THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

In approaching the the issue of technology integration at LALA, my study will

assume a Social Structure and Personality (SSP) perspective. Though tracing its
lineage to Comte, Marx, Weber and Durkheim, SSP was developed as a distinct
sociological framework in the work of Inkeles and his colleagues (Inkeles, 1969; Inkeles
& Smith, 1974). The main tenets of the framework are described by McLeod and Lively
(2003):
The SSP perspective conceives of the social world as a set of embedded
circles, with the individual at the core surrounded by progressively larger
and more complex social groupings including dyads, small groups,
communities, organizations and institutions, and finally the larger social
system. [See the figure from McLeod and Lively below.]
Initially developed to understand psychological attributes, researchers have used the
SSP framework to understand other behavioral outcomes like educational attainment
(e.g. Sewell, Haller, & Ohlendorf, 1970) and crime (e.g. Hagan & Palloni, 1990). The
perspective will organize the studys analysis of the issue, highlighting levels of focus
78
Jane D. McLeod and Kathryn J. Lively
and factors
to consider and suggesting particular connections
between each.

!
!
!
!
!

The Social Structure and Personality Framework (McLeod & Lively, 2003)

FIGURE 4-1. The Social Structure and Personality Framework.

it is nevertheless useful analytically to separate the effects of constraints that emanate from
the societal infrastructure and those that depend on the internalization of values and ideals by

LITERATURE REVIEW
Not surprisingly, classroom technology integration has been a heavily studied
topic by the educational research community. The literature suggests many social
system factors influence educational technology practices. Some have focused on the
larger societal shifts that comprise the context for modern schoolinge.g. Bells (1976)
ideas about our transition to a postindustrial economy or Habermass (1985) warnings
about the ongoing rationalization of society. Many note the impact of recent legislation,
specifically how the 2001 passage of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) significantly changed
the relationship between instruction and technology: the law mandated schools support
teachers in all grades and across all content areas in utilizing technology in service of
improved student academic performance (U.S. Department of Education, 2001).
The larger forces of the social level must necessarily filter its way down towards
the individual. The next proximate level of analysis is an examination of organizational
and institutional factors. The literature suggest a number of significant variables to
examine. Following Snoeyink and Ertmer (2001), we can differentiate between first
order and second order barriers. First order barriers are those issues most often
related to organizational resources (or the lack thereof) and early studies pointed to
their primacy (e.g. Means & Olson, 1997). Not surprisingly, it is difficult to integrate
technology when you dont have access to it. In contrast, second order barriers are
those factors most related to organizational culture and structure. For instance, is there
administrative and cultural support for technology implementation (Anderson & Dexter,
2005; Yee, 2000)?
The next proximate level of analysis in the SSP model is to look at community

factors. In the case of education, I equate this with an examination of the factors within
the individual schools of a district or charter organization. Like the larger entities of
which they are part, the schools are constituted in ways that shape teachers decisions
regarding technology. As Hernandez-Ramos (2005) puts it:
Every school and district can be seen as an ecosystem (Zhao & Frank,
2003) that influences the levels of teachers and students computer use
within it. Although Zhao and Frank (2003) found in their study that most of
the variation in computer use fell within ecosystems rather than between
them (p. 823), other research (e.g., Achinstein, Ogawa, & Speglmann,
2004) found differences among districts (and by extension, among
schools) and supports the notion that district contexts deeply affect
teacher learning (p. 594).
In her survey of organizational theory, Lance (2009) highlights a number of
organizational factors that might be relevant like a school's climate, communication
practices, formal structures, etc. What first and second order barriers exist at each site?
How do the different school leaders perceive the importance of teacher technology
practices? What about the organizational structure and processes of each school might
lead teachers to better use technology?
The remaining levels of analyses in the SSP frameworki.e. the group, the dyad
and the individualare analogous to teachers social networks, social ties, and personal
characteristics. They encompass what might be called teachers lived experience. The
SSP framework suggests it is at these levels where the macro- and institutional factors
of the previous levels manifest themselves and shape individual behavior. The literature

on technology integration focuses most on individual level factors. Early studies in this
tradition focused on demographic characteristics like age and years of teaching
experience or on issues of teacher ability as predictors of technology integration. Other
scholars have highlighted the importance of teacher beliefs to their classroom
technology integration. Ertmer and colleagues (2012) confirm the general utility of
focusing on teacher beliefs, finding they align closely with teacher practice: e.g.
teachers who believed technology was best suited for collaboration implemented
projects that allowed students to collaborate with peers; teachers who believed in
student choice used technology in ways that allowed their students choice in
demonstrating their learning.
Interestingly, Ertmer and colleagues found that teachers were able to integrate
technology despite the presence of first-order barriers. This is likely a function of their
study population (i.e. award-winning teachers) as most studies find that individual and
context-level factors significantly interact with one another. For instance, Inan and
Lowether (2010) find that school-level factors positively influence teachers beliefs,
which in turn shape teacher technology use. In arguing for the importance of culture,
Ertmer and Ottenbriet-Leftwich (2010, p. 264) suggest the importance of focusing on
groups and social ties:
We probably all know teachers who have managed to be successful
[technology] users, despite facing multiple barriers Yet, for the vast
majority of teachers, this [individual confidence, knowledge, and skill] is
not enough, as research indicates that innovative teachers are easily
overpowered by pressures to conform (Ponticell, 2003; Roehrig et al.

2007). Teachers are not free agents and their use of [technology]
depends on the interlocking cultural, social, and organizational contexts in
which they live and work (Somekh, 2008. p. 450) Zhao and Frank
(2003) noted that a technology was less likely to be adopted if it deviated
too greatly from the existing values, beliefs and practices of the teachers
and administrators in the school. Conversely, changes in the beliefs about
technology use occurred more readily among teachers who were
socialized by their peers to think differently about computer use.
Havelock (1973) found that a persons quantity and quality of a persons social
interactions had power in predicting whether they would adopt their organizations
innovation. This suggests that which individuals and groups teachers associate with can
be significant to their classroom technology practices.

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!