15 years of going in circles

During a meeting today it was brought to my attention that the issues revolving around technology integration remain the same, nearly 15 years after a call for conversation.  In 1999, Ertmer et al. described the role of technology in learning environment and proposed two frameworks of barriers that needed to be addressed for successful technology integration.  The same can be said for the integration of technology into research methods and qualitative research project design.  Funny how authors despite trying to have a cohesive conversation across disciplines, remain at the same place, as though the conversations haven’t shifted with the times or technological updates.  It seems as though conversations and research agendas are moving in circles.  All this got me thinking once more about users’ fundamental understanding of tools and what that can mean.

Conole and Dyke (2004) break down the notion of affordances when using technological tools in conducting research.  This concept encompasses an ontological approach, that talks about possible uses, and epistemological approaches, that revolve around intended or actual utilizations.

Let’s take for example a hammer: A hammer can be used for several purposes…perhaps you are using it to nail pins into a wall to hold pictures…or perhaps you are using it to weigh down your door as so it won’t close.  There are ideal uses you think of when someone mentions a hammer, those ideals are constructed based on your personal familiarity with the tool…what often escape us are the list of things one can possibly do with a hammer.

Here’s another: Quick think of a bird…

Can it fly? Most people think about flying birds when asked; but how does your mental model change when the first bird you think of is a penguin, kiwi, or emu.

When researchers discuss expanding the frameworks about technological tools, some “rather than elaborating on how any one of these ‘affordances’ could be relevant to a learner or a practitioner, the authors tend to indulge in a certain amount of hopeful expectation that affordances and abilities will simply emerge” (Boyle & Cook, 2004, p. 297).  This doesn’t seem too much of a concern and there aren’t persistent calls for more research, so perhaps it has fizzled down a bit.

After reading discussions about technological affordances and best technology integrations practice, I think the response remains the same; “It depends”

References

Boyle, T. & Cook, J. (2004). Understanding and using technological affordances: a commentary on Conole and Dyke. ALT-J Research in Learning Technology 12(3), 295-299.

Conole, G. & Dyke, M. (2004a). What are the affordances or information and communication technologies? ALT-J Research in Learning Technology 12(2), 113-124.

Ertmer, P. A., Addison, P., Lane, M., Ross, E., & Woods, D. (1999). Examining Teachers’ Beliefs about the Role of Technology in the Elementary Classroom. Journal of research on Computing in Education, 32(1), 54-72.

Cellphones in your class?

There is a breadth of literature out there that states users, even teachers, will not use technological tools if they do not see value in the larger concept (e.g., Ertmer, 2005). They won’t even go near a new tool.  Granted there is more to adopting new technology than seeing value. For example, if someone consistently has issues with a specific browser they are more likely to switch to a different one.

I once gave a question to a group of teachers, “How do you think cellphones can be used in your classroom?” I posted this question as a presentation slide and made all of the teachers in the room text their responses in; below is a snapshot of a few of their responses.  (Note that the teachers had to use their phones to submit their answers!)

Many of the teachers commented that cellphones were a distraction and should not be used unless it was an emergency. A few teachers saw value in students using their mobile devices to look up information, and a handful mentioned that students might be able to use tools like the calculator or dictionary apps. Despite having just taken a poll via their phone none of the teachers mentioned students using their devices for real-time feedback or assessments…funny how that works out. Their value system for cellphones is so set in a particular mode that it became difficult to expand their concept into one of a useful tool.

Straub (2009) in his work, adopted from Anderson (1997), Hall (1979) and Hord et al. (1987), on technology adoption and diffusion describes 7 stages: 0) Awareness; 1) Informational; 2) Personal; 3) Management; 4) Consequence; 5) Collaboration; and 6) Refocusing. Most of these teachers haven’t acknowledged this tool as having additional uses, in fact their use in framed in with real-time assessment or feedback.  Their use of this tool is guided by their fundamental and “semantic knowledge of object function” (Osiurak, Jarry, & Le Gall, 2010, p. 525), centered around traditional use, further enhanced by years of using this tool in set ways.  In fact, Gibson (1979) mentions that generally individuals perceive tools as having a set focus and particular mode of interaction when in fact it can be “used in a multitude of other ways” (as cited in Osiurak, Jarry, & Le Gall, 2010, p. 525).

So how do we allow for these teachers to expand their understanding of how tools can be used differently, particularly in their context of instruction? Add meaning.  If models and discussions are presented to instructors that let teachers add value to a tool, then they are more likely to adopt it for their purposes.

Suppose you show a teacher that cellphones can be used for more that texting, facebook stalking, and can become valuable tools…suppose you show them that incorporating tools makes the teaching-learning process more engaging, efficient, effective, and enhances the environment. Simple right? Easier said than done.  If truth be told, instructional tools haven’t changed all that much in the past century (Cuban, 1983).  Think about it, the same means of presenting information are used. Davis (1989) mentions that teachers are more likely to incorporate tools when they are low effort, easy to work with, and are viewed as enhancing performance.

Clue to the application developers: make it easy to learn and adopt into the instructional practices.  But simple tools like polleverywhere and geddit aren’t complicated to use, in fact there are a bunch of help guides and videos to walk users through creating questions.  While there are hundreds of research papers that display real time feedback as valuable, instruction tools that allow for simple data aggregation seem to be a ‘no, no’ – why so?

References

Anderson, S. E. (1997). Understanding teacher change: Revisiting the concerns based adoption model. Curriculum Inquiry, 27, 331–367.

Cuban, L. (1983). How did teachers teach, 1890–1980? Theory Into Practice, 22(3), 159–166.

Davis, F. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13, 319–340.

Ertmer, P. A. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for technology integration?. Educational technology research and development, 53(4), 25-39.

Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

Hall, G. E. (1979). The concerns-based approach to facilitating change. Educational Horizons, 57, 202–208.

Hord, S. M., Rutherford, W. L., Huling-Austin, L., & Hall, G. E. (1987). Taking charge of change. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Osiurake, F., Jarry, C. & Le Gall, D. (2010). Grasping the affordances, understanding the reasoning: Toward a dialectical theory of human tool use. Psychological Review 117(2), 517-540.

Straub, E.T. (2009). Understanding technology adoption: Theory and future directions for informal learning. Review of Educational Research 79(2), 625-649.

Looking for other tools that can serve a new purpose? Try using your search bar as a calculator, no really – type out “= 6*2”

A “history” of digital innovation for conveying knowledge (and research)

This week the theme of digital natives comes up a lot, like a lot. Let’s start by first defining digital natives and what that means to the research community. In 2001, Prensky first coined the term to mean individuals who have spent most of their lives “surrounded by and using computers and videogames, digital music players, videocams, cell phones and all other toys and tools of the digital age” (p. 1). These interactions have fundamentally changed the way users interact with platforms and critically think about leveraging technological tools for their motives. Students these days have an affinity for using technology as a crutch and display unique digital literacies.

There however exists a dichotomy between the perceived usefulness of digital tools to convey knowledge and what students area actually doing. Personally, I have noted these two, clear realms of experience in both my teaching pre-service instructors and my attempts to integrate snazzy tools and techniques into my research project designs.

Have you every met a teacher who can use their smart phone to play Words With Friends or Candy Crush, manage their daily lives with integrated calendars and reminder apps, check their emails and leverage social networks for professional development; but failed at using a presentation to effectively communicate ideals in an enhancing manner? There it is again…the idea that digital tools are useful (in our daily lives) but don’t translate into valuable uses for professional outlooks.

Paulus, Lester and Britt (2013) point out that if advisors, faculty, and teachers “are not using the tools in informed ways, it makes it less likely that the next generation will, either” (p. 649). So the baton passes to instructors to enlighten students as to how they can use technological tools creatively and critically. Several texts such as Joiner et al. (2013), Robert and Wilson (2002), and Coffey, Holbrook and Atkinson, (1996) address the current value systems of using digital tools to convey and analyze information.

Even within my coursework I notice the perception that the human approach is best. The responsibility seems to therefore extend to current users to inform the community, and their students, about the ways in which you can use digital tools can be best leveraged. I think early adopters should be models for future users and demonstrate efficient practices.

References

Coffey, A., Holbrook, B., & Atkinson, P. (1996). Qualitative data analysis: Technologies and representations. Sociological Research Online, 1(1), Retrieved from http://www.socresonline.org.uk /1/1/4.html

Joiner, R., Gavin, J., Brosnan, M., Cromby, J., Gregory, H., Guiller, J., … & Moon, A. (2013). Comparing First and Second Generation Digital Natives’ Internet Use, Internet Anxiety, and Internet Identification. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking.

Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the horizon, 9(5), 1-13.

Roberts, K. A., & Wilson, R. W. (2002). ICT and the research process: Issues around the compatibility of technology with qualitative data analysis. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 3(2), Retrieved from http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/862/1872

Isn’t it shiny?

When I used to be a teacher I was bombarded with potential resources. The internet is filled with blogs and best practices that I would have to sort through. There were times when my school would want to me to use this novel approach incorporating all sorts of gadgetry into my instruction…sadly most of the time it didn’t work…sometimes it was just for the sake of using the resources mounted in the buildings.

When I was teaching abroad in India all my classrooms had smart boards, a projector and computer tower, what they didn’t have was electricity and internet fast enough to load a 2-minute video. It was someone’s genius idea to give teachers great resources but not have a sustainable plan, even day-to-day. Moreover, none of the teachers were trained on how to use the smart boards…so they reverted back to a traditional lecture style where teachers talked at students, kids took notes, and the technology collected dust. I think if someone in the administration had taken the time to ask a handful of teachers, really only one or two, if a smart board was a useful tool for their classroom…well then, the outcome might have been different. Instead of trying to wire up the campus with an internet too slow to load instructional materials, maybe the better outcome would have been distributing dvds with engaging material. All that needed to be done, was ask a teacher what they thought. But somewhere in all the racket about cool, new toys, the teacher voice was lost.

Often times in educational research and evaluations there are judgments and prescriptions thrown about. There seems to be a need to say “you have a problem, and we have your solution…here it is shiny, no.” Instead of the solution coming from an idea from within the classroom, it is often thrust upon instructors. “Here is your solution it is an iPad, they are amazing tools, you can do so much, and they are shiny.” Except school-wide iPad implementation has works in some places and failed in several more. So where does that leave us?

This isn’t so much a commentary on the tool but rather on how this entire process was implemented; it depended heavily on how convinced teachers and administrators were in the value of the tool, and the support given to the instructors to make the most out of it. Well did they really buy into the selling pitch?

If you don’t have a teacher voice and a teacher buy-in the program isn’t going to go too far, in fact your program might not even get off the ground. So before an evaluation prescribes and a researcher describes, there is a need to take a step back and look at the teacher perspectives. There is a need to create this kind of foundation.

So before there is commentary on how technology needs to be implemented and best practices of leveraging technology tools for instruction (in whatever scenario is being looked at), there needs to be a place for a teacher perspective.

My research goal is to look at teacher perspective and how that has shaped the implementation of technology in classrooms, and even the actualization of processes needed to use the technology. I want to take a look at not only what teachers think, but also how their approach impacts what they are actually doing in the classroom with the tools given to them. I want to take back before the prescriptions are handed out, to ask teachers” is it really going to work…is that what they need…is that what they want…and is that what they are going to use?” It seems simple enough, right? But somewhere in all of this meta analysis, literature and international interventions these questions get lost.

Let me give you an example. Last year I did an analysis of every single demographic question that was asked, ever asked, on international large scale assessments like the PIRLS, PISA and TIMSS. I wanted to take a look at what kinds of questions were actually asked of the teachers, and how many of them looked at the teacher’s perspective. I found that the teachers’ voices were faint, and even while the data collection questions were not asked of what teachers valued, but of what they did and resources housed in their classroom. While this was a historical analysis of documents, I discovered that the types of questions asked of teachers hadn’t changed too much in the past 25 years.

Sometimes, speaking from my experiences, what a teacher does in their classroom may not align with what they believe. It may have more to do with the resources available to them, and the direction and culture of the school. I think there is a need to ask what is it that a teacher values, really values: to better understand how successful a technology can be in a classroom; to better understand how a particular technological tool can enhance the learning experiences; and to better understand how certain tools are leveraged in the instruction process.

The bigger picture: is taking the idea of teacher voice and going global; looking nations that require additional assistance in revamping and enhancing their educational process; and moving from a bottom-up approach in educational technology policies. The regions of interest are often called conflict states, facing issues of violence, war and even natural disasters and then attempting to rebuild their society. Those places may not need an iPad, or one-to-one computer programs…perhaps what they need are instructional materials on dvds or a way to have instant feedback over radio lessons. When teachers are more concerned with keeping children in school rooms for their own safety…well that is when the prescriptions have to get creative and the teacher voices are most important.

Students spending a little time reading