REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Introduction
Faculty support centers on college campuses nationwide have been designing and conducting technology workshops with the goal of increasing virtual and face-to-face incorporation of instructional technology. These centers have focused their design and resources on eradicating the extrinsic barriers that faculty face in the quest to incorporate technology. This extrinsic focus may be the reason that incorporation has generally been slow and sporadic. A focus on more intrinsic barriers may be the key to increasing and improving incorporation. The purpose of this study was to explore how intrinsic fundamental beliefs about teaching, the notion of who a person is as a teacher, not extrinsic resource-based barriers, may cause faculty to resist or to support instructional technology incorporation.
Much research has been done to determine why faculty choose not to readily incorporate technology into their teaching (Chizmar & Williams, 2001; Donovan, 1999). Extrinsic barriers that prevent incorporation, such as a lack of institutional and financial support, lack of time, lack of technical knowledge, and reliability of the technology (Betts, 1999; Butler & Sellbom, 2002; Chizmar & Williams, 2001; Groves & Zemel, 2000; Meltzer & Sherman, 1997; Padgett & Conceicao-Runlee, 2000; Parker, 1997; Rutherford & Grana, 1995; Skeele & Daly, 1997; Wetzel, 1993; Wilson, 2001)have been heavily researched. Additionally, some studies have focused on intrinsic barriers as well (Ertmer, 1999; Groves & Zemel, 2000; Hagner, 2000; Hirschbuhl & Faseyitan, 1994; Honey & Moeller, 1990; Rutherford & Grana, 1995). Even though there has been a wealth of research into both extrinsic and intrinsic barriers, the focus in terms of faculty development courses has been on overcoming the extrinsic barriers.
Before we can beginning examining and addressing the specific intrinsic barriers faced by faculty, we must first examine how these barriers are fashioned. Intrinsic barriers can be based on a person's beliefs, which themselves are a product of the social construction of the person. Not surprisingly, every teacher has beliefs about teaching, whether those beliefs are stated or not, which have been shaped and formed from personal identity and beliefs. As Giroux (1994) noted when discussing cultural studies, "Teaching is a social practice that can only be understood through considerations of history, politics, power and culture" (p. 280). We each build our beliefs about teaching, our styles and methodologies based on our socially-defined knowledge, our own experiences, past and present, and our prior learning. Giroux notes that teaching is a social practice in that the teacher cannot be separated from the person; the one influences the other. Additionally, as Giroux says, the teacher and the person are both a product of history, politics, power, and culture—the social, the economic, and the political. As the person cannot be separated from the teacher, the teacher cannot be separated from society, politics, or economics.
The starting point for this examination of the impact of society, politics, and economics on a teacher needs to point back to the question, Who am I as a teacher? Or, even more broadly, Who am I? The answer to this question depends on how one looks at identity and the construction of identity. The modernist idea of identity as stable, objective, rational, and formed by natural law implies that identity is permanent and there is an essential quality to being human that can be identified. The postmodern penchant for avoiding meta-narratives and rejecting human essentialism (Flax, 1990) means that there is more fluidity in the construction of identity. We view and interact with the world and our environment in a manner that is shaped by society, politics, and economics. Within these systems, constructs of race, class, gender, sexuality, and ability form and shape identity (Butler, 1993; Fanon, 1952; Hill Collins, 1990; Weedon, 1987). Contrary to the modernist notion of the stable self, there is no one essential human experience, no one essential truth, or meta-narrative, about individuals, about life, or about the way we live.
This intersection and combination of the categories of race, class, gender, sexuality, and ability, set within historical frameworks, is critical in constructing our identity (Castelnuovo & Guthrie, 1998). An example of this is clear in examining the construction of gender identities such as masculinity and femininity. What is considered feminine varies among categories of race, class, sexuality, ethnicity, and so on, and across historical timeframes. For example, the construct of femininity in white, upper-class Victorian England may be immensely different from that construction in modern day working class America (Weedon, 1987) . Much has been researched and written about the role of race in the construction of identity (see Fanon, 1952; Hill Collins, 1990) and few would argue, for example, that being a person of color in a white world has no effect on identity. The construct of race affects different people in different contexts. Being African-American in the antebellum South would construct racial identity differently than would being a black person in early twenty-first century England. In other words, context also shapes identity. More critical still are the intersections of these categories, for, as many feminists argue (See Hill Collins, 1990) , a black woman or a disabled man combines these constructs and influences identity in distinctive ways. These categories work together to answer the question, Who am I? in part, by reminding us that we are a product of society, politics, and economics.
As we are a product of society, politics, and economics, so schooling is a product of these same forces. There are many theories as to the fundamental role(s) of schooling in our society. These theories can be defined through established categories of society, politics, and economics. In terms of society, schooling and schools carry out or transmit the values, beliefs, attitudes, and norms of the dominant culture. In other words, schooling socializes. Schools and schooling are one form of Althusser's (1971) state apparatus. Politically, schools create informed and patriotic citizens, and economically schools and schooling reinforce class distinctions, thereby guaranteeing a trained and available labor force (deMarrais & LeCompte, 1999). What this ultimately means is that schooling serves to reinforce the existing ideals, ethics, and standards of the dominant culture, namely that of the middle-class, white patriarchy. Schooling also exists to retain and reinforce class structure created by that dominant culture (Bowles & Gintis, 1976). As schooling becomes an agent of dominant culture ideology and hegemony, teaching, then, is an agent of schooling. This raises several questions. Are teachers transmitting values of the dominant group in the way they teach and manage the classroom? Are teachers inadvertently reinforcing a class structure that perpetuates inequity? Are teachers educating students or are they simply one part in the creation of citizens whose place and role in the world is already predetermined?
Most teachers would profess that what they do is educate students. Teachers prepare students for lives as productive adult members of society. However, regardless of what a teacher may consciously believe, he or she is a part of the social construction of the schooling system, and may be propagating the hegemony of the dominant culture. This propagation can be seen clearly through the actions of the teachers themselves. Sadker and Sadker (1985) found that teachers allow male students to dominate the classroom verbally, thus reinforcing gender norms and the patriarchal structure of society; Rist (1970) found that teachers also tend to treat students differently based on perceived class association, reinforcing hegemonic class distinctions. Studies about disproportional discipline toward minority, particularly African-American students, by administrators and teachers (Skiba, Michael, Nardo, & Peterson, 2000) document the reinforcement of the cultural capital of being white.
If we accept the claim that identity is socially constructed, and we accept that teaching is socially constructed, we should accept that identity as a teacher is socially constructed. Brown, Cervero, and Johnson-Bailey (2000) discuss how the social location of the teacher affects the teaching and learning process. They claim that little research has been done on the positionality of the teacher and how it affects the classroom environment; the research has focused mainly on the positionality of the learner, with positionality defined as the way that people are categorized in Western hierarchal society, with the primary identifiers being race, gender, class, physical ability, and sexual orientation. What this means is that teaching style and methodology choice tend to be a product of socially-constructed categories, the purpose of these categories being to represent, replicate, and reinforce the dominant culture. An example of this would to be to look at one of the most popular means of teaching. In higher education, the lecture is used as the primary teaching method by an estimated 70 to 90 percent of professors (Gardiner, 1998) . Some argue that this method of instruction is best suited for males (Lyons, Kysilka, & Pawlas, 1999) in that it addresses masculine learning styles, which are themselves social constructions. What this means is that if I, as a teacher, choose this method, I am in fact perpetuating the inequities of the dominant class social structure, in this case in terms of gender.
This notion of perpetuation gives a sense of bleakness; if I am, as a teacher, merely a product of the construction of society, and the way I teach is predicated on this product, my methodologies and my style may just support and maintain the dominant ideology. If I, as a teacher, want to break out of this dominant ideology and ensure that all students are equally served, especially those with learning styles that traditional classroom methodologies have not addressed, I must find an alternate to these established and traditional methodologies.
One possible remedy to this problem is, simply, technology. Technology, like identity and like teaching, is also a social construct, and is gendered (Lucas & Smith, 2004) and classed. Even with these markers, technology has the potential, if used correctly and fully, to address issues of learning style inequity, particularly on the higher education level. For example, most traditional teaching methods, again the lecture as an example, cater to essentially a singular student learning style, meaning those who learn best though oral stimuli since a lecture is a verbal methodology (Felder, 1993). Therefore, during a lecture, a student who may possess a different learning style can essentially lose out on the possibilities for learning. Through the use of varied teaching methods, technology has, however, the potential to include diverse student learning styles, and this may help to address and reform this issue.
It is important, however, to remember that technology is only a tool, and one which can carry with it particular cultural and social significance, value judgment, and identity. Technology itself is not necessarily a neutral instrument. It is a construct of society and carries with it societal values and norms. An example of this is manifest in the concept that technology is gendered. For example, technology has been historically and culturally viewed as masculine (Henwood, 2000) , and as a male domain (Fredman, 1992; Lage, 1991) . Additionally, computers and technology are perceived as belonging to the world of science, which has traditionally been viewed as a male domain (Inkpen et al., 1994) . People who participate more readily in technology, at least initially as "early adopters" (Rogers, 1962) are usually male (Young, 2000), as evidenced by the commonly held perception that "hackers" and "computer geeks" are typically male (Morahan-Martin, 1998) . Fewer computer instructors in secondary and higher education institutes are female (Young, 2000) , and there are fewer women students enrolled in computer science programs across the country. Given all of this, it is not surprising that research has shown that females hold more negative views about technology than do males (Schumacher & Morahan-Martin, 2001). Additionally, the portrayal of computer professionals in the mass media (Knupfer, 1998) contributes to negative attitudes held by females. And, the imbalance starts early. Computer games and software, are primarily made for and marketed to males (Butler, 2000; Henwood, 2000; Knupfer, 1998) . Through this avenue, boys get more opportunities to use technology as part of their play activities than girls; the technology itself becomes more obviously identified with boys, adding to the perception that women belong outside the arena of technology.
Higher education is also influenced by gender constructs, and these constructs are not limited to technology. In academe, there are well-established gender differences among faculty, and also in terms of attitudes toward and use of technology. Research has shown that women are less likely than men to hold full professor rank (Hagedorn, 1996; Park, 1996), receive smaller salaries than men of the same rank (Bellas, 1997; Benjamin, 1999), publish less (Schneider, 1998), and spend a larger proportion of time on teaching activities (Park, 1996; Stecklein & Lorenz, 1986). Gendered trends have also been found in relation to technology use in academe. Spotts, Bowman, and Mertz (1997) found that male faculty rated their own knowledge and expertise higher in some technologies than did female faculty.
In addition to being gendered, technology is also classed. The issues of availability and cost make the use of technology feasible to only a small global population. In fact, the typical worldwide Internet user is an elite minority that is male, under 35 years old, university educated, English speaking and urban (Women's Learning Partnership for Rights, Development, and Peace, 2003). Additionally, the average cost of a computer, for example, is affordable only to those economically situated in, at a minimum, the middle class in North America, and prohibitive to some middle classes globally.
If we conclude that identity is socially constructed, and we conclude that beliefs about teaching are socially constructed, it makes sense that the level and ease of faculty technology incorporation in education is directly related to teaching beliefs. However, faculty resource centers have tended to devote time and resources to extrinsic barriers.