What factors impact teachers’ use of digital technology in the classroom?

Table of Contents

1. Introduction

2. The Conceptual Nature of the Problem

3. Davis’s Arena

4. Background History

5. Factors impacting teachers’ use of digital technology

6. The impact of teachers’ use of technology through an ecological framework in view of Davis’s Arena

7. Outcomes

8. Unresolved Issues

9. Conclusion

References

Word Count 5,281

1. Introduction

The focus of this assignment is to critically analyse factors which impact teachers’ use of digital technology, having identified and analysed the key concepts of the proposed problem as well as substantiated the approaches through a variety of perspectives. To clarify, for the purpose of this assignment the general term; factors impacting teachers’ use of …is applied in aid of assisting my investigations in discovering the factors impacting teachers’ non-use of… thereby, acquiring a holistic view and understanding of the impacting factors. The significance of the problem has been justified and perceived primarily through the dominant political, economic and social cultural voice where the assignment centres on.

I will analyse the conceptual nature of the problem concerning teachers’ use of digital technology through the impact on institutional ecosystems which directly affect teacher ecosystems and investigate these proposed issues. Many of these issues have arisen throughout the years, commencing from the political hierarchy i.e. funding, support (from different levels) and school cultures which have affected teachers’ needs that have not been adequately addressed. Consequently I will rationalize and summarize the outcomes and unresolved issues.

2. The Conceptual Nature of the Problem

The conceptual nature of the problem emerges from the political, economic and social cultural factors. These factors have all played a central role in affecting teachers’ use and non-use of digital technology in classrooms. The ideological importance of implementing and integrating computers in schools and teachers’ use of digital technology was not only for the UK to become global leaders but to promote and enhance learning as well as underpin inclusive practices. The driving force of the global economy takes responsibility for issues teachers have been implicated with at the bottom of the hierarchy. These issues have been caused through a hierarchical top-down effect and will be clarified through an ecological framework. It is important to understand how the application of the ecological framework aids in the analysis of teachers’ use of digital technology. Metaphorically speaking; all aspects in nature have either positive or negative effects on each other depending on whether they adopt and nurture a new species or reject, discard and destroy it.

The inherent frameworks of the political, economic and social cultural factors have had a great impact on the institutional ecosystem i.e. directly influencing and affecting the institution, the behaviours and attitudes of its administrative leaders and teachers.

According to Zhao and Frank (2003) the ecological perspective referred to as an ecosystem is presented as an investigative framework which was modified and enhanced by Davis (2013) in 2008, particularly for its applications in analysing and identifying teachers’ use of digital technology. As Karabulut (2013) claims that the scientific term of ecology referred to as an ecosystem is implied as a metaphor in reference to factors impacting teachers’ use of digital technology. Davis (2013) claims that teaching practices are influenced by bureaucratic, hierarchical measures within their own ecosystems, where one affects the other i.e. the global economy, government policies, districts, school administrations, professional development, teachers and in the centre of Davis’s arena - the teaching practice, (as seen below). She continues, justifying co-evolution as; defining the “interaction between the evolution of education and the evolution of digital technologies applied within education…both are evolving and so changes in one tend to stimulate changes in the other”, (Davis, 2013, p.2).

3. Davis’s Arena

All levels of ecosystems are shown; centrally being the teacher and the classroom alongside the on-going factors which constantly affect each level i.e. commercial, political, professional and bureaucratic. The on-going factors will be further discussed in the section; Use of digital technology through an ecological framework.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

(Davis et al 2013, p. 3).

Zhao and Franks (2003) imply that institutions generally and naturally are opposed to change especially whilst pressure is placed onto their practices i.e. “What appears to outsiders as a straightforward improvement can, to an organization, be felt as undesirably disruptive if it means that culture must change its values and habits in order to implement it.” (Hodas, 1993, p.3).

School cultures are difficult to define, not only are they complex and powerful but also ambiguous, presupposed and generally disregarded, although it is highly significant in an institutional context. Cultures have a great impact on all things which occur in schools i.e. staff dress code, their attitudes, values, tolerance and the flexibility to modify teaching practices. The general norms of school cultures are traditions, beliefs and values where individuals gain the ability to solve issues and face challenges as a group. Administrative leaders i.e. head teachers and managers have the ability to influence and shape how the staff feels and thinks with the aims of maintaining a positive, strong and harmonious culture. However lacking the positive holistic influence from the administrative leaders and their managers will cause negative, desperate, unproductive and inharmonious environments where main goals have been lost, (Peterson & Deal, 1998).

Zhao and Franks (2003) demonstrate that the expertise and attitudes of teachers towards digital technology are central to their use of digital technology thus the importance lies in teachers maintaining positive attitudes or it becomes doubtful that they will ever use it. He also adds that unreliability and constant new developments in digital technology cause teachers to lose their interest and appeal towards its use, (OECD, 2015).

Therefore, the conceptual nature of the problem (teachers’ use of digital technology) is viewed as directly resulting from the political hierarchical and on-going global factors impacting each ecosystem level, consequently affecting administrative leaders and their teachers. Many of these factors will be discussed in further detail.

4. Background History

The importance of the background history is to recognize and comprehend the relevance of how the political and global background had changed throughout the years and how its impact had affected teachers’ use of digital technology.

During Blair’s ministry, affirmations were made “that the age of achievement in education would be built on new technology”. The UK now had become renowned as leaders in the new global world in maintaining that cutting edge standard in digital technology. World-wide educational leaders and officials came to witness Blair’s cutting edge strategies in the new digital technologies integrated within UK classrooms, (Besa, 2015 & Rossi, 2015, p.1). Cuban et al (2001) argues that access to digital technology in classrooms does not necessarily guarantee teachers will use it.

Blair’s focus was to tool up the schools through substantial amounts of funding into schools i.e. purchasing laptops, whiteboards and teacher training. He further proceeded in spending £230 million in 1999 specifically on teacher training for use of digital technology and a total of £1.8 billion was spent on planned and actual related proposals from 1998 to 2004, (Ofsted, 2002, Preston, 2004). Mee (2007) argues that several years later there have been inconsistencies between “the significant growth in the quantity of visible ICT equipment in schools and a parallel growth in the invisible infrastructure that links schools together”. He continues to imply that the paradox lies with funding for schools and the decision making. The central government involvement was for administering large amounts of money into schools in support of digital technologies however further pressures were brought in for the government to delegate the power of decision making, to governing bodies and head teachers, (central to the framework of the local management of schools, LMS). The decisions were based on the ideology that financial decisions were best directed from subsidiary levels ensuring that at local levels i.e. through their priorities and knowledge, were administering the funding allocations. Thus institutions had a variety of challenges as to where financial allocations should be distributed in order to productively target expenditures, consequently funding may have been delegated elsewhere and not towards supporting digital technologies or teacher training. This raised further inconsistencies within these policies of who actually had accountability for the development and support in ICT infrastructures in schools. The UK was not alone in this school based decision making phenomenon and was identified as being a global trend, (Mee, 2007).

5. Factors impacting teachers’ use of digital technology

In accordance to the issue of teachers’ non-use of digital technology, a new question has transpired i.e. What went wrong? In consideration that digital technologies were of utmost importance to incorporate and implement into classroom teaching; where, when and how did the implementation go so wrong?

“In practice, established curricula and teaching methods remain in place under a thin coating of technological glitter, and available technology is often underused and poorly integrated into classroom practice”, (Hennesey et al 2005, p.5).

In 1999 the start of the governmental ICT training program had begun. 450,000 teachers had completed the basic skills program in ICT followed by a further online training programme referred to as the National Grid for Learning (NGflL). This programme was put into place, with the intention of including classroom applications in the use of digital technology and had clearly indicated questionable results. A disputation arose when Preston (2004) from Tes queried the merits of the courses; thereby Ofsted in turn questioned the outcomes. Through these initial warnings considerable improvements were encouraged. Thus further reports were concluded; emulating the varied perspectives of teacher-leaders, teachers, inspectors, policy-makers and trainers which had become significant in the numerous issues of leaders and their attitudes within the school cultures. It became apparent now, the necessity of a new shared vision, for the sake of progression in the adoption of the programme. The importance of value cultures needed to be stressed upon within the schools that played a central role in teacher development. Additional issues arose with the programme trainers, who were not trained teachers.

Confidence became a key issue in the online training programmes and further “face to face training” became necessary, (Preston, 2004, p1). Ultimately there was an extreme low level of on-line learning taking place. According to Ofsted (2004) the training programmes proved to be inefficient and they deemed the training as too advanced without sufficient existing support. Thus teachers were still incompetent in the use of digital technology. Teachers complained that the computer set-up was taking a substantial amount time affecting teaching time, Besa (2007). Preston argues that teachers needs were not met sufficiently i.e. the lack of technical support, management support and suitable time for sharing and meeting with other staff exploring and learning new ideas. In addition, much of the content of the learning material was irrelevant to their needs. Haddad (2002) argues that effective teachers’ use of digital technology necessitates providing teachers with adequate technical support and ample access to working computers.

The BBC Bitesize claimed their Learning Zone Broadband and all content was tagged in an instructive manner, easily for teachers to search and locate necessary materials however it had become an issue i.e. teacher awareness and usage was low and only a few enthusiasts appeared to use the resources, (BBC, 2010).

Problems had transpired when institutions had undertaken further funding opportunities for digital technologies, without having the resources to plan for its sustainability. Becta (2005) affirmed that the sustainability of digital technology was a problem. However, there was a wide understanding within the institutions who still had not successfully achieved the effective planning of resources. Thus more advice and support was necessary. Becta’s belief was that it was most probable “to demand central intervention to facilitate the development of an appropriate nationwide ICT architecture which supports both the provision of learning opportunities and data management across the system”, (Becta, 2005, p. 3).

In 2010, despite the recession the budget for ICT was £420 Million in the UK, suppliers could no longer retain their affordable prices thus they no longer included training in their packages (which was left to government agencies and institutions) e.g. whiteboards were sold inexpensively to schools and teachers were no longer trained, resulting in approximately16% and 31% of secondary and primary teachers untrained and lacking confidence in using them, (Besa, 2015). During David Cameron’s ministry, the Education Secretary Michael Gove who had promised to invest in teacher training had clearly not accomplished this task. He continued with further cutbacks and Becta was now scrapped saving public spending in the amount of £80 million which clearly changed the spending power for ICT and it no longer became a core skill,(Syscap, 2015, Montrose42, 2011).

During the so called glory days in the 1990’s Becta was established to bring control “order to chaos” by procuring strategies i.e. appointing authorized suppliers of major software companies, signing up with an elaborate up-and-coming broadband i.e. Microsoft Office and its operating systems. Thus all institutions were connected, “Money was no object and time was short. Order was established, Becta was proud”, however trouble was not too far ahead. The suppliers had begun abusing the government’s confidence and trust for their own gains through dominating the market. In 2006 institutions were now subjugated to using Microsoft Office which became costly and unsustainable as Becta had conferred to a Free Open Source supplier, hence by 2007 the cost of renewing Microsoft Office amongst all the institutions was exorbitant and Becta was in a frenzy. Becta now recommended institutions not to reinstate Microsoft and decided to take proceedings against them. Our national debt came into the trillions, resulting in huge cuts in the public sector. Becta had undoubtedly outsourced themselves however they did their job i.e. give every child a computer and “they saw the power of the Internet for schools”, (Taylor, 2015, p.1).

The 2011 Besa report described a detailed account of both primary and secondary school teachers lacking skills in the use of digital technology whilst three quarters of all the schools believed over half their teachers required training in digital technology, (Besa, 2015). More than half the institutions in the UK were “under-resourced by Wi-Fi connectivity”, (Syscap, 2015, p. 1). Wakefield (2014) reports that a “Digital Divide is Opening in UK Schools”. More than half of the primary and secondary schools are lacking in wi-fi connectivity. Besa had asked upon the government to resolve the issue of so called “notspots” acknowledged by Ofcom. Wakefield argues that since these schools are faltering with poor connectivity there is a strong risk of a digital divide resulting in the lack of interest and use with digital technology altogether. Teachers are not likely to employ digital technology with poor connectivity in their classes.

Montrose42 (2011) affirmed that less than half of the institutions, reported in an Ofsted 2009 survey, had evaluated the effects of ICT - for further improvements. Silvera (2014) acknowledges that according to Virgen Media Business (VMB) who had warned that available technology and teachers’ use is becoming a growing divide. Although out of 1009 teachers, 76% used digital technology of some type however only 15% were actually “computer savvy” or who effectively used it, (Silvera, 2014, p.1). VMB implores the importance of the UK maintaining its position as world leader in digital technology whilst driving the economy thus maintaining the skills and that cutting edge advantage. Silvera’s beliefs are that the budget for digital technology is the greatest barrier for teacher’s however the most significant challenge is the abilities of teachers’ in the use of digital technology.

Teachers who lacked confidence and technical skills had no interest in taking risks in their classrooms. The lack of class time was also an issue for teachers who had difficulties applying digital technology because of technical glitches and preparation time. Thus teachers needed extra time prior to classes and also surplus time for searching and creating resources. In order for teachers to feel confident in the use of digital technology it was necessary for additional time in practicing any new techniques or use of software, which sometimes proved confusing and may have necessitated in consulting with colleagues for further support. Thereby time posed a major issue for teachers, (Karabulut, 2013).

One of the main concerns which affected teachers’ use of digital technology was funding i.e. inappropriate means of applying it, supporting and maintaining it as well as ultimately the lack of it. Another main concern was institutional cultures and appropriate leadership skills throughout the hierarchy; without positive governmental and administrative leadership skills and support, teachers would ultimately result in negative attitudes affecting their use in digital technology.

[...]