Patterns and beliefs in ICT school integration-

Article summary and a bit of my own thoughts

The article  Patterns of Beliefs, Attitudes, and Characteristics of Teachers That Influence Computer Integration, Julie Mueller and Eileen Wood,  which describes a well directed reaserch on technology integration at school level and its implications in staff training, suggests that technology integration is intricately intertwined with pedagogical knowledge. Well hello mate, I couldn't agree more, for I see that argument  daily supported around me by teachers’ discussions of pedagogy and child development every time they speak about ICT in school.

As results of  current studies, like this paper, support the hypothesis  identifying the teacher as the key to successful integration of technology, trying to understand why teachers did or did not support integration on a particular school based scenario, is essential if in pursuit of that aim. Usually if  teachers get the opportunity to explain their attitudes and beliefs, a richer understanding of the key factors to a successful integration is achieved. For example, rather than simply asking whether, or how much, technology fits, or does not fit in their classroom, or with their instructional style, we are able to extract the specific features of computer technology that may not support their teaching philosophy  providing a better insight into the matter of steering an integration programme and developing teacher training.

The reaserch showed that many of the themes that indicated computer technology fits with a teacher’s instructional style describe a constructivist approach to teaching (e.g., self-regulated learning, differentiated learning, motivates learning, practical/authentic), suggesting that an instructional  approach, content delivery style,  may be an important factor to inhibit adoption and integration of technology within the classroom. Usually in these cases the preferred use of "other resources" or lack of time are mentioned as barriers.

Generally, one hears  positive responses in terms of technology fitting with their instructional style, with teachers stating things like “I use computers to demonstrate concepts and show new ways of doing things;” “ I feel comfortable with this";  and “I like how computers engage my students and motivate them. I like how they allow students to be self- directed.” Yet this does not mean that the teacher has a high integration profile, for at the same time those same teachers do not see a fit due to citing restrictions as lack of time and suitable resources as reasons, rather than philosophical disagreements. For example, “Due to personal obligations at home, I truly do not always have time to plan for use of computes properly;” “I’d love to use it more but there are many restrictions such as not having enough computers to teach a class;” and “I do not think about using computers except for student research because it is such a hassle getting computer access. And they are slow. Waste too much time if they break down.” 

At the same time, excellent technology-using teachers can be usually described as having a different learning style themselves—being risk-takers, flexible, and continuous learners. This suggests that those teachers may have the personality as well as "the time" to overcome any barriers to integration that might stand in the way of their positive beliefs about computer integration while other teachers may not.

Clearly, just as the research shows, time and resources continue to be stated as ongoing barriers to successful integration. Yet these do not seem to be the true issues to focus in.

Teachers who integrate are usually considered “life-long learners” and “problem-solvers” who are “flexible" as well as being excellent teachers on the whole. In fact,  models such as Koehler and Mishra [1] suggest that “TPK [technological pedagogical knowledge] requires forward-looking, creative and open- minded seeking of technology, not for its own sake, but for the sake of advancing student learning and understanding” (page 17).

  Overall, this suggests that technology-using teachers need not only some level of technological expertise or knowledge but also need to be life-long learners who are willing to experiment and take risks. The question is, can a learning environment in school develop teachers into this direction?

If you are thinking of your own context, as I am, you must have tagged already high and low integration profiles, as well as the main issues regarding comfort with technology within teachers. This understanding may lead to thinking that some teachers may still require more training and support. It may be that those teachers need access to training that is “just-in-time” and addresses their current teaching methods rather than learning to integrate technology through a more independent, risk-taking approach that a high integrator might use. Individualized support and training that is directed at tasks that match the capabilities of the technology available may be necessary for teachers who do not integrate on their own.

I'm suggesting that, according to this paper's findings together with my own observation, learning about technology, then, needs to be directly connected to tasks, content, and the appropriate pedagogy when planning teacher training and support. If not we will remain forever subdued to "the time and better resources" to blame.

1. M. J. Koehler and P. Mishra, “Introducing TPCK,” in Handbook of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK) for Educators, AACTE Committee on Innovation and Technology, Ed., pp. 3–29, Routledge and the Taylor & Francis, New York, NY, USA, 2008.