The more I study about technology in education, it becomes more apparent to me that technology has shifted further learning from a behaviorist paradigm to a learner-centered socially constructivist paradigm. But that does not mean we should leave students to their own devices (pun intended). As much as we see the potential for technology to enhance the learning experience for students there can be drawbacks as well.
 
Positives of Technology and learning (Hickey, 2014) :

• Technology mediated interactions produce artifacts that can be stored, reused, transmitted, or modified
• Technology can analyze the state and sequence of interactions, and adapt to influence educational processes.
• Technology is available anywhere and anytime
• Technology can help reduce the barriers of time and distance between students and teachers
• Technology provides a richer variety of content available than traditional methods
• Technology offers a new means of assessment,
• Technology can save artifacts and interactions for later review by students.
• Internet technology is participatory and encourages contributions from users.
• Internet technology allows for knowledge to be manifested through shared cognitive processes.
• Internet technology allows expression by leaners include blogs, wikis, discussion forums, social networks, media sharing, micro-blogging, video conferencing, and more.
• Internet technology facilitates commenting and feedback, thus allowing participants to challenge ideas and negotiate meaning.
• Technology potentially spans continents and enables communities of practice, providing access to an incredible diversity of opinion and experience.
• Online environments become negotiating tables, repositories of learning products, museums of interactions, laboratories for teachers, and a media for ongoing discussion.

 
Drawbacks of Technology and learning (Hickey, 2014):
 

• Technology increases potential for distracting learners
• Schools may pour their budgets into the acquisition of technology rather than teacher training, which can be wasteful when the new technology is not fully utilized.
• The vast number of connections and resources on the internet are likely to expose learners to diverging, often contradictory points of view which can also be varied in quality and validity.
• It is not clear whether online interactions enhance learning to the same extent as more controlled, predictable classroom activities.

Given what we know about technology at this point, I suggest that the most important thing we can do as educators is to promote “meta-cognition” or “meta-technology usage” in our students. Provide them guidance on how they should focus and use technology. Be explicit with how technology helps or hinders our learning so they become aware of the same thing. Students who can demonstrate self-control and mindful focus when learning with technology will be more successful learners in the future.

Reference
Hickey, G. (2014). The importance of learning philosophies on technology selection in education. Journal Of Learning Design, 7(3), 16-22.
 

Simply imposing reform-based ideas on schools and teachers will not result in substantial adoption of these practices into teaching and learning (Chen, 2008; Uluyol & Sahin, 2016; Vrasidas; 2015). For sufficient change to take place, teachers need motivation to use technology in innovative ways (Sang, Valcke, van Braak, Tondeur and Zhu, 2011). There are many factors that can prevent or encourage teachers’ motivation for meaningful technology integration that should be considered when implementing a technology integration plan into any educational institution. Here is a brief outline of a number of these factors.

Motivational Factor: Support from peers
Anytime wide scale reform takes place in a school, teachers who already feel the pressure of being responsible for student growth and learning may feel anxious. Given this context, it is important to put in place conditions where teachers feel supported.  Cifuentes, Maxwell and Bulu (2011) state that “professional learning communities provide a social context for dialog and experimentation to support teacher growth” (p. 62). Fullan (2011) furthers this notion by saying that “when it comes to socialization there is no better teacher than one's peers” (p. 85). When professional sharing between peers is structured into daily and weekly schedules, a culture of learning is established and can be invigorating for all involved.

Motivational Factor: Time
During his observations, Vrasidas (2015) says that many teachers feel that planning a “technology” lesson takes a lot more time than a traditional lesson. Even though technology has the potential to help a classroom or lesson run more efficiently, teachers may feel that they do not have time to integrate it into their own practice. Schools can provide more flexibility in structuring the school day in a manner that allows for teachers to engage in professional conversations and establish what will work in their personal contexts (Whitehead, Jensen & Boschee, 2013).

Motivational Factor: Collaboration
An extension to support, collaboration is a motivational factor. Collaborative creation of lessons has a motivating influence on a team, generating a learning experience that can positively affect an individual teacher (Chong & Kong, 2012). When this factor is present, a change in teacher practice can be tied to the broader change initiative, developing a school community support network, influencing not only teachers to implement but for the community to implement as well. Collaboration also allows teachers to reflect on their own practice, whilst sharing their experiences with other members of their community. According to Slavit and McDuffie (2013), “self-directed teacher learning is an avenue for exploring questions of practice generated by teachers. When these questions are constructively negotiated by a teacher community, buy-in is almost certain” (p. 104).

Motivational Factor: Confidence
Having digital literacy (MacCallum, Jeffrey, & Kinshuk. 2014) and a positive attitude towards technology (Vrasidas, 2015; Sang et al., 2011) is a deciding factor on whether a teacher will successfully utilize technology in their daily practice. Being able to select from a wide range of technologies that support their pedagogical practice will also benefit lessons in a more authentic way (MacCallum et al., 2014).

Motivational Factor: Perceived Usefulness
In the end, teachers need to see technology as useful and beneficial to their students’ learning (Chen, 2008; Uluyol & Sahin, 2016; Vrasidas, 2015). This realization grows in part due to the other factors of time, support, collaboration and confidence. Having fluency of technology use as it applies into one’s own context, will take some time to cultivate but the benefits will most certainly emerge over the course of time.

A final Consideration: Learner-centered pedagogy
It should be considered whether one’s teaching is of sound practice even before the integration of technology. Chen (2008) points out that if technology has allowed for learners to seek out their own needs in learning, a more learner-centered approach in teaching and learning might mismatch with a school curriculum that is more teacher-centered and lecture-based. Curriculums that are not flexible or accommodate more interactive, learner-centered pedagogy may not be sufficient for technology integration (Uluyol & Sahin, 2016). An analysis of the current state of school curriculum as planned, taught and assessed can be a worthwhile endeavor before integrating technology into schools.
​
Conclusion
Leadership needs to keep in mind that teachers cannot just merely implement change without inquiring into how technology can affect their own personal practice. That is why the factors listed throughout this post may be crucial to teacher motivation and technology. Teachers will be the change agents who will not only implement reform but will also be valuable partners when assessing the level of its effectiveness. “When the nature of teacher learning is embedded throughout the educational system, more opportunities emerge to embed the practitioner knowledge into classrooms and the professional knowledge into broader educational contexts” (Slavit, & McDuffie, 2013, p. 104).

References

Cifuentes, L., Maxwell, G., & Bulu, S. (2011). Technology integration through professional learning community. Journal Of Educational Computing Research, 44, 59-82.

Chen, C. (2008). Why do teachers not practice what they believe regarding technology
integration? Journal Of Educational Research, 102(1), 65-75.

Chong, W. H., & Kong, C. A. (2012). Teacher collaborative learning and teacher self-efficacy: The case of lesson study. Journal Of Experimental Education, 80(3), 263-283.

Fullan, M. (2011). Change leader: Learning to do what matters most. Wiley. Kindle Edition.

Mac Callum, K., Jeffrey, L., & Kinshuk. (2014). Factors impacting teachers’ adoption of
mobile learning. Journal Of Information Technology Education, 13, 141-162.

Slavit, D., & McDuffie, A. R. (2013). Self-directed teacher learning in collaborative
contexts. School Science & Mathematics, 113(2), 94-105. doi:10.1111/ssm.12001

Sang, G., Valcke, M., van Braak, J., Tondeur, J., & Zhu, C. (2011). Predicting ICT integration into classroom teaching in Chinese primary schools: Exploring the complex interplay of teacher-related variables. Journal Of Computer Assisted Learning, 27(2), 160-172.

Uluyol, Ç., & Sahin, S. (2016). Elementary school teachers' ICT use in the classroom and
their motivators for using ICT. British Journal Of Educational Technology, 47(1), 65-75.

Vrasidas, C. (2015). The rhetoric of reform and teachers' use of ICT. British Journal Of
Educational Technology, 46(2), 370-380. doi:10.1111/bjet.12149

​Whitehead, B. M., Jensen, D., & Boschee, F. A. (2013). Planning for technology: A guide for school administrators, technology coordinators, and curriculum leaders. SAGE Publications. Kindle Edition.

The most distinguishable aspect of qualitative research for me is that it is more applicable to the smaller sample sizes (our classrooms) available to us as teacher/researchers . It also considers the whole of our local situations as opposed to particular variables in larger quantitative research studies. For most of us teaching in international schools, the application of our action research will take place in the qualitative realm of research.

In my context, learning is very student-centered and promotes learning that meaningful to students, building within them skills and concepts that they can carry with them into the 21st century and beyond the classroom context. An advantage of qualitative research is that “the goal is to understand the situation under investigation primarily form the participants’ not the researcher’s perspective” (Hancock & Algozzine, p. 9, 2011). If curriculum is to be successful in the education of students, then it should not only align with the goals of the school but it should also be meaningful to the students. Qualitative research can be a very powerful tool for an action researcher in understanding how to promote more meaningful learning in a school. ​

When we view general data from quantitative studies with larger samples and more general populations, we can compare a smaller sample from our unique contexts through qualitative research methods. Having a more holistic view of how certain phenomenon apply, we can make more specific conclusions for the implications on our teaching and learning.


Reference:
Hancock, D. R., & Algozzine, B. (2011).  Doing case study research:  A practical guide for beginning researchers (2nd ed.).  New York:  Teachers College Press.  (ISBN-10: 0807752681, ISBN-13: 978-0807752685)

I was given a copy of Alain de Bottons The Art of Travel recently and had been trudging through its essays this summer. In this collection, De Botton develops his views on travel by exploring the perspectives of some intellectual greats in western history. Each essay left me somewhat unsatisfied until I came across On Curiosity. 

On Curiosity mirrors De Botton’s own lethargic, travel-book guided approach to experiencing Madrid one weekend to that of Alexander Von Humboldt, the German scientist/explorer. Von Humboldt explored South America from 1799-1804.

De Botton describes Von Humboldt as a relentless explorer in the name of science who traveled unknown lands, never fearful of what lied next. Driven by his curiosities, he gained heaps of information and facts about different plants, animals, peoples, geology, and geography of South America. His interests were not confined to any particular discipline or expectation as he wondered, questioned, collected data and conceptualized.

De Botton also writes about how Von Humboldt’s inquiring ways as a child were supported by his parents. They bought him a microscope, books about nature, hired tutors who understood botany, and hung pictures he drew of plants on their walls. Von Humboldt was obsessed with knowing more about the natural world at a very young age and he had the means to do so.

After his 5-year journey he returned to Europe in 1804. Many people of higher influence in the scientific community and general society pursued him to hear about his experience and findings.  Like a modern day rock star he was sought out wherever he went.

“He once travelled 15000 km around a territory virtually unknown to any other European.”

“He traversed the (once thought to be) world’s highest mountain.”

“He formulated laws on how flora and fauna were shaped by climate and geography.”

“…and he did it with that same too-cool-for-school look present on his face in every image included in the essay.”

“He is the world’s most interesting scientist.”

The only thing that was missing from the portraits of Von Humboldt was a tavern, a bar table, an entourage of admirers, and goblets of his favorite ale.



Attributions:
Griffin, P. and Care, E. (2014). Assessing and Teaching of 21st Century Skills.