Advertisement

Education and Information Technologies

, Volume 21, Issue 3, pp 503–519 | Cite as

Understanding teachers’ reluctance to the pedagogical use of ICT in the 1:1 classroom

  • Martin Tallvid
Article

Abstract

During the last decade, several one laptop per student-initiatives (1:1) have emerged as a solution to the recurrent disappointments with the pace of transformation of teaching methods in schools. However, an increasing number of research studies indicates, that despite major expenditure, increased access and improved technical equipment, few teachers have integrated ICT in the curriculum in a way that leads to significant changes in classroom practice. This article explores teachers’ reluctance towards the pedagogical use of personal laptops in secondary schools. A case study approach is used in a follow-up study of a 3-year 1:1-implementation initiative, investigating a period of in-service training for teachers in a secondary school. The teachers’ arguments for not using the laptops for teaching are of particular interest. Five different, but overlapping, patterns in the explanations for their reluctance have been discovered: lack of technical competence, not worth the effort, insufficient material, diminishing control and lack of time. The teachers’ arguments exposed technical, pedagogical, and content concerns. This qualitative study of teachers’ reluctance, as studied in situ, adds nuance and additional perspectives to previously presented explanations.

Keywords

Laptop Teaching ICT Classroom In-service training Socio-materiality 

References

  1. Balanskat, A., Blamire, R., & Kefala, S. (2006). The ICT impact report—a review of studies of ICT impact on schools in Europe. In E. Schoolnet (Ed.).Google Scholar
  2. Bebell, D., & Kay, R. (2010). One to one computing: a summary of the quantitative results from the Berkshire Wireless Learning Initiative. Journal of Technology, Learning and Assessment, 9(2), 5–59.Google Scholar
  3. Belland, B. (2009). Using the theory of habitus to move beyond the study of barriers to technology integration. Computers & Education, 52(2), 353–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bingimlas, K. (2009). Barriers to the successful integration of ICT in teaching and learning environments: a review of the literature. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 5(3), 235–245.Google Scholar
  5. Buente, W., & Robbin, A. (2008). Trends in Internet information behavior, 2000–2004. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(11), 1743–1760.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chen, R. (2010). Investigating models for preservice teachers’ use of technology to support student-centered learning. Computers & Education, 55(1), 32–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Conlon, T., & Simpson, M. (2003). Silicon Valley versus Silicon Glen: the impact of computers upon teaching and learning: a comparative study. British Journal of Education Technology, 34(2), 137–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Conway, J., & Lance, C. (2010). What reviewers should expect from authors regarding common method bias in organizational research. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25(3), 325–334. doi: 10.1007/s10869-010-9181-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and underused—computers in the classroom. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Curriculum for the Compulsory School System 2011 (2011). Stockholm: Skolverket.Google Scholar
  11. Denzin, N. K. (1997). Interpretive ethnography: Ethnografic practices for the 21st century. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dunleavy, M., Dextert, S., & Heinecke, W. F. (2007). What added value does a 1:1 student to laptop ratio ring to technology-supported teaching and learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23, 440–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dynarski, M., Agodini, R., Heaviside, S., Novak, T., Care, N., & Campuzano, L. (2007). Effectiveness of reading and mathematics software products: Findings from the First Student Cohort Report to Congress. Washington DC: US Department of Education.Google Scholar
  14. Engelsen, K. (2006). Gjennom fokustrengsel. Lærerutdanningen i møte med IKT og nye vurderingsformer. (Ph D), The University of Bergen.Google Scholar
  15. European Commission. (2007). Key competences for lifelong learning European reference framework- education and training (Vol. ). Luxemburg: European Commission.Google Scholar
  16. Fenwick, T. (2010). Re-thinking the “thing”: sociomaterial approaches to understanding and researching learning in work. Journal of Workplace Learning, 22(1/2), 104–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Freudenberg, B., Brimble, M., & Vyvyan, V. (2010). The penny drops: can work integrated learning improve students’ learning? E-Journal of Business Education & Scholarship of Teaching, 4(1), 42–61.Google Scholar
  18. Fried, C. (2008). In-class laptop use and its effect on student learning. Computers and Education, 50(3), 9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fullan, M. (2007). The new meaning of educational change (4th ed.). London: Cassell.Google Scholar
  20. Garthwait, A., & Weller, H. G. (2005). A year in the life: two seventh grade teachers implement one-to-one computing. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 37(4), 361–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gibson, J. (Ed.). (1979). The theory of affordances. Hoboken: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  22. Hargreaves, A. (2010). Presentism, individualism, and conservatism: the legacy of Dan Lortie’s schoolteacher: a sociological study. Curriculum Inquiry, 40(1), 143–154.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hargreaves, A., Lieberman, A., Fullan, M., & Hopkins, D. (Eds.). (1998). Developing the 21st century school. A challenge to reformers. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  24. Hembrook, H., & Gay, G. (2003). The laptop and the lecture: the effects of multitasking in learning environments. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 15(1), 46–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hennessy, S., Ruthven, K., & Brindley, S. (2005). Teacher perspectives on integrating ICT into subject teaching: commitment, constraints, caution, and change. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 37(2), 155–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hepp, P., Hinostroza, E., Laval, E., & Rehbein, L. (2004). Technology in schools: Education, ICT and the knowledge society. Washington DC: World Bank.Google Scholar
  27. Holcomb, L. B. (2009). Results & lessons learned from 1:1 laptop initiatives: a collective review. TechTrends, 53(6), 49–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Inan, F. A., & Lowther, D. (2010). Factors affecting technology integration in K-12 classrooms: a path model. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(137–154), 137–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Johri, A. (2011). The socio-materiality of learning practices and implications for the field of learning technology. Research in Learning Technology, 19(3), 207–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. King, A. (1993). From sage on the stage to guide on the side. College Teaching, 41(1), 30–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kopcha, T. (2012). Teachers’ perceptions of the barriers to technology integration and practices with technology under situated professional development. Computers & Education, 59(4), 1109–1121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kozma, R. (2003). ICT and and educational change: a global phenomenon. In R. Kozma (Ed.), Technology, innovation, and educational change: A global perspective. Eugene: International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE).Google Scholar
  33. Lane, D. (2003). The Maine learning technology initiative impact on students and learning. Portland: Center for Education Policy, Applied Research, and Evaluation, University of Southern Maine.Google Scholar
  34. LeBaron, C. (Ed.). (2002). Technology does not exist independent of its use. Mahwahs: Lawrence Erlbaum Publications.Google Scholar
  35. LeCompte, M. (2000). Analyzing qualitative data. Theory Into Practice, 39(3), 146–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lei, J., & Zhao, Y. (2008). One-to-one computing: what does it bring to schools? Journal of Educational Computing Research, 39(2), 97–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Leonardi, P. (2011). When flexible routines meets flexible technologies: affordance, constraints, and the imbrication of human and material agencies. MIS Quarterly, 35, 147–167.Google Scholar
  38. Livingstone, S. (2011). Critical reflections on the benefits of ICT in education. Oxford Review of Education, 38(1), 9–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lowther, L., Ross, S. M., & Morrison, G. M. (2003). When each one has one: the influences on teaching strategies and student achievement of using laptops in the classroom. Educational Technology Research and Development, 51(3), 23–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. McGrail, E. (2007). Challenges to teacher control in the English laptop classroom. Georgia Educational Researcher, 5(1), 1–19.Google Scholar
  41. Mifsud, L., & Mörch, A. (2010). Reconsidering off-task: a comparative study of PDA-mediated activities in four classrooms. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26, 190–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2007). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK): Confronting the wicked problems of teaching with technology. San Antonio: AACE.Google Scholar
  43. Mooij, T., & Smeets, E. (2001). Modelling and supporting ICT implementation in secondary schools. Computers & Education, 36(3), 265–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Moreno, R., Mayer, R., Spires, H., & Lester, J. (2001). The case for social agency in computer-based teaching: do students learn more deeply when they interact with animated pedagogical agents? Cognition and Instruction, 19(2), 177–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Moses, P., Bakar, K. A., Mahmud, R., & Wong, S. L. (2012). ICT infrastructure, technical and administrative support as correlates of teachers’ laptop use. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 59, 709–714.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Mourshed, M., Chijioke, C., & Barber, M. (2009). How the world’s most improved school systems keep getting better. London: McKinsey and Company.Google Scholar
  47. OECD. (2010). Are the new millennium learners making the grade? Centre for Educational Research and Innovation: OECD.Google Scholar
  48. Orlikowski, W. (2000). Using technology and constituting structures: a practice lens for studying technology in organizations. Organization Science, 11(4), 404–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Orlikowski, W., & Scott, S. (2008). 10 sociomateriality: challenging the separation of technology, work and organization. The Academy of Management Annals, 2(1), 433–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. O’Shea, T., & Koschmann, T. (1997). The children’s machine: rethinking school in the age of the computer. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 6(4), 401–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Owen, A., Farsaii, S., Knezek, G., & Christensen, R. (2006). Teaching teachingin the one-to-one classroom. International Society for Technology in Education.Google Scholar
  52. Penuel, W. (2006). Implementation and effects of one-to-one computing initiatives: a research synthesis. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38(3), 20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Player-Koro, C., & Lindström, B. (2013). Teachers work in digital environment. Paper presented at the ECER 2013, Istanbul, Turkey.Google Scholar
  54. Podsakoff, P., MacKenzie, S., Jeong-Yeon, L., & Podsakoff, N. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Rutledge, D., Duran, J., & Carroll-Miranda, J. (2007). Three years of the New Mexico Laptop Learning Initiative (NMLLI): Stumbling toward innovation (Vol. 15). AACE.Google Scholar
  56. Saldana, J. (2013). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (2nd ed.). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  57. Sands, R. R. (2002). Sport ethnography. Champaign: Human Kinetics.Google Scholar
  58. Selwyn, N. (2011). Education and technology—key issues and debates. London: Continuum International Publishing Group.Google Scholar
  59. Sharma, K. (2011). The role of ICT in higher education for the 21st century: ICT as a change agent for education. VSRD International Journal of CS & IT, 1(6), 383–391.Google Scholar
  60. Shear, L., Novais, G., & Moorthy, S. (2010). Innovative teaching and learning research. Microsoft Partners in Learning. SRI International.Google Scholar
  61. Silverman, D. (2007). Interpreting qualitative data—methods for analyzing talk, text and interaction. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  62. Silvernail, D. L., & Gritter, A. K. (2007). Research brief, Maine’s middle school laptop programme: Creating better writers. Maine: Maine Education Policy Research Institute, University of Southern Maine.Google Scholar
  63. Singer, M. (2007). Introducing medical anthropology: A discipline in action. Lanham: AltaMira Press.Google Scholar
  64. Sipilä, K. (2010). The impact of laptop provision on teachers attitudes towards ICT. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 19(1), 3–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Smart, G. (1998). Mapping conceptual worlds: using interpretive ethnography to explore knowledge-making in a professional community. The Journal of Business Communication, 35(1), 11–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Smeets, E. (2005). Does ICT contribute to powerful learning environments in primary education? Computers and Education, 44, 343–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Somekh, B. (2008). Factors affecting teachers’ pedagogical adoption of ICT. In J. Voogt & G. Knezek (Eds.), International handbook of information technology in primary and secondary education, vol. 20 (pp. 449–460). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Sørensen, E. (2007). The time of materiality (Vol. 8).Google Scholar
  69. Spector, P. (2006). Method variance in organizational research: truth or urban legend? Organizational Research Methods, 9(2), 221–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Strauss, A. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park: Sage.Google Scholar
  71. Tallvid, M., Lundin, J., & Lindström, B. (2012). Using TPACK for analysing teachers’ task design: Understanding change in a 1:1-laptop setting.Google Scholar
  72. Tallvid, M., Lundin, J., Svensson, L., & Lindström, B. (2014). Exploring the relationship between sanctioned and unsanctioned laptop use in a 1:1 classroom. Accepted for publication in Journal of Educational Technology & Society. Google Scholar
  73. Tearle, P. (2003). ICT implementation: what makes the difference? British Journal of Educational Technology, 34(5), 567–583. doi: 10.1046/j.0007-1013.2003.00351.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. The Swedish National Agency for Education. (2011). Läroplan för grundskolan. Stockholm: Skolverket.Google Scholar
  75. Tondeur, J., Devos, G., Van Houtte, M., van Braak, J., & Valcke, M. (2009). Understanding structural and cultural school characteristics in relation to educational change: the case of ICT integration. Educational Studies, 35(2), 223–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Twining, P., Raffaghelli, J., Albion, P., & Knezek, D. (2013). Moving education into the digital age: the contribution of teachers’ professional development. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, (Online Version of Record published before inclusion in an issue).Google Scholar
  77. Venetzky, R., & Davis, C. (2002). Quo Vademus? - The transformation of schooling in a networked world. OECD/CERI.Google Scholar
  78. Warschauer, M. (2006). Laptops and literacy: Learning in the wireless classroom. New York: Teacher College Press.Google Scholar
  79. Warschauer, M., & Grimes, D. (2005). First year evaluation report Fullerton School District Laptop Program. http://gse.uci.edu/person/warschauer_m/docs/fsd-laptop-year1-eval.pdf.
  80. Watson. (2001). Pedagogy before technology: re-thinking the relationship between ICT and teaching. Education and Information Technologies, 6(4), 251–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Watson, & Tinsley, D. (Eds.). (1995). Integrating information technology into education. London: Chapman & Hall.Google Scholar
  82. Wong, E. (2008). Insights into innovative classroom practices with ICT: identifying the impetus for change. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 11(1), 248–265.Google Scholar
  83. Wood, E., Zivcakova, L., Gentile, P., Archer, K., De Pasquale, D., & Nosko, A. (2012). Examining the impact of off-task multi-tasking with technology on real-time classroom learning. Computers & Education, 58(1), 365–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Yin, R. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  85. Zhao, Y., & Frank, K. (2003). Factors affecting technology uses in schools: an ecological perspective. American Educational Research Journal, 40(4), 807–840.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Zucker, A., & Light, D. (2009). Laptop programs for students. Science Magazine, 323, 82–85.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Applied ITUniversity of GothenburgGothenburgSweden

Personalised recommendations