Las cinco fuerzas competitivas del mercado

Five teachers from School A attended the IP Language ePlay MakerSpace. Whereas a computer lab is available at the school and its use is timetabled, teachers did not appropriate the computer lab for curricular activities prior to attending the ePlay MakerSpace. Instead, a facilitator managed learning in the computer lab that was

unconnected to the curriculum learning taking place in teachers’ classrooms. Following the ePlay MakerSpace, teachers met with the principal and asked that a more direct link be created between the work the computer lab facilitator did with learners and the curriculum covered in classrooms, with a particular emphasis on Mathematics. During the interview, IPL23 said that the principal agreed and that the computer lab facilitator would meet with the Maths and Grade heads, and teachers, to manage this and create greater integration between the work learners did during their computer lab timeslots, and what they did in their classrooms.

School A, at the time, did not have any ET tools available for teachers to use. During the ePlay MakerSpace at the CTLI, one of the teachers mentioned this, upon which the office of ICT integration donated a second-hand projector for the teachers to use at the school! However, at the time, there was no Wi-Fi or IWBs, and only one ordinary wall-mountable whiteboard, the large, heavy type that takes two people to carry. Following the ePlay MakerSpace, IPL06, IPL21, IPL22 and IPL23 started using the projector daily. Since they had one projector and one large standard whiteboard, they created a schedule to share the projector and whiteboard. Astonishingly, they carried the whiteboard up and down two flights of stairs to their classrooms whenever they want to use it. One teacher jokingly added that they knew where the projector was by the sound of the whiteboard falling off the chalkboard’s rails (which it balances on).

This change has been ongoing, at an institutional and classroom level. During 2017, two more IP Language teachers and one FP teacher attended the ICT Integration course at the CTLI from School A. They reported that thirteen IWBs were installed, especially in IPL06, IPL21, IPL22 and IPL23’s classes. Twenty tablets had been donated to the school and while

174

Wi-Fi was installed and made available to teachers, there remained problems with bandwidth. They could not comment on the curricular link between the computer lab facilitator and the classroom learning. However, they stated that they felt inspired to attend the 2017 courses as the four teachers from the 2016 courses had inspired them to also ‘get on the bandwagon’. In this way, the change that started as one projector and one standard whiteboard carried between classrooms by the four teachers from the 2016 group, grew to impact the rest of the IP Language teachers.

Teachers from School A who had participated in the ePlay MakerSpace, experienced individual changes differently in the ePlay MakerSpace. Four of the five teachers, IPL06, IPL21, IPL22 and IPL23 diagnosed their position on the TCF at the time as being in Quadrant A, describing their pedagogic approach as teacher-centric, regulated and restricted, with none of them appropriating ETs for teaching purposes in their class. All four teachers set their goal as wanting to achieve Quadrant C-type teaching by the end of 2016, involving more learning-centric pedagogies and transformatively integrating ETs into curricular activities in which learners create, evaluate and analyse using ETs (IPL16 did not submit the link to her Roadmap to Change hence her results cannot be included). The formative evaluation of the teachers indicated that they had experienced change during the ePlay MakerSpace. Whereas the four teachers, IPL06, IPL21, IPL22 and IPL23, scored 3/3 for participation in the ePlay MakerSpace, IPL16 scored 1/3. The creativity measures of the artifacts the five teachers created, showed an increase over the three days, most notably in terms of fluency, and less in terms of originality and flexibility. The measurement for

fluency, flexibility and originality of each artifact was aggregated to provide a score of creativity for each artifact created, and these scores were visually represented in a graph, see Figure 13.

175

As can be seen in this graph, IPL06, IPL16, IPL20 and IPL23 experienced an average increase in creativity during the ePlay MakerSpace, while IPL21 and IPL22 experienced a decrease. In this regard, IPL21’s creativity measure contradicted the data produced during the interview. Following the interview, I made the following note:

IT notes: IPL21 appeared to remain on the periphery during the ePlay MakerSpace session, seemingly too shy to engage in the small groups. She did not readily interact with group members and let others make all the decision or conduct all the activities. On the last day, she did not participate in presenting the group learning design. However, during the interview, she displayed far greater ownership and commitment, empowerment and

creativity. She created various pedagogic tools to use with the projector and shared this with her colleagues, who said they asked her for help or ideas. However, during the interview she appeared to be an introverted person, sharing only the bare essentials, followed by her colleagues' explanations of her achievements.

176

The artifacts IPL21 created in the ePlay MakerSpace, and the creativity measured in these – leading to rather low scores, contradicts the creative solutions and her colleagues’ praise of her achievements during the interview. She also did not engage with me via WhatsApp or responded to the emails I sent asking for feedback. As a result, I initially formatively

evaluated her participation as extremely low, and she achieved mostly 1s and 2s. However, the interview data and her colleagues’ reports of her activities, directly contradicted this initial evaluation. Consequently, her participation was rescored to match the evidence rather than my observations. However, based on the rubric and standardised scoring, the creativity measure remained unchanged.

The changes that took place at School A appear to be influenced and/or initiated by the four teachers, IPL06, IPL21, IPL22 and IPL23, with IPL16 role’s remaining undefined during the school visit and interview. The formative evaluation of the first four teachers’ participation in the ePlay MakerSpace, indicated that they displayed high degrees of ownership,

engagement, commitment and enthusiasm, as well as empowerment in terms of reciprocity, responsibility and relationship / collaboration, and engaged in the reflective learning

process.

Four of the teachers at School A changed the way in which they taught and integrated ET tools, both individually and supporting other staff members to do the same. Their high participation and three teachers’ improved creativity scores, appear to correlate with the changes they effected following their engagement with the ePlay MakerSpace. More so, correlating to Bateson and Martin’s (2013) distinction between creativity and innovation, it appears these teachers displayed higher levels of innovation than creativity. Bateson and Martin (2013) describe innovation as the capacity to generate a novel form of behaviour or idea that has practical benefits and which can be adopted by others. These teachers

innovated practical means to start integrating ETs and online tools into their classroom practice, overcoming institutional challenges and exploiting opportunities, such as the provision of the one data projector and whiteboard. Their enthusiasm motivated others to change their behaviour and ideas, and ‘get on the bandwagon’, indicating their high capacity for innovation. While this innovation may potentially be correlated to their engagement in

177

the ePlay MakerSpace, it should be noted that it was only after their engagement that they approached the principal to link the computer lab learning with curriculum content, and that they started using ET tools.

The evidence suggest that these teachers engaged transformational ET integration. Based on their innovative behaviour and ideas, and the way this impacted change at their school, they can be said to have experienced disposition-level transformation. IPL06, IPL20, IPL21 and IPL22 reported changes to their teaching and integration of ETs in their classes and within the school, indicating that they transformatively integrated ETs. The institutional context and leadership provided the enabling environment to support their change, with the principal agreeing to their requests. In the following year, the school received greater access to devices and connectivity, indicating not only institutional but also systemic support, as well as support from sponsors in the community who donated tablets. The dispositional transformation IPL06, IPL20, IPL21 and IPL22 experienced, thus influenced greater institutional change as well.