Teacher Engagement in Technology Use

The integration of technology in school classrooms commonly focuses on teachers, as they are ‘naturally’ the first person to consider (Zhao et al. 2002).  Zhao et al. (2002) explicate three features that influence technology integration related to teachers: technology proficiency, pedagogical compatibility, and social awareness. 

Firstly, in terms of technology proficiency, Schibeci et al. (2008) present a four stage framework that explains teacher progression in proficient technology use.  The first stage (Where’s the ON button?) relates to technical aspects of the technology and developing confidence in using it.  The second stage (Black line mastery) encompasses the use of the technology for tasks within current curricula.  The third stage (Routine student use) focuses on frequent use of the technology such that the technology becomes a transparent part of the learning process.  Finally, the fourth stage (What’s in the curriculum?) moves towards looking at the bigger picture of curriculum development and educational change that is prompted from using the technology.  These stages have similar characteristics to phases described by Mandinach and Cline (1994): survival, mastery, impact, and innovation (See Steve Wheeler’s blogpost ‘Shock of the new’ for more detail).  In a study of 12 schools, involving 200 teachers it was found that teachers demonstrated characteristics related to the first and second stages, a decreased number of teachers reached the third stage, and there was no concrete evidence to suggest any teachers had reached the fourth stage (Schibeci et al. 2008).

Secondly, pedagogical compatibility refers to how compatible a technology is with a teacher’s pedagogical beliefs.  Pedagogical compatibility could be encompassed as an intermittent stage between the second stage (Black line mastery) and the third stage (Routine student use).  If the technology does not agree with a teacher’s pedagogy, it is unlikely that the technology would reach routine use in the classroom. 

Thirdly, social awareness relates to a teacher’s ability to negotiate through the different intricacies of the school culture and could be viewed as underpinning the process towards the higher stages of technology proficiency.  Such social awareness can relate to factors impacting technology use such as perceptions of assessment and teacher empowerment (Donnelly et al. 2011), that teachers can feel are beyond their control and do not have time to address within hectic schedules.

The factors above focus on the teacher, but there are of course other factors that teachers can have little control over in relation to technology integration that have been alluded to above.  Zhao et al. (2002) describe two domains outside of the teacher that influence technology integration: the innovation itself and contextual factors.  Factors in terms of innovation relate to its distance from the status quo and how much it depends on other people or resources.  Factors in terms of contextual factors relate to organisational support, current resources in schools, and social support from other staff.

What factors most influence your incorporation of technology in the classroom?  Is it personal factors or external factors?  Is it both?

References

Donnelly, D., McGarr, O. and O'Reilly, J. (2011). A framework for teachers' integration of ICT into their classroom practice. Computers & Education, 57(2), 1469-1483.

Mandinach, E. and Cline, H. (1994). Classroom dynamics: Implementing a technology based learning environment. Hillside, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Schibeci, R., MacCallum, J., Cumming-Potvin, W., Durrant, C., Kissane, B. and Miller, E.-J. (2008). Teachers' journeys towards critical use of ICT. Learning, Media and Technology, 33(4), 313-327.

Zhao, Y., Pugh, K., Sheldon, S. and Byers, J. (2002). Conditions for classroom technology innovations. Teachers College Record, 104(3), 482-515.

Image taken from the following link. 

X Marks the Spot

Ernest Hemingway highlighted the need for good writers to have “built in, finely tuned, crap-detectors” and Neil Postman highlighted this to teachers back in 1969, noting that the most useful thing teachers can help students to learn is how to make distinctions between useful talk and bullshit.  However, children start to become very astute to what their parents know and to what their teachers know from a young age.  There is nothing wrong with a parent or a teacher not knowing something or making mistakes, the problem is what they do about it. 

In terms of classroom practice, McNeil (1982) highlights certain techniques that some teachers use in order to control their students, to save face per se (that are readily applicable to parents), and the result of such techniques could be argued to perpetuate a culture unwelcome of mistakes.  These techniques relate to:

1. Fragmenting knowledge – reducing knowledge to lists makes things easier for teachers in that teachers will not have to try to aid students in connecting ideas and they can get students to simply learn things as lists (the fact that this is a list is ironic, but for the sake of four points you can connect the dots),
2. Mystifying knowledge – teachers can create mystery around a topic in order to stop discussion on it, which in many cases is a means to covering their lack of knowledge on a particular area, e.g., I could explain that, but it is too complicated to go into right now.
3. Omitting knowledge – teachers can omit material that they do not see as important, particularly for their generation, but could be important for their students’ generation, or omit material that may cause debate and may lead to more questions they cannot answer, e.g., You do not need to know about that scientist, it is not on the test.
4. Defensively simplifying knowledge – teachers can obtain student compliance with material by promising that it will not be difficult and that they will not go into too much depth, e.g., this is boring material, but I promise I will keep it simple and get through it as quickly as possible.

I believe that a culture that patronises mistakes has partially caused the development of such strategies.  When this culture meets a classroom where teachers are perceived as experts or perceive themselves as having to be experts, such practices are personified.  It is because of such a culture that I partly do not agree with Neil Postman’s terminology as it can be interpreted as intimidating and witch-hunting in nature.  How is a student supposed to feel in completing a task if mistakes are going to be interpreted as bullshit?  Ernest Hemingway was also quoted as saying ‘The first draft of anything is shit’.  In other words, mistakes are a natural part of the learning process.  I would say that the first draft of anything is shit, but it is something.  What it becomes is a matter of choice.

Reference

McNeil, L. M. (1982) Defensive Teaching and Classroom Control. National Inst. of Education (ED), Washington, DC.

Image taken from the following link. 

Why is Science Important?

The Why science is important? website is a collection of thoughts from scientists, public figures, and the general public.  The primary video on the website presents some interesting views looking to answer the question of why science is important.  Two things stood out to me from the video.  Firstly, one view that particularly stood out is that 'science let's us see superstition for the disempowering nonsense that it is'.  However, science is not a single entity and what is meant by science can be construed in different ways.  Hence, science, when not very well understood and used by others who avoid objectivity (just like superstition), can also be disempowering nonsense.  People may rely on secondary sources, such as the media, to keep up with scientific research and not look to find out more through other sources.  Also, scientists are not infallible and are open to making mistakes themselves.


Secondly, another aspect of the video that stood out is that the narrator often refers to science as a 'method'.  Again this argument relates to my previous point that science is not a single entity.  Science is multi-faceted and if anything, commonly consists of a multitude of methods.  A simple example is that in making a cake, there can be a number of approaches and the results may be different each time.  There could be a recommended recipe to follow, but you will never know if there is a better way if you do not try other approaches.  Check out Chapter One (The Nature of Science) of Science for all Americans that highlights some important characteristics inherent to understanding science as a discipline and common misconceptions people can have about science.  Some examples of these characteristics of science as a discipline are that science demands evidence, science demands a mixture of logic and imagination, science tries to identify and avoid bias, and science is not authoritarian.  Prof. Joe Schwarcz, a public figure on scientific literacy, highlights some common misconceptions people can have through some interesting examples.
 
Despite my points above, the question of why science is important is still a very worthwhile question to attempt to answer in that it clarifies what you see science as and in turn, how you may interpret it.   It is an exceptionally important question to answer in relation to education, where students can commonly see science as irrelevant and lacking little connection to everyday life.  Students have the right to ask such questions and should be encouraged to.  Only then can students truly begin to appreciate what they are learning (the affective domain as described as part of Bloom's taxonomy).

My personal view of why science is important is that it it is a human activity that endeavours to answer the big questions (the hows and the whys) of the world and beyond in an objective manner, seeking evidence from physical to chemical to biological processes.  Humans, by nature, display many characteristics such as curiosity and creativity, and it in science that such characteristics can flourish.  As Einstein put it, "The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious" and there is still plenty of mystery in science.


Images taken from http://opencage.info/pics.e/large_9888.asp and http://www.fotopedia.com/items/flickr-2200500024