WHO ARE THESE GUYS!? PROFESSIONAL IDENTITIES OF PEDAGOGICAL TECHNOLOGISTS IN SCHOOLS
1
Who are these guys!? Professional identities of pedagogical technologists in schools David J. Woo A research proposal for the Faculty of Education, University of Cambridge
WHO ARE THESE GUYS!? PROFESSIONAL IDENTITIES OF PEDAGOGICAL TECHNOLOGISTS IN SCHOOLS
2
Purpose of the Study Pedagogical technologists are full-time coordinators of pedagogy and technology in schools. They are not teachers in a traditional sense nor do they focus predominantly on supporting the technical aspects of teaching with information technology (IT). Their primary duty is supporting the pedagogical aspects of teaching with and through IT and helping teachers and other school stakeholders use technology to best support student learning, taking into account technological, pedagogical, content knowledge. These pedagogical technologists are often drivers of school change through technology. The purpose of this study is to explore the pedagogical technologist role. This study is particularly concerned with the identities of pedagogical technologists in schools. This study constructs pedagogical technologist identities by taking into account individual and organizational factors. This study will develop some general principles about pedagogical technologist identities in schools. This study addresses the main research question: What are the identities of the pedagogical technologist in primary schools in Asia? The plural form of identity is used in the research question to account for insider and outsider perspectives, because the way a pedagogical technologist views himself in a school may not be the same way by which others in the school view the pedagogical technologist. In addition, the plural form of identity accounts for the possibility of different identities emerging from the several cases which this study will develop. Background Information A body of literature has been developed on how new technology changes teaching and learning and more generally, schools. Mishra and Koehler’s (2006) technological, pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) framework has drawn attention to how the interaction between a person’s
WHO ARE THESE GUYS!? PROFESSIONAL IDENTITIES OF PEDAGOGICAL TECHNOLOGISTS IN SCHOOLS
3
knowledge of technology, pedagogy and content affect how a person integrates technology into teaching and learning. Subsequent literature has extended the TPACK framework (Angeli & Valanides, 2009; Lee & Tsai, 2010) and applied it for the improvement of teaching and learning (Hofer & Swan, 2008; Schmidt et al., 2009). Additionally, the literature is replete with frameworks (Davis, 2008) by which to categorize the integration of a school’s information technology (IT) into its curriculum, which, broadly speaking, encompasses what is being or should be taught in schools, as well as why and how it is being taught (Law & Plomp, 2003). The literature has established different stages or degrees to which a school’s core technology of teaching and learning is affected by new technologies. The literature (Zhao & Frank, 2003; Davis, 2008; Law et al., 2011; Microsoft Partners in Learning, 2011) has also presented ways to understand the interaction between actors in the technology in teaching and learning change process. In particular, the ecological metaphor (Zhao & Frank, 2003) has been an influential way to understand technology use and pedagogical innovation in education in terms of its species. New technologies’ in teaching and learning affect school roles. A body of literature has emerged on the new and changing school roles which facilitate technology integration in teaching and learning in education. In the United Kingdom (UK) higher education context, a body of literature (Oliver, 2002; Lisewski & Joyce, 2003; Ellaway et al., 2006; Davis & Fill, 2007) has emerged on the learning technologist role. In a similar way, literature that describes the IT coordinator role in mainstream primary and secondary schools around the world (Law et al., 2008; Davis, 2008) and, even, in the Hong Kong context (Law, 2000; Woodhead, 2009; Harbutt, 2011), has emerged. Findings from these studies suggest that these school roles are highly contextualized and influenced by individual and organizational factors.
WHO ARE THESE GUYS!? PROFESSIONAL IDENTITIES OF PEDAGOGICAL TECHNOLOGISTS IN SCHOOLS
4
Motivation for the Study I study pedagogical technologists in schools because I am curious about the pedagogical technologist phenomenon at the individual and organizational levels. Although I had been a teacher for eight years and an IT coordinator for five of those years, and although I had been a heavy user of Web 2.0 technology in my teaching and learning for the past several years, I had not come across the pedagogical technologist role until 2011.
At the 21st Century
Learning Conference Hong Kong, I met several pedagogical technologists: their role and their personalities fascinated me because of their unfamiliarity. Likewise, their schools fascinated me because the ways by which they operated did not resemble at all any school that I had worked at in my career. From what I could gather at the conference, these pedagogical technologists’ schools had subsidized the conference fee not only for the pedagogical technologists but also for other stakeholders such as teachers and principals. These schools were in the main scattered across Asia and allowed these stakeholders to attend a conference in Hong Kong, on weekdays no less. From these facts and from my previous study at the Master’s level of organizational learning and change agency, I concluded that these schools were unique organizations capable of supporting these unique, change agency roles. I want to investigate further these select people in these select schools. Significance of the Study This study is significant for education practitioners and researchers. Many people do not know about the pedagogical technologist. This is because the pedagogical technologist role is emergent. This is also because the pedagogical technologist is rare. Most schools do not employ one because most schools lack a suitable ecology to sustain one. As a result, there is a literature
WHO ARE THESE GUYS!? PROFESSIONAL IDENTITIES OF PEDAGOGICAL TECHNOLOGISTS IN SCHOOLS
5
gap on the pedagogical technologist. Nonetheless, the pedagogical technologist role in schools is significant because it signals a shift in how teaching through IT is supported in schools, and more generally, changes to the specific ways that schools think about IT in education. The pedagogical technologist may signal the future for many schools: the more schools mature in their IT use, the more pedagogical technologist role will be needed. This study contributes to the body of knowledge on the pedagogical technologist, and specifically, the pedagogical technologist’s identities in schools. In practical terms, participants in this research can reflect on their and others’ professional identities. The readership can reflect on their personal and professional identities in comparison with those described in this study. In addition, this study’s findings on pedagogical technologist identities may influence schools’ policies and practices concerning the pedagogical technologist. In the UK, this study may have greater significance since the demise of the British Educational Communications and Technology Agency (BECTA) has created a gap in research and reports to influence educational technology policy and practice. Methodology This study is exploratory and adopts a qualitative approach to make meaning and understanding (Merriam, 2009) of pedagogical technologists and, specifically, their identities in schools. More specifically, this study adopts a multiple case study approach because the research phenomenon of pedagogical technologist identities is highly contextualized. Besides, this research aims for analytical generalization (Yin, 2003) about pedagogical technologist identities and not statistical generalization about all pedagogical technologists and their identities. For those reasons, each case can be considered a separate experiment. The primary unit of analysis for each case would be the pedagogical technologist and
WHO ARE THESE GUYS!? PROFESSIONAL IDENTITIES OF PEDAGOGICAL TECHNOLOGISTS IN SCHOOLS
6
the sub-units would be identities. The research participants for this study are pedagogical technologists and other stakeholders in primary schools in Asia. This author has access to them and they comprise a purposeful, snowball sample, because the pedagogical technologists can recommend others in the school and other technologists in other schools for the sample. Nonetheless, there will be a focus on balance and variety (Stake 1995; 2010) in the cases. Data would be collected through interviews by video chat and email as this author would be in the UK for data collection. This study proposes three cases, each case comprising data from one pedagogical technologist and at least three other people in the technologist’s school. One of the other people will be the pedagogical technologist’s school head or an assistant school head. Another will be a teacher. Each research participant would be interviewed at least once, with the possibility of a follow-up interview. Interview questions would be developed on the theoretical propositions for the construction of professional identities. Data will be analyzed by pattern matching within those same theoretical propositions (Yin, 2003). For each case, this study would examine such factors on professional identity construction as the pedagogical technologist’s professional history, the pedagogical technologist’s and others’ attitudes toward the profession, and the greater context of the pedagogical technologist’s ecology in terms of scope and specific job activities and practices, as well as school policies which influenced the creation of the pedagogical technologist role, and the school background. This exploration of features also includes critical incidents which influence or indicate pedagogical technologist identity. Key concepts will be identified and tabulated in the discourse. Patterns which lead to specific identities can be found. Shared patterns between cases can be considered a theoretical replication across cases (Yin, 2003).
WHO ARE THESE GUYS!? PROFESSIONAL IDENTITIES OF PEDAGOGICAL TECHNOLOGISTS IN SCHOOLS
7
Personal Statement Finally, I learned about the MPhil program at the University of Cambridge from the University of Hong Kong (HKU), which, through the HKU-Cambridge Hughes Hall Scholarships, sponsors annually several HKU students to study at Hughes Hall, University of Cambridge. I am good friends with a past HKU-Cambridge Hughes Hall Scholarship winner, Terence Wang, who studied in the Faculty of Education at Cambridge, who had a fruitful experience, and who recommended I apply. I reviewed the MPhil strands, contacted a possible supervisor within the Faculty of Education for my MPhil study and have selected this individual strand for this research proposal.
WHO ARE THESE GUYS!? PROFESSIONAL IDENTITIES OF PEDAGOGICAL TECHNOLOGISTS IN SCHOOLS
8
References Angeli, C., & Valanides, N. (2009). Epistemological and methodological issues for the conceptualization, development, and assessment of ICT-TPCK: Advances in technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK). Computers & Education, 52(1), 154-168. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2008.07.006 Davis, H. C., & Fill, K. (2007). Embedding blended learning in a university's teaching culture: Experiences and reflections. [10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00756.x]. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(5), 817-828. Davis, N. (2008). How May Teacher Learning Be Promoted for Educational Renewal with IT? In J. Voogt & G. Knezek (Eds.), International Handbook of Information Technology in Primary and Secondary Education (Vol. 20, pp. 507-519-519): Springer US. Ellaway, R., Begg, M., Dewhurst, D., & Macleod, H. (2006). In a Glass Darkly: identity, agency and the role of the learning technologist in shaping the learning environment. E-Learning, 3(1), 75-87. Harbutt, D. (2011). A Report into the Use of ICT in a Primary School. Hong Kong. Hofer, M., & Swan, K. O. (2008). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge in Action: A Case Study of a Middle School Digital Documentary Project. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 41(2), 179-200. Law, N., University of Hong Kong. Centre for Information Technology in School and Teacher Education., & SITES Hong Kong Study Centre. (2000). Changing classrooms & changing schools : a study of good practices in using ICT in Hong Kong Schools. Hong Kong: CITE Faculty of Education University of Hong Kong. Law, N. W. Y., & Plomp, T. (2003). Curriculum and Staff Development for ICT in Education. In
WHO ARE THESE GUYS!? PROFESSIONAL IDENTITIES OF PEDAGOGICAL TECHNOLOGISTS IN SCHOOLS
9
T. Plomp, R. E. Anderson, N. W. Y. Law & A. Quale (Eds.), Cross-national Information and Communication Technology Policy and Practices in Education (Firs ed., pp. 15-30). Greenwich, Conneticut: Information Age Publishing. Law, N., Pelgrum, W. J., Plomp, T., & International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement. (2008). Pedagogy and ICT use : in schools around the world : findings from the IEA SITES 2006 study. Hong Kong: Springer; Comparative Education Research Centre the University of Hong Kong. Law, N., Yuen, A., & Fox, R. (2011). Educational innovations beyond technology : nurturing leadership and establishing learning organizations. New York: Springer. Lee, M.-H., & Tsai, C.-C. (2010). Exploring teachers’ perceived self efficacy and technological pedagogical content knowledge with respect to educational use of the World Wide Web. Instructional Science, 38(1), 1-21. doi: 10.1007/s11251-008-9075-4 Lisewski, B., & Joyce, P. (2003). Examining the five-stage e-moderating model: designed and emergent practice in the learning technology profession. Association for Learning Technology Journal (ALT-J), 11(1), 55-66. Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research : a guide to design and implementation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Microsoft Partners in Learning. (2011). Innovative Teaching and Learning Research: 2011 Findings and Implications ITL Research (pp. 1-40). Mishra, P., & Koehler, M., J. (2006). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A Framework for Teacher Knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054. Oliver, M. (2002). What do learning technologists do? Innovations in Education & Teaching International (2002), 39(4), 245-252. doi: 10.1080/13558000210161089
WHO ARE THESE GUYS!? PROFESSIONAL IDENTITIES OF PEDAGOGICAL TECHNOLOGISTS IN SCHOOLS
10
Schmidt, D. A., Baran, E., Thompson, A. D., Mishra, P., Koehler, M., J., & Shin, T. S. (2009). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK): The Development and Validation of an Assessment Instrument for Preservice Teachers. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(2), 123-149. Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications. Stake, R. E. (2010). Qualitative research : studying how things work. New York: Guilford Press. Woodhead, P. L., & University of Hong Kong. (2009). Digital natives v Swine Flu a study in two halves : how adversity can drive change. Retrieved from http://sunzi.lib.hku.hk/hkuto/ record/B44550212 Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research : design and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Zhao, Y., & Frank, K. A. (2003). Factors Affecting Technology Uses in Schools: An Ecological Perspective. American Educational Research Journal, 40(4), 807-840. doi: 10.3102/ 00028312040004807