to X. To illustrate this effect we describe the case of arrow X:
)Arrow X shifting ‫)להוריד את כל הקטעים הבאים עד‬
L.G. the principal of R middle school who’s a permitting yet preventing type of principal
one teacher as indicated in Table 1 by arrow V moved from being an initiator to a
follower. One teacher as indicated by arrow VI moved from being a follower to an
Evader. One teacher as indicated by arrow VII moved from being an Evader to a Resistor.
Another moved down in her characteristics within the definition of a follower.

28
 A different example can be seen in the E.A Junior High School. Although the
principal R.L. is categorized as an empowering principal, the person responsible for the
computer labs, school web site etc. is described by M.E. a science teacher as “hard and
unbearable, she’ll makes life difficult for everybody, so my policy is just to get away from
her… ..I rather not do then encounter with that lady…” so M.E. was indicated as
working under the leadership of a preventing type of principal (indicated in Table 1 by
arrow IX.

Arrow X shifting. In a school whose principal resists introduction of technology, even an

initiating teacher is likely to gradually lose the drive to be an initiator and make extra
efforts, feeling like she or he are "fighting windmills”. For example, one teacher,
originally classified as an initiator, was demoted to a follower, We first met Y.B. in 1997
in a 336 hours workshop, which objective was to retrain teachers who taught a specific
scientific subject (biology, chemistry, geography, physics, technology etc.) to “Science
and Technology” teachers as part of a new department of education initiative which was
called “Tomorrow 98”. In 1999 when Y.B participated in another workshop at the
Technion, she was clearly an Initiator type of teacher. Y. B. works in a school with
principal which we categorized as a “resisting” type. In an interview conducted at 2005
Y.B. claimed that she is regressing, all her efforts to incorporate computers into the
Environmental studies are “shattering against the wall of objection” “... There are no
sufficient facilities, years ago the principal disconnected the computers from the Internet,
he said there’s no money to pay the bills…” “..I’m very frustrated and angry. You
already heard that from me two years ago, but then I believed that in time the principal’s
attitude will change… now I just know it will not...” “... I do not commit myself to
anything new. I have no more energy…”

We found one exception of a teacher who continued to act as an initiator even

though the principal acted as a permitting-yet-preventing manner, as indicated in by
arrow VIII.. In both interviews with A.A, it was evident that she is a strong persong who
has got her own agenda concerning the way her teaching is done. “I do not care if the
teachers lead the principal by the nose. They do not want to work hard. Incorporating

29
technology into teaching is hard work, so the current situation in school is that teacher’s
lounge determine school s agenda – that is not me and the principal knows that. He
knows I’m stubborn, he appreciates me as a professional, he knows that when I make up
my mind about something I will do it, so he allows me to teach the way I want. He even
found the money to purchase Computerized Labs-kits for me…” “…I’m determined to
continue fighting for what I believe in. Currently I need the principal to allow me to
teach in small groups, I’ll maneuver the principal to the position from where he’ll have
no choice but agree to split my class into small groups so they’ll be able to work in the
computer Lab and make a good use of the kits.”

30
 Matrix 1: Teachers and school principal types - mutual effect on incorporating
technology in teaching 2003-2005

The Initiator The Follower The Evader The Objector

Studies and )Conformist( Will do the minimum Rarely uses
Teacher develops his own Will do what is according to the computers for
initiatives expected of him pressure that is minor tasks at
Will apply Web- Will apply Web- placed upon. home. Will not use
based inquiry based teaching Will only use Web- Web-based
teaching in any when it is based teaching if teaching under any
and all instances convenient required conditions
Principal

The initiating principal

The principal leads the
I 3 process of change, identifies IV
the need, defines it, and III
mentors the required
organizational changes.
The empowering
aI 1 principal
The principal is interested
III 2 11
in change of teaching IV
methods and would like
I 2 new endeavors, including
II 2 teaching.
Web-based
allows teachers to proceed
with their initiatives.
The permitting yet
1 Vpreventing principal
The school principal seems
to support Web-based
1 initiatives, but
teaching VI
VIII persists in his conservative
policy as to school’s
1 2 IX structure, 1
timetable, lesson
VII
and curriculum.
The resisting principal
The school principal
knowingly objects any
teaching method1 that
involves Web-based
1 X
elements of any kind. The
reasons may differ, but by
and large, they are linked to
religion and tradition.

31
Matrix 2: Teachers and principal types - mutual effect on incorporating technology in
teaching 1998-2001

Teacher The Initiator The Follower The Evader The Objector

)Conformist(
Principal

The initiating
principal

The empowering
principal

The permitting yet

preventing principal

The resisting
principal

Matrix 2 demonstrates the effect of school types on teachers' incorporating technology in

teaching as was determined at the initial research taken place during the years 1998-2001.

Comparing the 1998-2001 matrix with the 2003-2005 matrix, Reveal differences in the
way teachers responded to principal types. The difference is most apparent when the
principal type is the empowering principal.

As indicated in Table 2, the Empowering Principal, although he is interested in change of

teaching methods and would like new endeavors, including Web-based teaching and
allows teachers to proceed with their initiatives, the school management does not have a
clear view about teaching strategies, the different initiatives do not serve the school’s goal
and sometimes they even contradict each other. That situation has caused the teachers
during their initial attempt at implement technology in teaching to react as indicated in
Matrix 2.
As time passed, the teachers has gained experience and confidence in incorporating
technology in their teaching. Further more: there are number of peripheral aspects to
account for:

32
 1. New computers at homes, Windows 98 and XP are easier to utilize
2. e-mail becomes a main stream communication tool
3. There is a huge increase in relevant materials in Hebrew on the web.
4. Since the Freedom of Information act was past in 1998 all bureaus and
government offices and agencies must supply all their services and information
through the web. The implication of that is that a citizen who does not want to
waist a lot of time standing in queue, can fill forms, pay bills, apply for services
directly on the web.
5. In most of the Junior High schools teacher have to report their student's
achievement digitally directly to the schools data base
These aspects indicate that the teachers' general computer literacy has increased during
the period 2001-2005. Their competence and confidence has increased during that time.
The teachers reports during the follow up interviews (2003-2005) indicates that they are
over the initial stage of "survival" in their PD (Sandholtz, Ringstaff & Dwyer, 1997
).

33
‫השוואת ניתוח פעילויות של שלוש מורות המוגדרות כטיפוס ‪( 1‬פורצות דרך)‪ ,‬לממצאים העולים מהשוואת מורים‬
‫‪.‬מתחילים ומורים מובילי תקשוב על ידי תמר שמיר‬

‫להל"ן טבלת ריכוז ניתוח פעילויות המורות לפי המחוון של תמר שמיר (טבלה ‪ ,)1‬הממצאים עברו דיון נוסף והתאמה‬
‫על ידי יהודה ותמר (הערה‪ :‬מימד מידת השיתופיות לא מופיע במחוון המקורי ולכן לא עבר תיקוף על ידי גורם נוסף)‬

‫טבלה ‪ :1‬ריכוז ניתוח פעילויות מקוונות של טיפוס ‪ - 1‬מורים פורצי דרך‬

‫שם הפעילות‪/‬‬
‫ממוצע‬ ‫שרית ארגמן‬ ‫שולי קפון‬ ‫איילת שמולה‬ ‫המימד‬
‫הערכת האפיון‬
‫אפיון גבוה (‪)3‬‬
‫‪2.33‬‬ ‫‪3‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪3‬‬ ‫אפיון בינוני (‪)2‬‬ ‫ניצול הערך הטכנולוגי‬
‫אפיון נמוך (‪)1‬‬
‫אפיון גבוה (‪)3‬‬
‫‪3‬‬ ‫‪3‬‬ ‫‪3‬‬ ‫‪3‬‬ ‫אפיון בינוני (‪)2‬‬ ‫רמת חשיבה נדרשת‬
‫אפיון נמוך (‪)1‬‬
‫אפיון גבוה (‪)3‬‬
‫‪2.33‬‬ ‫‪3‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪3‬‬ ‫אפיון בינוני (‪)2‬‬ ‫מידת השיתופיות‬
‫אפיון נמוך (‪)1‬‬
‫אפיון גבוה (‪)3‬‬
‫‪2.67‬‬ ‫‪2‬‬ ‫‪3‬‬ ‫‪3‬‬ ‫אפיון בינוני (‪)2‬‬ ‫קרוב התכנים לעולמו של הלומד‬
‫אפיון נמוך (‪)1‬‬
‫אפיון גבוה (‪)3‬‬
‫‪2‬‬ ‫‪2‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪3‬‬ ‫אפיון בינוני (‪)2‬‬ ‫הבניית משימות פתוחות ‪Scaffolding‬‬
‫אפיון נמוך (‪)1‬‬
‫אפיון גבוה (‪)3‬‬
‫‪1.33‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪2‬‬ ‫אפיון בינוני (‪)2‬‬ ‫שילוב הערכה כחלק מהנחיות המטלה‬
‫אפיון נמוך (‪)1‬‬
‫‪2.33‬‬ ‫‪1.67‬‬ ‫‪2.83‬‬

‫‪34‬‬
Discussion
Assimilating Web-based learning in science classes depends on the level of the
principal’s support and involvement. This study supports the findings of Foster, Loving
and Shumate (2000) that a change in a school, which is managed by a principal who does
not cooperate or lead the process will seldom succeed. Sasson (1999) showed that
principals who lead computer integration in their schools can be identified according to a
set of characteristics as showed by our findings. Flanagan & Jacobsen (2003) claims that
the arrival of digital technologies in schools has impacted the roles and responsibilities of
principals in significant ways. ICT has triggered demands for systemic changes in public
schools necessitated by the shift from the industrial age to the knowledge economy.
Inevitably, teachers and principals feel the pressure to change, and must find ways of
implementing and sustaining technological innovations in classrooms. Salomon (2000)
claimed that for a project to succeed there is a need for supportive school’s climate. Our
findings also support the work of Quinn, (2002) who showed that principals must create
an atmosphere of trust and patience. Teachers need to know that their efforts are valued
and appreciated. Teachers need to know that they are free to take risks without fear of
penalty. Principals need to model the value of continual learning and the ongoing pursuit
of success. Teachers need opportunities to collaborate and learn from each other routinely
and informally. Principals need to promote teacher participation and leadership in staff
development.
The findings of this research are supported by O'Dwyer, Russell & Bebell (2005)
who found that the ability of a school or district to manipulate or alter all of the factors
related to technology use in schools has implications for the school and district policies,
practices, and leadership characteristics that may influence how, and the extent to which
teachers use technology for a variety of purposes. Specifically, increasing availability of
technology, providing line item funding for technology, altering restrictive policies
related to technology, considering technology use as part of teacher evaluations, and
providing easy access to a variety of professional development opportunities all have the
potential to impact on one or more ways in which teachers use technology to support
their teaching.

35
 Kelceoglu (2006) in a current research showed that Although the school principal
was very supportive of first year teachers who would like to integrate technology in their
teaching, the utilization of technology was a personal choice of individual teachers. Since
it was an individual decision, the teacher thus, chose not to focus on the utilization of
technology in her teaching.
These findings contradict Mumtaz's, who claims based on extensive literature
review that teacher factors far outweighed the institutional or school factors. claims that
despite essential technical support provided by the school and a positive attitude to IT
from the school principal, the teacher factors that involved beliefs about the way the
subject should be taught and skills associated with competence in managing classroom
activities and computer-handling technical skills were the most influential in teachers’ use
of computers, for schools can go only so far to encourage ICT use; actual take-up
depends largely on teachers’ personal feelings, skills and attitudes to IT in general
(Mumtaz, 2000). Our findings shows that in the long run it will be schools characteristics
which will determine long term implementing of IT in teaching.
Our findings support a current research of Angers & Krisanna, (2005) of three
middle school science teachers who successfully integrate technology into their class
room. They found that at the school level the teachers are given release time to attend
trainings and conferences. These teachers are encouraged to take a leadership role and are
invited to share their ideas about instruction with colleagues at faculty meetings and state
conferences. Other teachers are encouraged to observe how these teachers have
implemented their student-centered and student-directed visions within realistic
environments in which technology is one component.
Wozney et al (2006) found that Teachers need to believe that they can
successfully implement technology within their own context; if not, they may neither take
the initial risk nor continue to persevere in implementing it. (Wozney, Vivek and Philip,
2006).

36
 Our findings that show higher use of Web-based teaching where the principal
is involved and encourages teachers, are also supported by Hodas (1993), Supovitz
and Turner (2000). The types of principals identified and characterized in this research
provide a basis for predicting teachers' implementation of technological innovations in
general, and Web-based teaching in particular, into their classes.
Having identified the various principal types, we went on to explore the
combinations of the different types of teachers and principals and the pattern of how
the principal's type affected the teachers' types. The data we obtained indicated that
under the influence of the initiating principal, a teacher is often promoted to a more
"advanced" type. This may be due to the principal's encouragement and support as
found in a research of how middle school teachers integrated wireless laptops in the
initial stages of implementation which shows that the participating teachers who were
not computer savvy, relied on the school's principals "leading the project" (p. 367)
thus supporting the teachers. (Burns and Joseph, 2006)
The follower, who used to do what is expected of him, will be "upgraded" to
an initiator, who suggests changes and improvements and presents ways for
implementation. Likewise, an avoider, who was willing to occasionally cooperate
with a team, now fully cooperates with her team, and may suggest changes or
improvements. Encouraged by an initiator principal, the initiator and pathfinder
teacher types will utilize her skills and bring her initiative to complete fruition.
Under the leadership of an initiating principal, a follower (conformist) teacher
may become an initiator. The same type of teacher will abandon any initiative of
introducing new technology into a school whose principal discourages such activities.
Finally, an antagonist teacher will show almost no signs of initiation, regardless of
whether she has the principal's support.
The other three principal types were shown to cause the opposite effect—they
demote the type of a teacher to a less "advanced" type. Moreover, a resisting principal
discourages initiator or follower teachers and therefore they might become antagonist
because of the environment he/she induces, which suppresses any teacher's initiative
and good intention. In a school whose principal resists the introduction of technology,
even an initiator teacher will gradually lose his drive and desire to put in extra effort

37
as he feels like "fighting windmills”. He will undergo a process in which he will cease
to be an initiator and continue to teach without any, or very little drive.

References

• Anderson, R. E. & Dexter, S. (2005). School Technology Leadership: An Empirical

Investigation of Prevalence and Effect. Educational Administration Quarterly. 41(1). 49-82.
• Angers, J. & Machtmes, K. (2005). An Ethnographic Case Study of Beliefs, Context Factors,
and Practices of Teachers Integrating Technology. The Qualitative Report 10(4). 771-794.
(retrieved 26 July 2006 from http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR10-4/angers.pdf)
• Baylor, A., L.,& Ritchie, D. (2002). What factors facilitate teacher skill, teacher morale, and
perceived student learning in technology-using classrooms? Computers & Education, 39, 395-
414.
• Bell, B. (1998). Teacher development in science education. In: B Fraser & K. Tobin (eds.)
International handbook of science education. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp.
681-693.
• Bell, B., & Gilbert, J. (1996). Teacher Development: A Model from Science Education. Falmer
Press, London.
• Blumenfeld, P., Fishman, B. J., Krajcik, J., Marx, R. W., & Soloway, E. (2000). Creating
usable innovations in systemic reform: Scaling up technology-embedded project-based science
in urban schools. Educational Psychologist, 35(3), 149-164.
• Burns, K and Joseph, P. (2006) The impact of ubiquitous computing in the Internet age: how
middle school teachers integrated wireless laptops in the initial stages of
implementation. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education 14(2 ). 363-386.
• Bybee, R. W., & Loucks-Horsley, S. (2000). Supporting Change Through
Professional development, 41-48. In Resch, B. (ed.) Making Sense of
Integrated Science; A Guide for High Schools. BSCS.
• Clausen J., M. (2007). Beginning Teachers' Technology Use: First Year
Teacher Development and the Institutional Context's affect on New
Teachers' Instructional Technology Use with Students. Journal of Research on
Technology in Education, 35(3), 245-261
• Cohen, D. K., & Ball, D. L. (1999). Instruction, capacity, and improvement (CPRE Research
Report
• Creighton, T. (2002). The principal as technology leader. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
• Cuban, L., Kirkpatrick, H. and Peck, C. (2001), "High access and low use of technologies in
high school classrooms: explaining an apparent paradox", American Educational Research
Journal, Vol. 38 No. 4, pp. 813
• Cusack, M. S. (1995). Does building a classroom community facilitate learning? Teaching Pre
K-8, 26(3), 64-65.
• Dori, J. Y., Tal,T. R. and Y. Peled (2002). Characteristics of Science Teachers Who Incorporate
Web-Based Teaching. Research in Science Education. 32 (4), 511-547.
• Dori, Y.J. & Herscovitz, O. (2005). Case-based long-term professional development of science
teachers. International Journal of Science Education, 27(12), 1413–1446.
• Fessler, R. (1985). Teacher Career Stages. In Burke, P.J., & Heideman, R.
(Eds), Career Long Teacher Education, Springfield, Thomas.
• Fishman, B.J., Gomez, L.M., & Soloway, E. (2001). New technologies and the challenge for
school leadership. A white paper for the Joyce Foundation Wingspread Meeting: Technology’s
Role in Urban School Reform: Achieving Equity and Quality.
• Flanagan, L. & Jacobsen, M. (2003). Technology leadership for the twenty-first century

38
 principal. Journal of Educational Administration. 2003. 41(2). 124-143
• Fullan, M. (1993), Change Forces: Probing the Depth of Educational Reform, Falmer Press,
• London.
• Fullan, M. G., & Stiegelbauer, S. (1991). The New Meaning of Educational
Change (2nd ed.) New York: Teachers college Press.
• Fullan, M.G. & Miles, M.B. (1992). Getting reform right: What works and what doesn't. Phi
Delta Kappan, 73(10), 745-752.
• Graves, L. M. (1992). Cooperative learning communities: Context for a new vision of
education and society. Journal of Education, 174(2), 57-79.
• Hall, G., Rutherford, W. L., Hord, S. M., & Huling, L. L. (1984), Effects of three principal
styles on school improvement. Educational Leadership, 41(5). 22-29.
• Harari, H. (1994). Tomorrow 98: report of the superior committee on science, mathematics
and technology education of Israel. Jerusalem: State of Israel, Ministry of Education, Culture
and Sport.
• Honey, M., & McMillan-Culp, K. (2000). Scale and localization: The challenge of
implementing what works. In M. Honey & C. Shookhoff (Eds.), The Wingspread Conference
on Technology’s Role in Urban School Reform: Achieving Equity and Quality (pp. 41–46).
Racine, WI: The Joyce Foundation, The Johnson Foundation, and the EDC Center for
Children and Technology.
• Huberman, M. (1989). Research on teachers’ professional lives. International Journal of
Educational Research, 3(4), 347-361.
• International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE). (2002). National educational
technology standards for administrators. (http://cnets.iste.org/tssa/pdf/tssa.pdf. retrieved July
23, 2006)
• International Society for technology in Education (ISTE). (2002). National
educational technology standards for administrators. Eugene, OR:ISTE.
• Judson, E. (2006). How teachers integrate technology and their beliefs about learning: is there
a connection?. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education 14(3). 581-598.
• Kelceoglu I (2006). Understanding Institutional Factors Affecting First-Year
Teachers’ Utilization of Technology. NECC 2006. San Diego July 5-7, 2006.
Retrieved 19 July 2006 from
http://center.uoregon.edu/ISTE/NECC2006/program/search_results_details.p
hp?sessionid=13371439
• Kleine-Kracht, P.A. (1993). The principal in a learning community. Journal of School
Leadership, 3(4), 1-99.
• Kowch, E., & Schwier, R. (1997). Building learning communities with technology.
ED405857. Paper presented at the second national congress on rural education. Saskatoon,
Saskatchewan.
• Krajcik, J., Marx, R. W., Blumenfeld, P., Fishman, B., & Soloway, E. (2000). Inquiry based
science supported by technology: Achievement among urban middle school students. Paper
presented at the AERA meeting, New Orleans, April. Available at: http://www.-
personal.umich.edu/`krajcik/AERA.outcomes.pdf
• Langran, E. (2006). Technology Leadership: Principals and Technology
Coordinators Working Together. In Crawford, C., Willis, D., Carlsen, R.,
Gibson, I., McFerrin, K., Price, J., & Weber, R. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society
for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference
2006 (pp. 2108-2113). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
• Leithwood, K., Jantzi, D. and Steibach, R. (1999), Changing Leadership for Changing
Times, Open University Press, London.
• Levin, T. and Wadmany, R. (2006). Teachers’ Beliefs and Practices in Technology-based
Classrooms: A Developmental View. Journal of Research on Technology in Education , 39(2),
157–181
• Lipton, L. & Melamede, R. (1997). Organizational learning - the essential journey. In Costa,
A. L., & Liebmann, R. M (eds). The process - centered school, sustaining a renaissance
community, Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. pp. 30-53.

39
 • Mioduser, D. (2001). Internet-in-education in Israel: Issues and trends. Educational
Technology, Research and Development, 49(1), 74-83.
• Mumtaz, S. (2000). Factors Affecting Teachers’ Use of Information and Communications
Technology: a review of the literature. Journal of Information Technology for Teacher
Education, Vol. 9, No. 3, 319-341
• O'Dwyer, L., Russell, M. & Bebell, D. (2005). Identifying Teacher, School, and District
Characteristics Associated With Middle and High School Teachers' Use of Technology: A
Multilevel Perspective. Journal of Educational Computing Research. 33(4). 369 – 393
• Olson, O., & Loucks-Horsley, S. (Eds.). (2000). Inquiry and the national science education
standards. A guide for teaching and learning. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
• Pelgrum, W. J. (2001). Obstacles to the integration of ICT in education: Results from a
worldwide educational assessment. Computers & Education, 37(1), 163-178.
• Quinn D.M. (2002). The impact of principal leadership behaviors on instructional practice and
student engagement. Journal of Educational Administration, 40 (5), 447-467.
• Sandholtz, J.H., Ringstaff, C., & Dwyer, D. (1997). Teaching with technology:
Creating student centered
• classrooms. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University.
• Sasson, H. (1999) The Correlation between Leadership, The Principal’s
Orientation with Computers and the Extent of Computer Integration in
School. M.A. Thesis Tel Aviv university, Faculty of Humanities, School of
Education.
• Series No. RR-043). Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Consortium for Policy
Research in Education. Retrieved December 26, 2005, from
http://www.cpre.org/Publications/rr43.pdf
• Shulman, S. S. (1997). Communities of learners & communities of teachers. The Mandel
Institute, Jerusalem.
• Slowinski, J. (2003). Becoming a technologically savvy administrator. Teacher Librarian.
30(5), pg. 25
• Supovitz, J.A., & Turner, H.M. (2000). The effects of professional development on science
teaching practices and classroom culture. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 963-
980.
• Thomas, M. W. (1978). A Study of alternatives in American education, Vol II: The role of the
Principal. Santa Monica: Rand Corporation.
• Trimble, K. (1996). Building learning communities. Equity and excellence in education, 29(1),
37-40.
• Wozney, L., Vivek V. and Philip C., A. (2006). Implementing computer technologies: teachers'
perceptions and practices. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education 14(1). 173(35)
• Yee, D. (1998), “IT in educational leadership: NZ perspectives”, available
at: www.ucalgary.ca/~dlyee/itenz.html
• Yee, D. (2000), “Images of school principals’ information and communications technology
leadership”. Journal of Information Technology for Teacher Education. 9(3), 287-302.
• Yuen A.H.K.; Law N.; Wong K.C. (2003). ICT implementation and school
leadership: Case studies of ICT integration in teaching and learning. Journal
of Educational Administration. 41(2), 158-170

JRTE—Journal of Research on Technology in Education ... Journal of Research on

Technology in Education. Edited by Dr. Lynne Schrum, George Mason University ...

40
41
Table 4 : Types of schools principals by their approach to Web-based teaching – Retrospect
‫טבלה רלוונטית‬
Type Description Characteristic Examples 1998-2001
The initiating The principal leads the process The first characteristic: During a personal interview in his
principal of change, identifies the need, The principal identifies school, the principal, D. A., presented
defines it, and mentors the and defines the need his personal creed relating to the
required organizational changes. introduction of information
This type of school has three technology in his school: We are
characteristics: living in an era of technological
developments. These are
characterized by large and rapid
changes. It is my personal belief that
one of a school’s responsibilities is to
prepare its pupils to deal with the
real world and provide tools to cope
with the changes that are sure to
come. Therefore I want as many of
my pupils as possible to become
familiar with computers in as many
areas as possible. (June 2001)
The second characteristic: “My role is to provide technical and
The principal leads the material support for the principal
process of introducing that is leading the process of
change introducing a change in the school by
determining objectives and dealing
with a broad range of matters that
are connected to the process. I work
with the teaching teams. I have been
an amount of professional flexibility
42
Examples 2003-2005
During a telephone interview, the
principal, D. A., described his schools
long term pedagogical agenda “We
(me and my program director)
believe that every year we must
introduce some innovation into
school and implement it, if you do not
renew you step back. We introduced
CMC into school some years back.
We understood then that
implementing CMC into school’s
every day life will be different then
other initiatives….” (May 2005)
…Now, after so many years, all
school computers are connected to
the net and available to students and
teachers at all times, that means that
the computer labs. Are open at all
school hours …” (Principal, D. A. of
O.D, May 2005)
“In the mid 90’s I participated as
Type Description Characteristic
The third characteristic:
The principal enables the
organizational changes
that are necessary to
assimilate information
technology into the school
43
Examples 1998-2001
to determine my actions by the
principal…We are in full
cooperation, this is the only way…
Each of us complements the other but
we both acknowledge that A. M. is
the leader that determines the
principles and ideas involved in the
process. Y. R. is the person in charge
of assimilating information
technology and the process of
change, in a personal interview at the
end of the 2001 school year
I create an environment that nurtures
and advances teacher. I make sure
that every teacher participates in an
ongoing learning program that is
suited to his needs and has been
designed by both of us (each teacher
with the principal). This helps the
teachers arrive promptly at their
ability to utilize information
technology in their teaching and it is
a continuous process requiring
endurance, flexibility, and the ability
to assess any situation at a given
moment. I removed (fired) two
teachers that were incapable of
adjusting to computer usage. It is
inconceivable today that we will
teach as we did 15 years ago. I assist
teachers that continue their studies. I
reduce their instructional load and
guarantee that they can return to
their previous position when they
Examples 2003-2005
principal in a PD workshop for
computer teachers. I wanted to
understand in details the fullest
meaning of implementing the
computer into school… After that I
knew exactly what I’m asking my
teachers to do in regard to
implementing CMC into their
teaching..” E. N. principal of O.
school
“… All schoolteachers participated
in a series of PD workshops. They all
know what is expected of them. In
each team there’s at least one highly
computer literate teacher who
support those who need support…
…. There is the technical aspect,
which I took care of, As many
computers for students as I could
afford, the same in the teachers room,
all these available and accessible at
all school hours. User friendly web
based working environments for the
teachers which includes forums, mail,
and lessons.”
(O .M. principal of V school March
2005)
… There’s a tech person available
during all school hours…
…I fired teachers who exhibit
negative attitude to implementing
Type Description
The the principal will cooperate and
empowering suggest. He will express
principal favorable views about the
change in teaching methods
including incorporating
computers and information
technology. He will enable and
encourage teachers that show
initiative to lead various
initiatives but there is no orderly
leadership of the change
Characteristic
The first characteristic:
The principal will enable
and encourage teachers
that show initiative to lead
various initiatives. The
school is often likely to
simultaneously have many
projects that do not
necessarily serve the
school’s objectives.
44
Examples 1998-2001 Examples 2003-2005
complete their studies. The school CMC…” (May 2005)
framework will be adjusted to enable
teachers to study and advance
themselves if they are willing to study
a subject that will advance the
school’s objectives. (D. A. Principal
of the D. A. School in a personal
interview).
There will never be enough
computers to answer all of the
school’s needs. It is easy to hide
behind this statement and do nothing.
I chose to act. Part of my
responsibility as principal is to
enable the needed change. Therefore
I enlisted the parents’ help, the local
authority and spread the school’s
resources to best meet its
requirements. The secret is flexibility
in planning and keeping a finger on
the pulse. (A. M. the school principal
in a personal interview 1.04.01)
T. Z. is the principal of the Z. S. A.Z. is the program director of Z.S
School. He supports and encourages school. “..Things hasn’t changed
every educational initiative. Teachers much, there is more awareness
and teams that initiate something among the teachers to the potential of
receive support and encouragement. CMC in teaching, and more teachers
Adjusting the school’s schedule utilize CMC into their teaching…”
sometimes backs this. (July 2005)
R. A. the vice principal “There is an Sh .K. is the principal of the H.
excellent atmosphere in the school school “ … In the last ten years we
that encourages teachers at all levels constantly invest in computer
to initiate, to renew an to introduce hardware… We allow teachers to
Type Description
process. The school is often
likely to simultaneously have
many projects that have nothing
to do with each other. This type
of school has two
characteristics:
The The permitting yet preventing
permitting yet principal appears to support new
preventing initiatives such as integrating
principal computers and information
technology in education. In fact
he remains conservative
regarding the structure of the
curriculum and new educational
Characteristic
The second characteristic:
The school does not have a
doctrine regarding its
objectives in integrating
information technology.
The first characteristic:
The principal claims he is
interested in integrating
information technology
into the school’s
instruction.
45
Examples 1998-2001
change. The principal will assist if
there is a need particularly with the
paperwork to enlist financial
assistance or to receive the necessary
documents from the Ministry of
Education. The teams of some of the
projects are provided with work
hours from those available in the
school. (From a personal interview).
The C. H. School does not have a
clear policy regarding the school’s
use of information technology in
instruction. The school allows
teachers to study but their personal
development depends solely on
themselves and their connection with
the teaching staff in their field of
expertise. “The science teachers
decided how they would integrate
computers into their instruction in an
organized effort. There is no general
direction or guidance from the school
regarding this issue” (T. Z. from the
C. H. School).
T. P. is the principal of the G. T.
School. He emphasizes the
importance of information
technology in education a states his
desire for the teachers to learn and
develop in this subject. “… It is my
vision that additional science teachers
and teachers from other disciplines
Examples 2003-2005
participate in workshops during
teaching hours…
I support teachers initiatives
concerning the implementation of
CMC..”
… There is no school direction as to
the pedagogical implementation of
CMC…
…Those who do, do it on their own
accord..” (A.Z. the program director
of Z.S school. July 2005)
Sh .K. is the principal of the H.
school “My vision is that every
student leaving school after 12 years
will be computer literate..
S.K , A veteran Physics teacher at the
H. School. “…. Sh. K. does not have
a vision, maybe she has one but it’s
not part of school agenda, yes, she’s
very supportive…”
T. P. is the principal of the G. T.
School. “We’re a leading school in
integrating chemistry computer
Labs. We have invested a lot of
money in it.””
To my question about integrating
CMC into school, “I’m very
interested. I encourage my teachers
Type Description
programs. He conveys in this
fashion a clear, albeit hidden
message, that he is not really
prepared to assimilate
information technology into the
school. The school has three
characteristics:
Characteristic Examples 1998-2001 Examples 2003-2005
will develop a school community and to participate in workshops, but it
they will join together with others to seems that incorporating CMC into
form a large community containing their teaching is not important to
all of the teachers and pupils (The them” (June 2005).
researcher’s diary documenting a
working meeting in the school at the
establishment of an internal
information technology system).
The B. L. School declares that it has a
pedagogical approach to combining
information technology to advance its
educational goals by designing
hardware and by the teachers
developing a site dedicated to a
subject and accompanied by their
lessons. The school’s rationale is to
organize the knowledge, strengthen
values, reflection, and cooperation in
knowledge (from the school’s
internet site).

The second characteristic: I received a negative answer when I
The curriculum and school requested the use of the computers
scheduling demonstrate to conduct a science project on air
inflexibility and pollution. The person in charge of
conservatism. scheduling claimed that it was
difficult to change the schedule
however I know that the change
could be accomplished with a slight
effort and an amount of flexibility.
The school has enough computers
(in an interview with R. P. from the
R. school).
The principal was glad when I told
“Last year I have sent two teachers
to participate in the ‘Wise City’
initiative. The teachers did integrate
the program into their teaching
during the 2004 school year” to my
question about this year she replied:
“My intention this year was to
widen the circle of participants in
the program, but, alas, my teachers
were ordered by the school
inspector to participate in a
different workshop. So unfortunately
the initiative stopped”

46
Type Description Characteristic
The third characteristic
has two possibilities:
The Characteristic 3A:
The school does not
support or assist teachers’
initiatives.
47
Examples 1998-2001
him that I wanted to introduce
changes in the way I taught science
in the 9th grade (Water was the
subject matter). I planned to conduct
an online experiment as we learned
in our studies with you (the present
researcher). The computers in our
school are designated for the pupils
that are learning computers for their
matriculation examinations. This
prevents me from conducting an
online experiment with my pupils.
(The pupils) agreed that I could enter
the computer room once after the 12th
graders had taken their matriculation
exams. (A. H., a teacher in the M. T.
School).
“The principal gave me her blessing
when I applied to study a course that
would prepare me for teaching math
online. She also said that this school
need new ideas and initiatives”. The
principal refused to put the learning
material in the school’s Internet site. I
never received any assistance from
her though I returned and requested
several times. The only assistance
that I needed was technical assistance
in installing the software “The school
has a two year old web site. Its
objective is to impress and since its
creation, nothing has developed. If
the school was truly interested, it
could assist me in operating it” (In a
Examples 2003-2005
“My budget was cut down by the
municipality. The comp. Technician
comes in only twice a week, so there
are a lot of malfunctions”
“There are only 20 computers in
each lab. It means that in order to
have a lesson take place in a
computer lab. The class has to be
divided into two, you can understand
that these days with all this budget
constrains, that’s merely impossible”
(L.G. principal of R. M.S March
2005)
“Last year I participated in
a PD workshop ‘Wise City’
This year I asked the
principal to send few
teachers to the workshop so
there will a bunch of us at
school utilizing this
program. She refused
because of some
administrative constrains”
(A.S Science teacher at R
school. April 2005)
Type Description Characteristic
The Characteristic 3B: The
school principal is
incapable of overcoming
the conservatism of part of
his staff and the internal
opposition that currently
exists.
48
Examples 1998-2001 Examples 2003-2005
personal interview with S. H. at the
B. L. School 27 July, 2001).
N. B. offered to moderate her
school’s pupils that are studying the
environment while they conduct
research, some of it online, as she
learned when studying at the
Technion. Her offer was immediately
refused. The reasons for the refusal
were: lack of funding, unwillingness
to lessen the number of formal
meetings between pupils and
teachers, inequality between pupils,
pupils without computers at home (A
personal interview with the teacher
N. B. or the S. School).
I am the school principal and "Five years ago I believed that the
although I can give orders to install school can go through a major
changes but it is worthwhile to work change, CMC was part of the change,
with the staff in order to introduce the problem is that teachers are
changes. There is a need to examine reluctant to implement CMC, they
who is compatible to work with the claim it demands too much of them,
desired change and they must exert a they've no time for they have to
continuous mild pressure. The work prepare their students to pass the
to teachers that are already Matriculation tests" (T.P principal of
implementing information technology G. T. school. June 2005).
should be presented so that its
advantages can be seen and to
develop an appetite. I believe that
every teacher in my school will find
reasons to establish his own
community within five to ten years (T.
P., The principal of the G. T. school
Type Description Characteristic Examples 1998-2001 Examples 2003-2005
in a personal interview concluding a
first year of assimilating online
instruction of ecology in her school).

The This type of school has
resisting computers and some of them are
connected to the Internet. There
type of may be limited Internet access
principal on a limited number of
computers. Either there is no
information technology based
education or it is extremely
limited. When there is
information technology based
instruction, it is very limited and
under strict supervision. The
principal clearly opposes
information technology based
education and has stated that
very clearly. His resistance is
usually based on religious
grounds. This type of school has
two characteristics:
The first characteristic:
Internet access is limited to
specific sites.
We cannot allow pupils to conduct …There are few good site
online research in their biology where girls can ask their
research projects until the computer spiritual leaders a guiding
the limits access to undesirable sites question, other than that I
is repaired (P. A. the vice principal of do not allow them to just
the K. A. School in a private surf… (Y. E. principal of Z.
interview) A. March 2005)
There was a period of time when we
had computers connected to the
Internet…pupils visited sites that we
considered detrimental to their
good…that was the reasoning behind
limiting their access to the Internet…
they can use the Internet only when a
teacher is present and only visit sites
that he has listed. (From a personal
interview with J. Z. from the H. M.
School).

The second characteristic:
The school principal is
opposed to utilizing
information technology in
education.
Y. E is the principal of the Z. A.
School and has a well formed vision
regarding the school’s role in
developing its young pupils.
We are responsible for our pupils’
philosophical world. We are charged
with developing their sets of social
and communal values. Information
technology has failed in education. It
creates difficulties and places
"…CMC is not an educational tool,
it's a tool for teaching. It's only A
tool. Here in this school we educate
our students. When we balance our
preferences, we come to the
conclusion that time spent looking for
so called useful information on the
web, can be spent much better on
learning and debating moral
issues…" (Y. E. principal of Z. A.

49
Type Description Characteristic Examples 1998-2001 Examples 2003-2005
temptations in pupils’ paths. March 2005)
Therefore, as school principal I
eliminated it from my list of
preferences. (Y. the principal of the Z.
A. School).
Z. G. the school principal presented
his position after the researcher
suggested connecting the school’s
teaching staff to an information
technology network that would
enable teachers and pupils to interact
as the teachers had learned in their
studies and pupils would be able to
ask questions of experts regarding
their research questions: “You must
understand that this is not the spirit
that we want to have in our school
network. Though this is a
technological tool, it is preferable
that the relationship between our
pupils and their teachers remain as it
is today. The lessons progress
according to our curriculum. I see no
reason, and even object to our pupils
receiving free access to such a
network (Z. G. the principal of the C.
A. School in a personal interview
09.09.09).
“I am presently looking for
contributions to enlarge the
synagogue and build rooms for a
boarding school. These are my
priorities”. (Y. Principal of the Z. A.
School). He explains: “I do not have

50
 Type Description Characteristic Examples 1998-2001 Examples 2003-2005
a personal creed regarding
computers. However, if I look back
upon how computers have been
introduced into schools, I can say
that the process has ceased and is in
retreat. The introduction of
computers into the school system has
been a failure.”(Y. Principal of the Z.
A. School).

Table 5 1 : Types of Teachers by their approach to Web-based teaching -– Retrospective analysis

Examples 2003-2005
Type Description Characteristics Examples 1998-2001
•17Autodidactic and internally motivated to study The teacher D. H. was
the Web capabilities The teacher T. Z. “I was looking for “upgraded” to an Initiator type
means to improve my use of the internet of teacher. “The principal
•18Realizes the potential found in Web-based
and the computer. I learned the basics created a very supportive
teaching, uses email and discussion forums to
Type 1 Appliesy Web- from my son. I am constantly learning in environment which allowed me
communicate with her students, and constructs
The based inquiry different PD programs. I am a member of the time necessary to gain
class homepage with the help of the students
initiator teaching in any several Web-based development groups confidence in utilizing CMC as
•19Finds its own way to improve her teaching
and the and all instances and I developed a Website with inquiry best as possible. Now, I do not
path-finder skills and incorporate Web-based inquiry activities for my science class. I
activities in her class need any one to tell me what’s
continue to improve and advance in good for my students… I’m on
•20Will find the way to deal with technical, developing these activities for my the look for new ways and
organizational and other difficulties when they students enjoyment and interest." technologies all the time…”
occur.
Type 2 Will apply Web- •21Participates in courses about Web-based The teacher D. H. “I have no The teacher Y. H. was

51
 Examples 2003-2005
Type Description Characteristics Examples 1998-2001
teaching and is exposed to such activities “upgraded” to a Follower type of
•22Willing to use components of Web-based teacher. “It took me some time
inquiry teaching. When the conditions are suitable problem devoting the time for comprehend that there is no way
he will use it in a minor way the development of new learning of avoiding the computer. Now I
•23He participates in discussion groups, allocates materials as I always have. use the computer much more
based teaching
The articles on the net and prints them as working However, it is a fact that then I did 3 years ago”.
when it is
follower pages currently I am devoting even The teacher D. A. is a Follower
convenient
-conformist •24Web-based inquiry learning is not viewed by more of my time to prepare Web- type of teacher. “I’ have much
him as a milestone or extremely relevant to based activities. I have a sense more experience and knowledge
students. of satisfaction but I am not sure in computers. I surf the web to
that the rewards suit the effort." look for teaching materials, I
use the computer for personal
things much more then before”
•25Has participated in technology-based PD The teacher P. A. regressed to an
programs or been exposed to online activity The teacher M.S. explained why Avoider type of teacher. “It’s
Will only use •26Appears to be willing to use Web-based he was not eager to use Web- impossible to utilize CMC into
Type 3 Web-based teaching based teaching in his science teaching any more… The size of
The teaching if •27Has agreed to utilize some aspects of Web- classes: “the organizational and learning groups was doubled…
avoider required based teaching but will not initiate anything in her technical problems I have to there’s no way of getting with
school in order to do so face are so huge and it leaves students into the computer lab.
me unmotivated." … I’m fed up with it all… I’m
•28Will incorporate some components of Web-
back to black board and chalk..”
based teaching only if required.
•29Rarely uses computers for minor tasks at The teacher Y. A. “I am not sure The teacher Y. A. “There is no
home. Some of these teachers are intimidated by I have the financial capabilities need for me to use the computer
computers (technophobia) to buy a computer for home. In in my teaching. The textbooks
Will not use school it is always in use and are good. I prepare my students
•30Has "her reasons" for not utilizing computers
Type 4 Web-based therefore I will never learn how to succeed in the matriculation
or the internet and
The teaching under to use it." exams…”
•31Unfamiliar with advances in information
antagonist any conditions.
technology (mostly tenured teachers toward their
retirement)
•32Resists incorporating Web-based activities
into the science classroom.

52
53