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
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.
Image taken from the following link.
No comments:
Post a Comment