The integration of digital technology has the potential to empower students to learn from an ever-expanding array of digital networks and, as such, it reduces the level of control exercised by the teacher. Teachers who see their role as ‘controlling’ rather than orchestrating the learning process may be resistant to such a change. Reeve (2009) investigated the reasons for, and effect of, teachers having a controlling style, which many
maintain despite knowing that students benefit emotionally and developmentally when they are given greater autonomy. ‘Controlling’ was defined as:
the interpersonal sentiment and behaviour teachers provide during instruction to pressure students to think, feel, or behave in a specific way … Its opposite is autonomy support, which is the interpersonal sentiment and behaviour teachers provide to identify, nurture, and develop students’ inner motivational resources. (Reeve, 2009, p. 159)
Reeve (2009) cites research by Assor, Kaplan and Roth (2004) and by Reeve, Jang, Carrell, Jeon and Barch (2004)that indicates teachers most commonly exhibit controlling behaviours. Reeve provides detailed examples of controlling behaviours while explaining how these behaviours impact negatively on students, and contrasts these with more autonomy-supportive styles that require the teacher to acknowledge students’ capacity for autonomous self-regulation. The case study school’s AcAd Program aimed to position the students for autonomous self-regulation.
Reeve (2009) classifies the reasons why teachers adopted a controlling style as ‘pressure from above’, ‘pressure from below’ and ‘pressure from within’. Pressure from above is associated with society’s view of the teacher as a power figure, the dual burdens of responsibility and accountability, the notion that controlling behaviours are more culturally valued and the association of control with structure (and the absence of control with chaos). Reeve (2009) only provides one reason why pressure might come from below – for example, from students – and this relates to teachers responding to episodically unmotivated or unengaged students. It would be interesting to investigate other pressures from this quarter, such as how students conceive the role of the teacher within a particular school culture. Pressure from within can be caused by teachers’ beliefs about student motivation being rooted in the ‘maximal operant principle’, and the possibility that teachers are motivationally or dispositionally oriented towards a controlling style (Reeve, 2009). That researcher argues that there is a power differential inherent in the teacher–student relationship. This is based on the teacher’s greater authority, experience, expertise, status and social position. Teachers can make a choice to be autonomy-supportive, ‘but a controlling style is consistent with the occupation of an inherently powerful social role’ (Reeve, 2009, p. 164).
In 1975, Hollingshead, of Yale University, produced a working paper entitled ‘Four Factor Index of Social Status’, which classified teachers of various kinds by their social status. Teachers at universities were ranked at the highest level (nine), secondary school teachers scored eight, while primary school teachers scored seven. The only element of the index that would explain the difference is the perceived superior knowledge base of the teachers. In other words, teachers’ social status was a function of their perceived mastery of their subject discipline. It is possible that some/many secondary school teachers believe that the integration of digital technology in order to promote constructivist/connectivist learning will erode the importance of their knowledge base and, with it, their social status. This may go part of the way to explaining why they have not embraced the technology in the manner predicted by policy-makers.
This message is reinforced by Hoyle (2001), who defines occupational prestige as ‘the public perception of the relative position of an occupation in a hierarchy of occupations’ (Hoyle, 2001, p. 139). Generally, the occupation described as ‘school teaching’ is found in the upper quartile of the range, below the major professions. When ‘primary’ and ‘secondary’ teachers are presented as different titles, primary school teachers rank lower than their colleagues. Hoyle (2001) also reminds readers that, until relatively recently, primary teachers were paid less than senior school teachers, which itself was a reflection of the lower regard in which they were held by educational policy-makers, if not the general public. He hypothesises that it was the teachers’ relationship with their clients, who are groups of children (as opposed to individual adults), that had the strongest impact on image and prestige. Other factors included teachers’ salaries and a perception that they had lower school-leaving qualifications than those who entered other professions (they were not as ‘academic’). Hoyle (2001) goes on to note that ambiguity also had an impact on occupational prestige. A teacher deals with the whole child by attending to the child’s personal, social and moral development, and this causes them to deal with a range of cross-curricular matters. The fact that the teaching role is somewhat ambiguous undermines their prestige in societies that value specialisation (Hoyle, 2001).
Hoyle (2001) refers to two types of teacher professional knowledge: knowledge of content and knowledge of transmission, noting that:
The necessity of subject content knowledge is rarely questioned while the relevance of theories of transmission has always been questioned both outside the teaching profession and within. The competencies needed by teachers have also been widely contested … (Hoyle, 2001, p. 143)
From this, one could hypothesise that teachers are defensive about eroding the importance of their subject knowledge, and sensitive to suggestions that they are not yet masters of pedagogy. Hoyle (2001) notes that teaching was in the process of professionalisation (acquiring the prestige associated with a profession) for much of the twentieth century. This involved strengthening the university connection by consolidating an all-graduate occupation – again demonstrating the importance placed on mastery of specialised knowledge – and this may have caused teachers to see the constructivist/connectivist movements, associated with technology-rich learning environments, as threats.
The debate about ‘new professionalism’ in teaching was another focus area for Hoyle (2001). The ‘new professionalism’ agenda, which was designed to enhance the prestige of teaching, involved the adoption of ‘managerialism, technological innovation, competition and rigorous accountability’ (Hoyle, 2001, p. 148). The approach was, in Hoyle’s view, unlikely to enhance prestige, because the teachers’ clients would still be children. Even transforming education to a point where professionals with technical and managerial skills performed instructional duties would not necessarily lead to an improvement in prestige; however, the change in the nature of interpersonal relationships between teachers and students could lead to a loss of esteem in the eyes of the community in general. The impediments to the adoption of digital technology in the learning process didn’t just revolve around practical considerations, such as access to technology and time for professional development, planning and finding or creating digital material. The desire of some teachers to maintain their position as ‘gatekeepers of knowledge’, and their concerns about technology diluting their relationships with their students, constituted more significant barriers.