I have already explored the tendency of academic administrators at all levels to make demands of educators in relation to the use of educational technology (Selwyn, 2017). In addition, pressure from stakeholders demand school leavers and graduates are technically competent and can effectively utilise technology (J. Voogt, Erstad, et al., 2013). This leads to ever increasing demands on educators to incorporate technology into teaching practices. Again, the definition of technology in education comes into question, with the literature suggesting that there are core technologies such as presentation software (e.g. Microsoft Powerpoint) and Learning Management Systems (e.g. such as Moodle and Blackboard), with all other technologies being considered as non-core (Shelton, 2014). When viewed from this perspective, the integration of technologies takes on a different meaning, with a clear distinction required between “use” and “integration”.
The integration of technologies appears to be one aspect of the grammar of schooling that is notably difficult to achieve, despite the prevalence and relatively lower cost of technologies, and the positive light in which technology is perceived. Schools appear to have trouble in systematically incorporating technology into the learning environment (Orlando, 2014b). From a teacher’s perspective, Reid (2014) suggests that a significant barrier to the successful integration of technology into pedagogical practices is the lack of teacher skills and knowledge, with Shelton (2014) suggesting confidence with technology is also a significant factor. The issue of professional vulnerabilities is amplified by negative experiences with technologies and the risk of losing face in front of a room full of students (Cramp, 2015). The perceived loss of status, is also cited as a concern, where once teachers were seen as having significant pedagogical knowledge, but lack significant technological knowledge, of particular relevance to older teachers (Orlando, 2014b). In addition, Reid comments that with the move to casualisation of faculty in higher education, part-time lecturers typically have little or no pedagogical background and are less likely to avail of CPD opportunities. But it is also acknowledged that the successful integration of technology into education is not just predicated on technology-related factors (Tondeur et al., 2017). The literature suggests there are a number of factors that influence the willingness of teachers to incorporate technology
40 into practice. One such factor is the teaching philosophy of the teacher, with those of a social constructivist viewpoint more likely to adopt technology (Tondeur et al., 2017). Such teachers appear to be able to utilise the features of various technologies to enable a student-centred, collaborative and engaging learning experience, while allowing for both planned and unplanned activities. Tondeur et al’s findings suggest other factors most likely to influence a teacher’s use of technology in the classroom include prior experience and positive experiences with technologies, noting that generic professional development appears to be particularly ineffective. Tailored professional development is a key factor in the success of integration of technology, suggesting the need to have positive experiences of technology in an educational context. Irrelevant and inconsistent CPD appears quite frequently as a source of frustration in the literature, reducing such positive experiences, or at worst, failing to create much needed positive experiences of technology (Orlando, 2014a; Voogt, Knezek, Cox, Knezek, & Ten Brummelhuis, 2013; Kim, Kim, Lee, Spector, & DeMeester, 2013). Examples are cited of CPD that is lacking in many respects with suggestions that it can be too generic, too rushed and demonstrating technology they will never use (Pittman & Gaines, 2015). In some cases, researchers find that implementation of technologies for use in teaching practices without any supporting and relevant CPD as a significant barrier to the incorporation of technology that ultimately leads to them not using such technologies (Shelton, 2017). The literature also suggests that the focus of what CPD is available is on the mechanics and operation of the technologies, rather than the effective use of such technologies in the classroom (Ertmer, 1999; Reid, 2014). The application of educational technologies and the context within which they can be applied appears to be lacking from CPD programmes. While it may appear that broad, generic and infrequent CPD can be ineffective, there is evidence to suggest that targeted, relevant and timely CPD can be effective. In particular, the alignment of teacher interests and pedagogical beliefs and strategic objectives of technology implementation can be successful (Hammond, 2014). Mueller et al suggest in addition, an alignment with teacher attitudes and behaviour is also a key component of successful CPD ( Mueller et al., 2008). However, the issue of CPD for educators should be tempered with the acknowledgement that with the rapid change of technology, teachers can never be fully up to date (Tallvid, 2016). Therefore, CPD should be targeted to develop broader ICT skills and understanding of technology, and empowering teachers to adapt to the introduction of new
41 technologies, in addition to supplemental CPD on specific technologies (Tallvid, 2016). Teachers should be able to utilise technology in new and previously untried ways to create what Ertmer calls a “new vision for teaching and learning” (Ertmer, 1999).
Another often forgotten perspective is that of the educator as an employee. Selwyn suggests that it is important to remember that educational establishment is also a place of work (2017, p. 106). The use of technology during the undertaking of tasks as an employee needs to be contrasted with the use of technologies as an educator. Selwyn suggests that the two are not necessarily mutually exclusive, but subject to what he notes as a strategic use and that if an educator as an employee cannot see the benefit of technologies when discharging her duties as an employee, she is less likely to utilise them in her context as an educator.