2.2 Cognitive Flexibility Theory: Cognitive Flexibility(CF) theory was initially formulated to address factors contributing to failures to learn complex knowledge at advanced
2.4.1 Integrating Technology into Teaching and Learning
There is no clear standard definition of technology integration in schools (Bebell, Russell, & O‘Dwyer, 2004). For some scholars, technology integration was understood and examined in terms of types of teachers‘ computer use in the classrooms: low-level (e.g., students doing Internet searches) or high-level use (e.g., students doing multimedia
18
presentations, collecting and interpreting data for projects) (Cuban, Kirkpatrick, & Peck, 2001). For other scholars, technology integration was understood and examined in terms of how teachers used technology to carry out familiar activities more reliably and productively, and how such use may be re-shaping these activities (Hennessy, Ruthven,
& Brindley, 2005). Still, others consider technology integration in terms of teachers using technology to develop students‘ thinking skills (Lim, Wong, Khine, Chai &
Divaharan, 2003).
The push to provide technology in schools has been successful in recent years.
according to Goldman, Cole & Syer (1999), most schools in the USA have computer laboratory and many have computers in every classroom. More than 90% of all schools are connected to the Internet, and more than 33% of teachers have access to Internet in their classrooms. Yet teachers readily admit that they are not making as much use of technology as they could. According to an Education Week survey, nearly 30% of the teachers said their students use computer only one hour per week; nearly 40% said their students do not use computers in the classroom at all (Trotter,1999). Integrating technology into the classroom has become an imperative for teachers at all grade levels.
State standards require it and research supports its positive impact on student learning.
Nearly all schools today have computer labs or a computer in the classroom and many also have Internet connection (Melville, 2012).
When effectively utilised, technology has a positive impact on student learning. It can increase student motivation for learning; improve communication of learning goals;
facilitate higher-order thinking skills; build valuable skills that students will use in college and in the workplace and expands students' understanding from novice to mastery. Although technology is more prevalent in the schools, several factors affect whether and how it is used. Those factors include placement of computers for equitable access, technical support, effective goal for technology use, new roles for teachers, time for ongoing professional development, appropriate coaching of teachers at different skill levels, teacher incentives for use, availability of educational softwares and sustain funding for technology.
Also, Hew and Bush (2006) identify six barriers against the integration of technology: (a) resources, (b) knowledge and skills, (c) institution, (d) attitudes and beliefs, (e) assessment, and (f) subject culture.
Resources: The lack of resources may include one or more of the following: (a) technology, (b) access to available technology, (c) time, and (d) technical support. Lack of technology includes insufficient computers, peripherals, and software (Karagiorgi,
19
2005; O‘Mahony, 2003; Pelgrum, 2001). Without adequate hardware and software, there is little opportunity for teachers to integrate technology into the curriculum. Even in cases where technology is abundant, there is no guarantee that teachers have easy access to those resources. Access to technology is more than merely the availability of technology in a school; it involves providing the proper amount and right types of technology in locations where teachers and students can use them (Fabry & Higgs, 1997). For example, Selwyn (1999) found that the best resources tended to be dominated by technology classes (e.g., computer studies); thus resulting in a ‗‗pecking order‘‘ of subjects where use of computer laboratories is concerned, putting teachers of non-technological subjects (e.g., art, humanities) at a disadvantage. Zhao, Pugh, Sheldon, and Byers (2002) similarly found that although schools have computers housed in laboratories, teachers might not have easy access to them if they needed to compete with other teachers for laboratory time. Lack of time is another resource-type barrier (Butzin, 2001; Cuban et al., 2001; Karagiorgi, 2005; O‘Mahony, 2003). Teachers needed hours to preview web sites, to locate the photos they required for the multimedia project they assigned to students, or to scan those photos into the computers. Teachers who were willing to work longer hours paid a personal price in ‗‗burn out‘‘ and an eventual exit from the school. The lack of technical support is yet another resource-type barrier (Lai, Trewen, & Pratt, 2002; Rogers, 2000). Teachers need adequate technical support to assist them in using different technologies. Employing a limited number of technical support personnel in a school severely hinders teachers‘ technology use. More often than not, these technical support personnel were often overwhelmed by teacher requests, and could not respond swiftly or adequately (Cuban et al., 2001).
Knowledge and Skills: The lack of specific technology knowledge and skills, technology-supported-pedagogical knowledge and skills, and technology-related-classroom management knowledge and skills has been identified as a major barrier to technology integration. Lack of specific technology knowledge and skills is one of the common reasons given by teachers for not using technology (Snoeyink & Ertmer, 2001/2; Williams, Coles, Wilson, Richardson, & Tuson, 2000). For example, in a study of Scottish schools, Williams et al. (2000), found that lack of skills in the use of databases and spreadsheets was seen as an inhibiting factor by more than 10% of elementary school teachers. Snoeyink and Ertmer (2001/2), in their study of one middle-class school in the United States, also found that limited computer knowledge or skills contributed to the lack of technology integration by teachers. The teachers in their study did not attempt any technology-related activities with their students until they had
20
developed basic skills such as logging onto the network, opening and closing files and applications, and basic word processing. In addition to the lack of technology knowledge and skills, some teachers are unfamiliar with the pedagogy of using technology.
According to Hughes (2005), teachers need to have a technology-supported-pedagogy knowledge and skills base, which they can draw upon when planning to integrate technology into their teaching. Technology-supported-pedagogy may be classified into three categories in which technology functions as: (a) replacement, (b) amplification, or (c) transformation (Hughes, 2005). Technology as replacement involves technology serving as a different means to the same instructional goal. For example, a teacher could type a poem on a PowerPoint slide and project it on the wall. This activity replaces the writing of the poem on a poster and taping it on the wall with the unchanged instructional goal for students to read the poem. Technology as amplification involves the use of technology to accomplish tasks more efficiently and effectively without altering the task (Pea, 1985). For example, a teacher may ask students to edit peers‘ stories typed in a word processor. As opposed to hand-written stories, the author‘s ability to easily revise the story based on peers‘ comments is amplified because the student does not have to rewrite the story each time to accommodate the peers‘ feedback. Finally, use of technology as transformation has the potential to provide innovative educational opportunities (Hughes, 2005) by reorganizing students‘ cognitive processes and problemsolving activities (Pea, 1985). For example, students can use computer databases and graphing software as tools for exploratory data analysis, data organization, and for framing and testing hypotheses related to the data.
Institution: Institutional barriers may include: (a) leadership, (b) school time-tabling structure, and (c) school planning. Research has shown that school leadership can hinder the integration of technology by teachers. Fox and Henri (2005) found that the majority of teachers felt that their principals did not understand technology and its relevance to the government‘s proposed shift to more learner-centered activities. Consequently, the impact of technology on the teachers‘ practices in the classroom was restricted. An inflexible timetable can also act as a barrier. In a survey of more than 4,000 teachers in over 1,100 schools in the United States, Becker (2000) found that most secondary students have a continuous block of less than one hour‘s duration to do work in any one class. Such a time limit constrains the variety of learning modalities their teachers can design. Consequently, fewer teachers plan computer activities on a regular basis. The lack of school planning with regard to technology use is another barrier. Lawson and Comber (1999) found that in one United Kingdom school that made minimal use of
21
technology, the administrators had decided to enter a technology integration project as a way of getting free Internet access for a year. There had been no planning regarding what to do with the technology once it was installed, and the administrators left the information technology department to its own devices during the project. Consequently, the use of technology did not extend beyond that department.
Attitudes and beliefs: Teacher attitudes and beliefs towards technology can be another major barrier to technology integration (Hermans, Tondeur, Valcke, & Van Braak, 2006).
According to Simpson, Koballa, Oliver, and Crawley (1994), attitudes can be defined as specific feelings that indicate whether a person likes or dislikes something. In the context of technology integration, teacher attitudes toward technology may be conceptualized as teachers liking or disliking the use of technology. Beliefs can be defined as premises or suppositions about something that are felt to be true (Calderhead, 1996; Richardson, 1996). Specifically, teachers‘ beliefs may include their educational beliefs about teaching and learning (i.e., pedagogical beliefs), and their beliefs about technology (Ertmer, 2005;
Windschitl & Sahl, 2002). Researchers have found that beliefs determine a person‘s attitude (Bodur, Brinberg, & Coupey, 2000). Ertmer (2005) argued that the decision of whether and how to use technology for instruction ultimately depends on the teachers themselves and the beliefs they hold about technology. For example, in an investigation of one elementary school in the United States, Ertmer, Addison, Lane, Ross, and Woods (1999) found that teachers‘ beliefs about technology in the curriculum shaped their goals for technology use. Teachers who viewed technology as merely ‗‗a way to keep kids busy,‘‘ did not see the relevance of technology to the designated curriculum. Computer time was commonly granted after regular classroom work was done and as a reward for the completion of assigned tasks. To these teachers, other skills and content knowledge were more important. Similarly, other researchers have found teacher beliefs about technology to be a major barrier to technology integration. For example, a study in Australia that investigated the perceptions of students and teachers towards the use of portable computers at a secondary school revealed that the majority of teachers believed that computers would not lead to better understanding or faster learning (Newhouse, 2001). Similarly, teachers who participated in a program focusing on information and communication technologies in schools, failed to see the value of such technology for their students. Although they had seen the power of the computer in other areas, they were unconvinced that it could help in education (Karagiorgi, 2005).
Assessment: Assessment can be defined as the activity of measuring student learning (Reeves, 2000). It can be formative or summative in nature, although traditionally, it is
22
typically summative in the form of school and national highstakes testing. High-stakes testing can be defined as assessment with serious attached consequences such as promotion or graduation for students (CEO Forum on Education and Technology, 2001) or rewards versus sanctions for schools. The pressures of such testing can be a major barrier to technology integration. For example, Fox and Henri (2005) explored the use of technology in elementary and secondary school classrooms and found that pressures related to high-stakes testing gave teachers little time to attempt new instructional methods involving technology. This view was corroborated by Butzin (2004) who noted that the pressure to meet higher standards and score high on standardized tests, along with the need to cover vast scope of material within a limited amount of time, creates a daunting challenge for any teacher. Consequently, teachers feel they can cover more material when they are in front of the class talking with every student doing the same thing at the same time, rather than using technology because of the additional technology planning time required to identify and select appropriate software to match lesson objectives (Butzin, 2004). In addition, high-stakes testing can result in the shift of using technology from teaching and learning to using it to facilitate assessment (Bichelmeyer, 2005). The ‗‗No Child Left Behind‘‘ act has placed great emphasis on testing and has accordingly drawn more attention to comparative test scores (Brantley-Dias, Calandra, Harmon, & Shoffner, 2006). Such emphasis on testing, argued Schneiderman (2004), undercuts the potential promise of technology as a teaching and learning tool. As a result, the focus of technology use in education has not been on the use of computers for teaching and learning, but rather on the financial benefits of computer-based testing and the warehousing of assessment results (Bichelmeyer & Molenda, 2006; Education Week, 2003).
Finally, Hennessy et al. (2005) found that there was a perceived tension between using technology and the need to conform to the external requirements of traditional examinations. Requirements to use technology to enhance learning without recognition through assessment were deemed problematic. For example, there was concern that the use of graphic calculators was disadvantageous to students because such calculators are prohibited in national examinations. Such concerns led to decreased enthusiasm among teachers for using technology.
Subject culture: Subject culture refers to the ‗‗general set of institutionalized practices and expectations which have grown up around a particular school subject, and shapes the definition of that subject as a distinct area of study‘‘ (Goodson & Mangan, 1995).
Subject cultures have long-standing histories, reinforced by generations of school
23
practice (Goodson & Mangan, 1995), and are typically shaped by the subject content, subject pedagogy, and subject assessment (Selwyn, 1999). Teachers are reluctant to adopt a technology that seems incompatible with the norms of a subject culture (Hennessy, Ruthven, & Brindley, 2005). For example, Selwyn (1999) found an art teacher who justified her avoidance of using computers by saying that when painting, one would be more in tune with it if one did it physically with one‘s own hand; the art teacher believed that using a mouse makes one‘s mind and hand disjointed. Another art teacher argued that from an aesthetic point of view, accessing art galleries through a computer can never equal experiencing an actual painting in person.