Journal Review: "I Tolerate Technology - I Don't Embrace It": Instructor Surprise and Sensemaking in a Technology-Rich Learning Environment

Fairchild, J. L., Meiners, E. B., & Violette, J. L. (2016). "I Tolerate Technology--I Don't Embrace It": Instructor Surprise and Sensemaking in a Technology-Rich Learning Environment. Journal Of The Scholarship Of Teaching And Learning, 16(4), 92-108.

PARTICIPANTS

The study looked at 7 teachers in a tech-enriched classroom that had flexible seating, tablets for every student, an interactive whiteboard, and a document camera. 

METHOD

The study wanted to answer two questions;

1. What tensions will be revealed for instructors teaching in a technology-rich classroom?
2. What sensemaking strategies will instructors report in response to these tensions?

In order to answer these questions, the researchers interviewed the instructors weekly for 30-90 minutes. 

RESULTS

The researchers identified 3 tensions. Below I will summarize each tension.

• Freedom V Confinement - Although technology allowed for freedom to try new things, it takes a lot of time to try and implement new things.
• Contentedness V Fragmentation - Technology allows for greater collaboration, but at times it becomes easier to seclude self.
• Change V Stability - Here it was decided by most teachers that the teaching has to change with the introduction of technology. Teachers can't continue doing the same thing after getting technology. "There is more to technology integration than electronics."

The researchers identified 2 sensemaking strategies. Below I will summarize each tension.

• Adaptation - Teachers quickly realized that they had to "roll with the glitches" instead of getting caught up in technology glitches. 
• Reframing - Most teachers realized they had to change the way they taught and their role in the classroom.

REFLECTION

This article seemed to solidify what has been said in class lately. The article did a great job in providing the insight of teachers that were struggling with technology integration and getting at what are their struggles. I have two big take-aways. 

1. Teachers have to learn how to adapt to technology glitches and this can be scary. However, adapting to these challenges in front of students in a calm, positive manner is good modeling for when they come across glitches. Instead of giving up in front of the students or getting angry, teachers need to show good problem-solving skills. The issue for technology coaches and administration is; how do you get teachers comfortable at "rolling with the glitches"?
2. Technology is a change agent. Teachers will only get frustrated with technology if they try to jam technology in their old lesson plans. Successful integration involves making changes to how you teach and what you teach. 

Journal Review: The Pedagogy of Technology Integration

Okojie, M. C., Olinzock, A. A., & Okojie-Boulder, T. C. (2006). The Pedagogy of Technology Integration. Journal Of Technology Studies, 32(2), 66-71.

SUMMARY

The article starts by identifying 3 reasons why teachers are reluctant to incorporate technology. Shortage of computers, lack of computer skills, and computer intimidation were listed. Then the authors defined educational technology as any technology (video, media, devices) that is used to enhance and facilitate learning. Authors did a study (without identifying methodology or participants) and found that many in-service and pre-service teachers do not understand what it means to integrate technology and when asked, they focus their responses on the different devices, not the learning itself. Too often teachers focus on the tool and not the task. 

Also, the authors suggest a few fixes to the current integration of technology. Technology integration needs to focus on the task (not the tool), involve students in the design stages, and create an implementation plan before buying technology. 

REFLECTION

First, the article itself was lack-luster. It claims to have data from a quick study without mentioning any details of the study. 

Having said that, I agree that too often teachers, technology coaches, students, and administration focus on the tool and not the task. I have sat through too many professional development sessions that taught me how to use apps (garage band, iMovie, etc) without showing me how to incorporate it into my classroom beyond a superficial level. 

It is an interesting idea to have students involved in designing technology-based tasks to learn set learning objectives. I often have prescribed ways for students to learn, practice, or demonstrate understanding, but I have never talked to students about what they need to learn, and how they want to tackle that learning objective. I see that as a way to help teachers get new ideas, take the stress off of teachers to create these grand projects, and as a great way to engage students. However, teachers that struggle to give-up control, will find this even more terrifying. It would require teachers to be flexible and would require a great group of students that want to learn. 

Journal Review: Are Schools Getting a Big Enough Bang for Their Education Technology Buck?

Boser, U., & Center for American, P. (2013). Are Schools Getting a Big Enough Bang for Their Education Technology Buck?.

Summary

"Schools are not using technology to do things differently."

The Center for American Progress wanted to see if states and schools are getting "enough bang for their..buck" with educational technology funding. It was found that no state has completed a return of investment analysis. Studies have been conducted with what are students doing with technology. For the most part, students are using technology to complete basic tasks, not tasks that require higher-order thinking. 

The Center for American Progress identified the following potential aspects of technology;

• Boosts the reach of highly effective teachers
• Creates greater personalization and differentiation
• Improves testing by making it less expensive and more adaptive.

They continue by saying that schools need to allow technology to be the transformative tool that it can be and not resist change. 

Finally, the Center for American Progress concludes by requesting the states and schools to complete return on investment study to decide if the spending on technology is necessary. If it is found that technology is not providing enough of a difference given the cost, then schools and states need to find a different way to spend money.

Reflection

The quote above is my big take away. I have heard this before, but here is research that shows it. I agree that too often schools take technology and continue to do what they have always done, with technology. Technology is transformative, but schools are resistant to change. I look at what my department is doing right now and see that, despite having 32 chromebooks in each room, we are developing new curriculum without developing transformative curriculum. The curriculum could have easily been created and implemented without computers. I can't help but question, why do we have the technology?

Having said that, I disagree with some of their conclusion. If a return on investment study is done and it finds that the technology is not providing enough of a difference given the cost, we should not abandon technology. Instead, we need to mandate changing how we are using the technology. Don't take away technology, change the way we are using technology.