Exploring Secondary School Principals’ and Arabic Language Teachers’ Beliefs and Practices with Technology in Saudi Arabia
Author Alghamdi, Abdulmajeed Mohammed B
Published 2016
Thesis Type Thesis (PhD Doctorate)
School School of Education and Professional Studies
DOI https://doi.org/10.25904/1912/816
Copyright Statement The author owns the copyright in this thesis, unless stated otherwise.
Downloaded from http://hdl.handle.net/10072/367707
Griffith Research Online https://research-repository.griffith.edu.au
Exploring secondary school principals’ and
Arabic language teachers’ beliefs and practices
with technology in Saudi Arabia
Abdulmajeed Mohammed Alghamdi
Bachelor of Education and teaching Arabic language (University College in AL-Qunfudah)
Master of Education (Umm Al-Qura University)
Submitted in fulfillment of the requirements of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy School of Education & Professional Studies Griffith University
November 2015 Abstract
This study explores the uses of educational technology as echoed in principals’ and Arabic language teachers’ beliefs and classroom practices. The research is conducted in Saudi Arabia, where the integration of information and communication technologies (ICT) in schools is still at its infancy. Previous research indicates that the use of ICT in education has been limited. This thesis is based on the argument that these limitations result from the lack of the pedagogical use of technology. Understanding principals’ and teachers’ pedagogical rationales and in-depth responses is important for the successful integration of ICT. This research investigates teachers’ ICT beliefs and practices. In particular, this research endeavours to identify the relationship between teachers’ technology beliefs and practices in the classroom and the factors influencing this relationship. This study also investigates school principals’ beliefs on the use of technology and on teachers’ ICT practices. The study aims to identify the relationship between principals’ beliefs and teachers’ beliefs and practices with regard to ICT, as well as to confirm or determine other factors influencing teachers’ technology practices.
With the abundant studies measuring teachers’ self-reported attitudes and practices, and taking into consideration that teachers’ practices do not always reflect their beliefs, the researcher considers direct evidence of practice beyond self-reported practice as crucial in bridging research into school reality. Additionally, the nature of this study’s focus requires in-depth understanding and exploration. Therefore, this study applied a sequential mixed-methods design, which includes both quantitative and qualitative analyses, to examine the data and answer the research questions. Eighty-two Arabic language teachers serving in technology-equipped secondary schools in Jeddah City, Saudi Arabia filled out quantitative questionnaires on their beliefs and self- reported practices. This step was followed by the conduct of a multi-case design involving 12 teachers who were administered previous quantitative questionnaires and were involved in qualitative pre-lesson interviews, direct classroom observations and post-lesson interviews. Additionally, 67 principals filled out quantitative questionnaires, and this was followed by 12 qualitative interviews with 12 principals.
The quantitative findings indicate that the Saudi secondary school principals and teachers have positive beliefs about technology use in general. The findings also indicate that the respondents report high use of teacher-centred technology practice
i because they often prefer technology as an information presentation tool. Following the teachers’ qualitative within cross-case and the principals’ thematic analysis and the use of activity theory model as analytical tools, four distinct foci were identified across the sample in terms of the teachers’ epistemic and pedagogical beliefs about technology use; their technology practice in the classroom; the level of (in)consistency between reported and observed practices; the impact of external factors on their practice and the principals’ pedagogical beliefs about technology use; technology practices and the impact of external factors on teachers’ practices. Inconsistencies were identified in some cases between teachers’ reported and observed practices in terms of using student- centred approaches and student interaction with technology. The findings also indicate inconsistencies between secondary school principals and teachers, especially in relation to technology practice in terms of types, levels and frequencies of technology use.
Several contextual factors, both school and system related, such as technology problems and technical support, principals’ attitudes towards technology, school culture, absence of ICT school policy, lack of pedagogical professional development, time and curriculum constraints, and problematic communication and cooperation between involved agents, seem to account for this inconsistency. However, these factors, which are the same for all participants, had differing effects on the four emerging groups, and highlighted the influence of additional teacher-related factors. These included teachers’ limited technical competency, lack of pedagogical knowledge, limitations on students’ access to technology and their perceptions of responsibilities.
The findings highlight the requirement for teachers to completely understand the pedagogical use of technology that supports student learning, through greater student participation in technology practice. The tensions identified within the teachers’ activity systems by the activity theory model suggest the need for ICT changes. These not only concern practitioners but also policy makers, who are responsible for setting the framework for classroom practice and establishing clear and feasible policies on the pedagogical use of technology and curriculum integration. Implications also arise for school principals because they orchestrate ICT initiatives, and they need to establish effective communication and cooperation between the Ministry of Education and other schools involved. Finally, this study offers recommendations to ICT training organisers and instructors in designing and conducting training programs associated with pedagogical approaches. Synthesis of the findings leads to the development of a
ii typology depicting a relationship between beliefs and practices. Therefore, quantitative studies are needed to investigate the relative significance and practices of the typology of beliefs and practices identified in this study. Future research examining technology integration in education in relation to the aims of the educational system and within the broad context of educational reform can also be conducted. Such a research direction can be further explored, especially given an understanding of the influence of these factors.
iii Table of Contents
Abstract ...... i
Table of Contents ...... iv
List of Figures ...... viii
List of Tables ...... x
List of Abbreviations ...... xii
Statement of Originality ...... xiii
Published Work ...... xiv
Acknowledgments ...... xv
Chapter 1: Introduction ...... 1 1.1 Background ...... 1 1.2 Empirical Setting ...... 3 1.3 Aims of the Study ...... 15 1.4 Significance of the Study ...... 15 1.5 Key Terms ...... 17 1.6 Thesis Structure ...... 19
Chapter 2: Literature Review ...... 21 2.1 Introduction ...... 21 2.2 ICT in Education ...... 21 2.3 Theoretical Perspectives on Technology Integration ...... 22 2.4 Principals’ Beliefs about Technology use ...... 30 2.5 Teachers’ Beliefs about Technology Use ...... 32 2.6 Pedagogical Practices with Technology ...... 36 2.7 Influence of Beliefs about Technology upon Practices ...... 38 2.8 Factors Influencing Technology Use ...... 39 2.9 The Conceptual Framework of the Current Study ...... 45
iv 2.10 Chapter Summary ...... 47
Chapter 3: Study Methodology and Design ...... 49 3.1 Introduction ...... 49 3.2 Research Focus ...... 49 3.3 Methodological Paradigm ...... 50 3.4 Research Design ...... 52 3.5 The Study Population and Sample ...... 54 3.6 Methods of Data Collection ...... 57 3.7 Data Collection ...... 69 3.7.1 Principal Data Collection ...... 69 3.7.2 Teacher Data Collection ...... 70 3.8 Data Analysis ...... 72 3.8.1 Quantitative Data Analysis ...... 72 3.8.2 Qualitative Data Analysis ...... 74 Teachers’ Qualitative Data Analysis ...... 74 Principals’ Qualitative Data Analysis ...... 78 3.8.3 Theoretical Frameworks for Data Analysis ...... 79 3.9 Ethical Considerations ...... 82 3.10 Chapter Summary ...... 84
Chapter 4: Principals’ Quantitative Results ...... 85 4.1 Demographic Characteristics ...... 85 4.2 Principals’ Pedagogical Beliefs about Technology Use ...... 87 4.3 Principals’ Beliefs about Teachers’ Classroom Practices with Technology ...... 89 4.4 Relationship between Principals’ Pedagogical Beliefs about Technology Use and their Beliefs about Teachers’ Classroom Practices ...... 90 4.5 Demographic Factors Influencing Principals’ Beliefs ...... 93
v 6.7 Chapter Summary ...... 93
Chapter 5: Principals’ Qualitative Results ...... 96 5.1 Pedagogical Beliefs about Technology Use ...... 98 5.2 Beliefs about Teachers’ Classroom Practices with Technology ..... 101 5.3 Beliefs about Teachers’ Technological Skills ...... 104 5.4 Factors Influencing Teachers’ Technology Use ...... 106 5.5 School Support for Using Technology ...... 114 5.6 Emerging Groups ...... 115 5.7 Chapter Summary ...... 129
Chapter 6: Teachers’ Quantitative Results ...... 130 6.1 Demographic Characteristics ...... 131 6.2 Teachers’ Pedagogical Beliefs about Technology Use ...... 133 6.3 Teachers’ Technological Skills...... 134 6.4 Teachers’ Classroom Practices with Technology ...... 135 6.5 Relationship between Teachers’ Pedagogical Beliefs about Technology Use and their Classroom Practices with Technology ...... 137 6.6 Demographic Factors Influencing Teachers’ Beliefs and Practices 142 6.7 Chapter Summary ...... 143
Chapter 7: Teachers’ Multi-case Study ...... 146 7.1 Within-case analysis: Case Narratives ...... 148 7.2 Cross-case Analysis: Comparing Responses ...... 197 7.2.1 Response Range ...... 197 7.2.2 Emerging Groups ...... 214 7.3 Chapter Summary ...... 220
Chapter 8: Discussion and Conclusion ...... 222 8.1 Conclusions from the Main Findings ...... 222 8.2 Implications for Change ...... 265
vi 8.3 Recommendations for Practice ...... 267 8.4 Contributions of the Study ...... 269 8.5 Study Limitations ...... 271 8.6 Future Research ...... 272 8.7 Final Remarks ...... 273
References ...... 274
Appendices ...... 290 Appendix A Principal Questionnaire ...... 290 Appendix B Teacher Questionnaire ...... 293 Appendix C Pre-lesson interview schedule ...... 296 Appendix D Observation schedule ...... 298 Appendix E Post-lesson interview schedule ...... 301 Appendix F Principal interview schedule ...... 302 Appendix G Data analysis of principals’ demographic factors ...... 304 Appendix H Data analysis of teachers’ demographic factors ...... 306 Appendix I Observed lessons of the four cases studies presented in the within-case analysis section ...... 309
vii List of Figures
Figure 2.1 Technological PCK framework (Mishra & Koehler, 2006) ..... 44 Figure 2.2 The conceptual framework of the study...... 46 Figure 3.1 Three stages of research design ...... 52 Figure 3.2 Timeline of data collection ...... 72 Figure 3.3 Example of teacher thematic coding ...... 77 Figure 3.4 Event flow network about the use of technology ...... 77 Figure 3.5 Example of principals' thematic coding ...... 79 Figure 3.6 The structure of the human activity system (Engeström, 1987)30 Figure 5.1 A Group A: A Student-centred Activity System ...... 123 Figure 5.2 Group B: Mix-primarily student-centred’ activity system ...... 125 Figure 5.3 Group C: Mix-Primarily teacher-centred activity system ...... 126 Figure 5.4 Group D: teacher-centred activity system ...... 128 Figure 7.1 Fareed’s classroom layout ...... 150 Figure 7.2 Fareed’s activity system ...... 161 Figure 7.3 Naseer’s classroom layout ...... 163 Figure 7.4 Examples of grammatical and spelling errors shown by Naseer’s students ...... 164 Figure 7.5 Naseer’s activity system ...... 175 Figure 7.6 Amaad’s classroom layout ...... 177 Figure 7.7 Time management software and website technologies used by Amaad ...... 181 Figure 7.8 Amaad’s activity system ...... 184 Figure 7.9 Amro’s classroom layout ...... 186 Figure 7.10 Amro’s activity system ...... 195 Figure 8.1 Principals’ pedagogical beliefs about technology use ...... 224 Figure 8.2 Principals’ beliefs about teachers’ practices with technology 227 Figure 8.3 Teachers’ epistemic beliefs about technology use ...... 236
viii Figure 8.4 Teachers’ pedagogical beliefs about technology use ...... 237 Figure 8.5 Teachers’ technological skills ...... 240 Figure 8.6 Teachers’ classroom practice with technology ...... 242 Figure 8.7 Tensions in principals’ and teachers’ activity systems ...... 257 Figure 8.8 Relationship between beliefs and practices, and intervening factors ...... 264
ix List of Tables
Table 1.1 Secondary School teacher’s Qualifications ...... 5 Table 1.2 Projects for Implementation of ICT in Saudi Public Education ... 7 Table 3.1 Research Questions ...... 49 Table 3.2 Demographic Information of Model Schools ...... 55 Table 3.3 Research Questions and Data Sources ...... 57 Table 3.4 Definition of Components in Principals’ and Teachers’ Activity System ...... 81 Table 4.1 Summary of Principals’ Demographic Characteristics ...... 86 Table 4.2 Cronbach’s Alpha and Number of Items of the PBQ Subscales and Total Items for Principals (n = 67) ...... 87 Table 4.3 Principals’ Pedagogical Beliefs about Technology Use ...... 88 Table 4.5 Principals’ Beliefs about Teachers’ Classroom Practices with Technology ...... 89 Table 4.6 Pearson’s Correlation Coefficients of Principals’ Beliefs about Technology Use and Their Beliefs about Teachers’ Practices with Technology ...... 91 Table 5.1 Demographic information about the interviewed principals...... 96 Table 5.2 Typology of principals' beliefs about technology use ...... 97 Table 5.3 ICT Availability in the Principals’ Schools ...... 108 Table 5.4 ICT Training Courses Provided in the Participating Principals' Schools ...... 111 Table 6.1 Summary of Teachers’ Demographic Characteristics ...... 131 Table 6.2 Cronbach’s Alpha and Number of Items of the TBPQ Subscales and Total Items, (n = 82) ...... 132 Table 6.3 Teachers’ Pedagogical Beliefs about Technology Use ...... 133 Table 6.4 Teachers’ Technological Knowledge and Skills ...... 135 Table 6.5 Teachers’ Classroom Practices with Technology Use ...... 136
x Table 6.6 Pearson Correlation Coefficients of Teachers’ Pedagogical Beliefs about Technology Use and Their Perceived Classroom Practices with Technology ...... 138 Table 7.1 Teachers’ Demographic Information ...... 146 Table 7.2 Typology of Teachers’ Beliefs and Practices with Technology 148 Table 7.3 ICT Availability in the Teachers' Schools ...... 209 Table 7.4 Ministry of Education, School and Self-Funded Training Courses Provided in Participating Teachers' Schools ...... 212 Table 8.1 Typology of Principals’ Beliefs about Technology Use ...... 231 Table 8.2 Typology of Teachers’ Beliefs and Classroom Practices with Technology ...... 247 Table 8.3 A model-differentiated Typology of Principals’ Beliefs and Teachers’ Beliefs and Practices with Technology...... 253
xi List of Abbreviations
ICT Information Communication Technology IWB Interactive White Board LMS Learning Management System TPACK Technological, Pedagogical and Content Knowledge PK Pedagogical Knowledge TPK Technological Pedagogical Knowledge PCK Pedagogical Content Knowledge TCK Technological Content Knowledge PC Personal Computer AT Activity Theory TC Teacher-centred SC Student-centred MOE Ministry of Education SPSS Statistical Package for Social Sciences
xii Statement of Originality
This work has not previously been submitted for a degree or diploma in any university. To the best of my knowledge and belief, the thesis contains no material previously published or written by another person except where due reference is made in the thesis itself.
Abdulmajeed Alghamdi
Date: 19 / 11 / 2015
xiii Published Work
The following conference papers and journal article were published during the period of the study for this thesis, some of which are referred to within the text.
Alghamdi, A, & Prestridge, S. (2015). Alignment Between Principal And Teacher Beliefs About Technology Use. Australian Educational Computing, 30(1).
Alghamdi, A, & Prestridge, S. (2014). Principal and teacher beliefs about online learning technologies. Paper presented at the Computers in Education International Conference: Adelaide, Australia.
Alghamdi, A, & Prestridge, S. (2014). A typology of principals’ leadership styles and beliefs in online technology-based classrooms: A developmental view. Paper presented at the Australian Association for Research in Education International Conference: Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia.
xiv Acknowledgments
In the name of Allah, most gracious, most merciful
All praise is due to Allah’s peace, and blessings be upon His Slave and His Messenger, Prophet Mohammed. Thanks be to Allah for all the uncountable bounties He has granted me.
My heartfelt thanks and sincere gratitude go to my father, who passed away four years ago. I will never forget his support and encouragement. May Allah bless his soul and grant him the highest levels of Paradise. Also, I give my heartfelt thanks to my mother for her prayers, support, love and encouragement throughout my candidature. Also, I give my heartfelt thanks to my brothers, sisters, relatives and friends for their support and encouragement. I am grateful to my family, who travelled to be with me in Australia throughout my candidature; thank you to my wife, my daughters, and my son for their patience, support, encouragement and love.
I would like to thank my supervisors at the School of Education and Professional Studies at Griffith University, especially my principal supervisor Dr. Sarah Prestridge for her valuable time, expertise, continuous support, guidance and encouragement during all stages of my PhD programme. Also, I would like to thank my associate supervisor, associate professor Dr. Rod Gardner, for his valuable time, guidance and wise comments. I have been very lucky to have these distinguished supervisors. Their critical advice and expertise have been significant in forming my ideas and completing this thesis.
I am grateful to the academic and professional staff and my colleagues in the School of Education and Professional Studies for their advice and support. Also, special thanks to Dr. Peter Grimbeek for his advice with the statistical quantitative analysis of this study.
I am grateful for everyone’s co-operation during the study’s data collection. Special thanks to secondary school principals and Arabic language teachers. Without their participation, this thesis would have been unattainable. Finally, I am grateful to Umm Al-Qura University for granting me a scholarship and other financial support to pursue my PhD thesis.
xv Chapter 1: Introduction
This thesis describes the research conducted within the framework of a PhD degree. The introductory chapter provides a brief background to the study and an outline of the empirical setting employed. The chapter also presents the aim of the study, followed by research questions and the significance of the study. Definition of key terms and the thesis structure are also provided in order to assist the reader.
1.1 Background
Over the last several decades, information and communication technology (ICT) has become a significant component of social and economic life (Heirdsfield, Davis, Lennox, Walker, & Zhang, 2007). ICT has also become a vital component of the education system, satisfying the needs of teachers and students, providing education of a high quality, and increasing opportunities for student-centred (SC) learning (Heirdsfield, Walker, Tambyah, & Beutel, 2011). In comparison to traditional learning, teaching with ICT has several advantages, particularly with regard to convenience and flexibility – ‘learning anytime and anywhere’ (Peerapat, 2010). With the current attention to the use of educational technologies, teachers are required to understand how to integrate these technologies into classroom practices and apply pedagogical approaches, as well as transform the way students learn (DeNeui & Dodge, 2006).
Numerous research studies, both on a small and large scale, have been conducted exploring the benefits of using ICT in education in an attempt to evaluate the impact of ICT on the quality of teaching and learning. For example, research findings have suggested that using ICT in education enables students to take an active role in their learning rather than be information receivers or listeners (Balanskat, Blamire, & Kefala, 2012; Gao & Hargis, 2010). Other research concluded that using ICT in education develops problem-solving learning skills, fosters collaborative learning, provides flexible learning opportunities, and increases productivity (Al-shehri, 2012; Chambers, 2011). In addition, other international research findings underline the facilitation of self-directed student learning (Smeets, 2005) and the impact of ICT on classroom strategies (Cox & Webb, 2004; Hennessy, 2006).
Recently, a special interest in beliefs about technology and their relationship with classroom practices with respect to technology use has developed in the literature (and current study). This interest has been driven by diverse evidence confirming that
1 beliefs are strong predictors of classroom behaviour (Pajares, 1992). With regard to technology integration, studies reveal that teachers who hold positive beliefs and attitudes towards technology tend to highly integrate technology in their teaching, whereas negative beliefs and attitudes discourage the use of technology (Alaugab, 2007; Komis & Jimoyiannis, 2007). Studies also indicate that despite insufficient technologies in schools, teachers still try to exploit available resources in a pedagogical way, unlike others who make no attempt to use them (Ertmer, Paul, Molly, Eva, & Denise, 1999). Furthermore, research findings suggest that teachers’ epistemic beliefs about knowledge and learning and their pedagogical beliefs about teaching affect their instructional practice and that teachers tend to use activities and pedagogies to meet their own perspectives of knowledge, learning, and teaching (Lee, Zhang, Song, & Huang, 2013). In addition, teacher classroom practices can be affected by the pedagogical beliefs of school principals about teaching. According to Harrison (2011), the beliefs of an organisation can shape the use of technology and affect the willingness of college faculty members to teach through online learning. Moreover, studies that have explored the impact of school principals on classroom practices indicated the importance of the principal’s intervention, attitude, vision, and understanding of technology use in education (Hew & Brush, 2007; Voogt & Pelgrum, 2009).
In order to obtain a better understanding of teachers’ classroom practice with technology, frameworks for pedagogical practices with technology were reviewed. These include Ainley, Banks, and Fleming’s (2002) framework for the typology of technology use, Beauchamp’s (2004) transitional framework for pedagogical practices with ICT, Tondeur, Van Braak, and Valcke’s (2007) framework for typology of technology use, Lewin, Somekh, and Steadman’s (2008) framework for pedagogical practices with ICT, and Ertmer’s (2012) framework for categories of classroom practices. These frameworks suggested different levels of technology use, including the use of technology as an information resource tool, authoring tool, knowledge reinforcement tool, and knowledge construction tool. These frameworks also suggested that teachers’ practices with technology range from teacher-centred (TC) practices, wherein the implementation of activities a teacher uses to promote learning are emphasized, to student-centred (SC) practices, wherein students have an active role in classroom teaching activities.
Although the importance of beliefs are strong predictors of classroom behaviour,
2 studies highlight inconsistencies between teachers’ beliefs and practices, particularly between reported and observed practices (Judson, 2006; Mama & Hennessy, 2013). Research studies attributed these inconsistencies to the contextual factors that interfere with teachers’ ability to apply their beliefs in practice (Fang, 1996; Keys, 2005). Thus, beliefs, practices, and factors all need to be considered to obtain a comprehensive conceptualisation of the integration process (Davis, 2010; Mishra & Koehler, 2006). In this thesis, a sociocultural approach and activity theory in particular, are employed as analytic tools. The significance of beliefs, a epistemologically and pedagogically informed practice with technology, and other contextual factors that frame technology integration into schooling, comprise the theoretical framework of this exploratory study. The researcher examines principals’ and teachers’ beliefs and practices with technology within the context of secondary education in Saudi Arabia. The following is an overview of the context and methodology employed to answer the research questions.
1.2 Empirical Setting
This section provides a description of the empirical area of this study. Also, the research process is described in this section.
1.2.1 The Context of the Study
A description of the empirical area of this study is made in this section; the attempts to integrate ICT in Saudi secondary education alongside policy and curriculum issues are pointed out. Also, findings from research studies related to the integration of ICT into Saudi schooling are reported.
Why Saudi secondary schools
The major reason for choosing Saudi secondary schools as the empirical setting for the current study is that the current project by the Ministry of Education (MOE) is to integrate ICT into Saudi education. The MOE has focused this project mainly on secondary schools, with some secondary classes now having access to the Internet. Secondly, as a lecturer in the Faculty of Education of the Arabic language curriculum and teaching methods at Umm Al-Qura University in Saudi Arabia, with the responsibility of supervising and preparing university graduates to be teachers in Saudi secondary schools, this researcher is concerned about the country’s educational development. Therefore, selecting secondary schools will assist in determining the beliefs of principals and teachers regarding the use of technology in classroom practice.
3 Moreover, with the integration of ICT in Saudi schools still being in its infancy, this study is expected to make a positive contribution in a context where the initiative is at a similar stage.
Arabic lessons were selected because the impact of the beliefs of teachers on classroom instruction has been noted in prior research, particularly in mathematics, reading, and science. However, little research has been conducted to identify a similar link to Arabic language teachers’ classroom uses of technology.
Secondary school education in Saudi Arabia comprises three years and generally serves students in the 15-to-19-year-old age group (the equivalent of grades 10–12 in the Australian education system). All students in the first grade study the same curriculum elements, but in the second and third years, they have the option to study one of the following areas: Islamic and Arabic studies, Management and Social Sciences, Natural Sciences, or Technological Sciences. Passing the examinations with high marks at the end of secondary school provides students with the opportunity to gain university and college admission on a priority basis.
Students who maintain high grade-point averages in Arabic language science at the 10th-grade level are encouraged to enrol in Islamic and Arabic programs, while those who obtain high grade-point averages in mathematics and physical science at the 10th-grade level are encouraged to enrol in the natural science program. The school year includes two semesters, each of which is 20 weeks long and has a two-week examination period. Class periods are 45 minutes long, and weekly schedules vary between 26 and 33 periods, depending on grade and subject emphasis. To earn a Secondary School Certificate, students must complete the required credits and pass their individual subject examinations with a grade of no less than fifty per cent of the maximum score (Algamdy, 2006).
The MOE in Saudi Arabia encourages teachers and principals to integrate ICT into school teaching and learning activities. Currently, all schools require student assessment to be displayed at the official website of the MOE. The major objectives for secondary education in Saudi Arabia are as follows: developing student skills and channelling them into a method appropriate for each student; providing students with opportunities to pursue their studies at various levels of higher education; preparing students to work in various fields of activity; taking care of young people according to Saudi culture; addressing students’ intellectual and emotional problems; and guiding
4 students towards a successful future by developing their scientific thinking abilities and teaching them about the spirit of research, systematic analysis, the use of reference sources, and the practice of academic methods (Alhugail, 2011).
Secondary school principals in Saudi Arabia are normally assigned by the Department of Education in the region to manage public secondary schools. Other than having graduated from an academic department of a Saudi university, school principals or assistant principals may acquire a diploma in leadership from either Saudi universities or colleges. If their qualifications seem appealing to the Department of Education, they are given school principal or assistant principal positions. Besides their qualifications, school principals in Saudi Arabia also begin their careers in education as teachers, meaning that they are experienced in teaching.
Secondary school teachers, currently assigned by the government to serve in public secondary schools in Saudi Arabia, are classified into three categories according to their qualifications (Table 1.1)
Table 1.1 Secondary School teacher’s Qualifications
Graduate of an academic department at a Saudi university Graduate of an education department1 at a Saudi university who has obtained a pedagogical diploma after graduation Graduate of a teacher college2 in Saudi Arabia who has obtained a pedagogical diploma after graduating from an academic department at a Saudi university
Regarding those who have graduated from an academic department at a Saudi university and are currently working at secondary schools, the MOE encourages them to attain a pedagogical diploma either from the education department of a Saudi university or from an educational college.
1 Currently it has become compulsory for pre-service teachers to pursue, at minimum, a one-year diploma course at an education department of a Saudi university or educational college in order to qualify as a secondary school teacher. 2 Recently, teacher colleges, also known as educational colleges, have been classified as partial universities. They prepare students to be both academics and educators. They also provide training programs for in-service teachers.
5 Educational system in Saudi Arabia
The formal educational system of Saudi Arabia is highly centralized and controlled by the MOE and the Department of Education. The only possible example of decentralisation is seen in the authority of the school principal to address students’ and teachers’ behavioural issues and to manage very minor infrastructure issues (Alzaidi, 2008). All public schools are funded centrally, either directly by the MOE or by authorization of the Department of Education in the state to manage government funding. Within this context, school curricula and textbooks, along with guidelines on how to implement the curricula, are determined by the MOE. Therefore, all secondary schools use the same curriculum and textbooks, although teachers are allowed to use other relevant material in their classes. Schools are occasionally visited by educational state supervisors, who are responsible for assessing the general operation of schools and teachers’ practices.
On December 24, 1953, a new era in the development of modern education began with the establishment of the MOE as a part of the Council of Ministers. The MOE was established to focus on achieving the following aims: (a) prompt an understanding of Islam, including Islamic faith and values; (b) develop constructive behavioural trends; (c) reform society culturally, economically and socially; and (d) prepare individuals for useful and constructive social roles (Al-Abdullatif, 2012).
King Fahd Ibn Abdulaziz was the first Minister of Education to direct the Education Ministry to establish more schools throughout the country. In 1958, The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia along with other members of the Arab League, agreed upon a uniform educational system that provided for a six-year elementary, three-year intermediate, and three-year secondary cycle with a separate higher education program (Algamdy, 2006). The education system in Saudi Arabia comprises the following four levels: firstly, pre-elementary level, which is not mandatory and which aims to prepare both boys and girls for elementary education. Children are taught at this level for two years. At the ages of four and five, children are enrolled in nursery and preliminary schools respectively. The second level is elementary level schooling, which is mandatory and is also considered as the foundation for the development of an overall educational program. At the age of six, children are enrolled in elementary school, where they spend a total of six years. The school year includes two semesters, each with approximately 15 weeks of classes and a two-week examination period. Recently,
6 grades 1–4 were exempted from these examinations and were instead subjected to regular evaluation by teachers through continuous assessment. In the daily elementary school schedule, students have six 45-minute classes. Boys and girls in separate schools study the standard curriculum. At grade 4 of this level, English becomes a required subject and remains compulsory throughout intermediate and secondary school.
In Saudi Arabia, education is free at all levels, but is not compulsory. Schooling is divided into three stages: primary education (six levels, from 6 years of age, equivalent to grades 1–6), intermediate education (three levels, equivalent to grades 7– 9), and secondary education (three levels, equivalent to grades 10–12).
Integrating ICT into Saudi schooling
ICT started to be used in public education in Saudi Arabia in 1985 as a subject at special advanced secondary schools. It comprised introductory computer science, BASIC and systems programming, and information systems. In 1991, the MOE introduced a specific curriculum for computer studies for all public secondary schools as a compulsory subject with two classes per week; however, in the primary and intermediate education stages, it remained an optional subject (Oyaid, 2009). Since then, the MOE has made efforts towards increasing technology integration in the schools. In 1991, the General Administration for Educational Technology was created to manage and oversee the integration of technology into classrooms and to develop the quality of education with that technology (Moshaikeh, 1992). Since 1991, four initiatives relating to technology integration in education have been developed by the Saudi MOE (Table 1.2).
Table 1.2 Projects for Implementation of ICT in Saudi Public Education
Project Purpose A (1991–1997) Develop schools’ libraries to be learning resource centres Learning Resource Equip these learning resource centres with teacher Centres computers and student computers, printers, projectors, network connectivity, and educational and multimedia programs B (1997–2000) Provide schools with computer labs. The National Net Connect schools to computer networks.
7 C (2007–present) Encourage teachers and principals to use technology in Education classrooms. Development Equip classrooms with ICT equipment, including teacher and student laptop computers, and interactive whiteboard. Provide teachers with training programs to use technology in the classroom. D (2007–present) Provide teachers at schools with various workshops The Centre for E- relating to technology use. learning
In 1997, The Learning Resource Centres Project was established to develop schools’ libraries into learning resource centres to support teaching and learning processes. Each learning resource centre (LRC) is equipped with computers for teachers and students, printers, projectors, network connectivity, and educational and multimedia programs. The aim of this project was to develop all of the country’s school libraries, beginning gradually by developing 2000 to 3500 school libraries each year (Alsalman, 2011, March). In addition, The National Net Project (Watani) was introduced in 2000 to provide schools with computer labs and connect them to computer networks (Al- Aqeely, 2001). This project was supported with a budget of SAR 100 Million (Benna & Al-Harigi, 2006).
The Centre for E-learning, which was established in 2007 by the Ministry of Higher Education, conducted various workshops with teachers at school on topics such as designing online content and applications for online learning. These workshops aimed to help teachers integrate technology into their teaching (Ministry of Higher Education, 2007). The Saudi Arabian government has paid special attention to developing ICT infrastructure and employing it in education and learning. Today, in addition to increasing the number of schools, the government has established student libraries and LRCs that consist of information sources in both print and non-print forms, including ICT, which can be integrated into the teaching and learning process to create rich learning environments (Oyaid, 2009).
As mentioned in the first chapter, King Abdulah’s Education Development
8 Project3 (Tatweer) was launched in 2007 to re-qualify teachers and principals to use technology in classroom teaching and learning (Ministry of Education, 2007). One of the major goals in this initiative was to equip classrooms with ICT equipment, including teacher and student laptop computers, and interactive whiteboards (IWB). Furthermore, this project aimed to provide nearly 400,000 teachers of various subjects with training programs to use this equipment. This project started in principal Saudi Arabian cities, with plans to expand further over the next few years.
This study found that in Jeddah city, according to the Department of Education, there are approximately 75 secondary schools that are supposed to be model schools in terms of their building facilities, management, and technological infrastructure. In each, school there are computer labs and learning room resources, and in classrooms, there are student computers as well as a computer for the teacher and an IWB (instead of the conventional blackboard) connected to the Internet via broadband. According to the MOE, the technologies in the model schools are expected to be generalised and available in all schools within the next few years4. The principals and Arabic language teachers serving at the model schools were randomly assigned and no ICT training or other criteria were set for their selection.
Although the emphasis of the previous four government initiatives was on technology integration, the aim of these initiatives was to focus more on equipping schools with technologies. Bill Gates, founder of Microsoft Corporation, emphasized on three not necessarily sequential steps towards the integration of computers into classrooms (Gates, 2000). Step one is related to the establishment of infrastructure and teachers’ pupils’ training. Step two is the use of computers to improve existing models of teaching and learning. Step three is the use of computers to transform models of teaching and learning. The last two steps seem to have been overlooked in government initiatives toward technology integration.
Integrating ICT into Arabic Language teaching in Saudi Arabia
Arabic language is considered one of the most significant subjects to teach in secondary schools in Saudi Arabia. Typically, Arabic language classroom activities are dominated
3 At the time this dissertation was written, this project was signaled as the last government initiative for technology integration into education. 4 At the time this dissertation was written, little progress had been made towards this goal.
9 by the teacher. Compared to the education models in schools in the US and European countries, where students are encouraged to participate in classroom activities, students in Saudi secondary schools are more likely to remain silent in the classroom and listen to their teachers. Traditional teaching methods such as lecturing and rote learning have remained mostly unchanged when teaching Arabic language. Students’ learning still focuses on the acquisition of vast knowledge through rote memorization, wherein the teacher encourages students to memorise lesson content while neglecting some skills such as understanding, analysis, creativity and criticism (Shatah, 1996). Edwards (2011) argued that traditional pedagogy, wherein perceived knowledge is a certain skill that needs to be constantly exercised, leads to knowledge transmission through drilling but does not develop students’ higher-order thinking.
Nowadays, there are a number of Arabic learning ICT tools and resources, including the Internet that teachers can use to support teaching Arabic language subjects in the classroom. The MOE in Saudi Arabia encourages teachers to integrate technology into classroom teaching practices. However, a recent survey conducted by Hamed (2012) indicated that the teaching of Arabic in Saudi Arabia is dominated by the use of conventional methods, with some assistance from commonly available tools such as computers, computer labs, floppy disks, data projects in computer labs, CD players, overhead projectors, TV monitors, slide projectors, flash cards, tape recorders and IWBs. With the availability of new technologies for use in the classroom, such as interactive software, digital imaging, audio and video creation tools, on-demand video libraries, LCD projectors and internet tools, the hardest job may be selecting which tools to use and how to integrate them into the classroom. This is because little research exists on how to create a successful combination of technology tools within a traditional classroom environment (Schmidt & Brown, 2004). Existence of technologies could encourage teachers to use technology in their classroom practices (Johnson, 2005), but an important point that is not considered by educational reforms in Saudi Arabia is related to the understanding of school principals’ and Arabic language teachers’ beliefs, which seem to underpin their technology practices.
The implementation of technology, in particular for teaching Arabic, is still in its early stages. There are many factors to be considered and resolved before technology can be taken into serious consideration: teachers must be able to apply their own pedagogical approaches and be technically competent and know how to incorporate
10 teaching and learning materials. Further, the pedagogical resources that have emerged with technology use must be available, and methods of delivery, materials management, and assessment must be put in place (Ahmad, BawaChinade, Gambaki, Ibrahim, & Ala, 2012; Ghalib, 2007). Most of the previous research that has examined the use of technology for teaching language has focused on the difference between technology- based language teaching and learning and traditional language teaching and learning and how technology could improve language teaching and learning to enable new ways of learning and to make it more student-centred (Al-shehri, 2012; Godwin-Jones, 2008; Stockwell, 2007). As there is a lack of studies that explore Arabic language teachers’ beliefs and classroom use of technology in Arabic language teaching, this thesis addresses this need.
Research on the use of technology in Saudi schools
Research on the use of technology in Saudi schools has been limited, but emerging issues have been identified by a few studies. Almaghlouth (2008) conducted a survey to explore Saudi science teachers’ perception of the use of ICT to enhance teaching and learning. He indicated that teachers and students have limited or no access to the Internet, to computer labs, and to highly technical equipment such as digital microscopes and digital cameras.
Another study conducted by Oyaid (2009) aimed to explore the perception of Saudi secondary school teachers’ ICT use and its relation to broader educational goals. The results indicated the lack of maintenance and technical support as a significant factor affecting teachers’ use of technology. The study also emphasised that further investigation should be conducted to understand the teachers’ use of technology. Moreover, Al-Sulaimani (2010) found that 80% of respondents found that the number of students per class was fairly high compared to the availability of technology, resulting in limited use of technology. These results stress the importance of providing teachers with sufficient time to develop their skills with technology and prepare for ICT use, as well as the importance of considering the appropriate average number of students per class.
A recent study conducted by Al Harbi (2014) explored the extent to which Saudi high school teachers have effectively implemented ICT into their classroom practices and Saudi high school teachers’ level of technological pedagogical and content knowledge (TPACK). The results revealed that Saudi high school teachers
11 demonstrated low levels of effectiveness in ICT implementation. In addition, the results indicated that participating teachers appeared to have low to moderate levels of TPACK knowledge.
Additional research gaps in the implementation of ICT
The first gap could be identified in the relationship between technology and pedagogy. Although some previous Saudi studies found several factors, including insufficient ICT resources, lack of maintenance and technical support, and lack of time, they did not deeply address the classroom pedagogical use of technology and teachers’ beliefs behind their classroom practices with technology.
The second gap is the absence of evaluation studies of educational technology. This problem exists within the general lack of an evaluation culture in Saudi education. In terms of ICT, even though MOE officials keep articulating their plans for making use of technology as a part of classroom teaching in all the country’s schools, at the time of this study, they omitted, formally and systematically, to evaluate the current status of technology in education. Therefore, especially with regard to principal and teacher response, there will be no insights to inform subsequent phases of the initiative. Furthermore, without in-depth exploration, the profound issues accompanying the implementation will remain concealed and the complexity of the implementation will be underestimated.
The last gap is related to the methodology underpinning the previous Saudi context. Focusing on questionnaire-based surveys and interviews, the findings are exclusively based on self-reports, from which actual classroom practice is absent. A need emerges to use classroom observations that will address this gap and provide in- depth examination. As explained in the methodology chapter, this study attempted to address this gap by conducting direct classroom observations.
1.2.2 The Research Process
To examine secondary principals’ and teachers’ beliefs and practices with technology, the following research questions are proposed:
1. What are principals’ and teachers’ beliefs about technology use in teaching and learning?
2. What are teachers’ perceived and actual practices with technology?
12 3. Do principals’ and teachers’ beliefs relate to teachers’ practices with technology use, and if so, how and to what degree?
4. What other factors affect principals’ and teachers’ beliefs and practices with technology?
The methodology used to attempt to answer the research questions was informed by mixed methods. The limited number of in-depth studies exploring observed practices, in comparison with a majority of larger-scale studies measuring self-reported practices, influenced the study design’s use of multi-methods of data collection: teacher questionnaires, principal questionnaires, teacher pre-lesson interviews, classroom observations, teacher post-lesson interviews, and principal interviews. This multi- method research design provided data triangulation that guaranteed the validity and credibility of the study.
The fieldwork took place during the school year 2013 at 67 public secondary schools equipped with a uniquely modelled technological infrastructure. From 2007, when Tatweer was launched, until now, the number of secondary technology-equipped schools has increased. The MOE’s goal is to extend these innovations to all secondary schools in the country within a few years.
The main sample of the current study comprised of 67 principals and 82 teachers who participated voluntarily in the questionnaire-based survey. Twelve principals participated in voluntary interviews and twelve teachers participated in direct classroom observations and two rounds of interviews, pre- and post-observed lessons, respectively.
The purpose of the principal and teacher questionnaires was to gain an overview of their beliefs and practices with technology, and to collect initial entries in each participant’s database, sketch their profile, and personalize to a small extent the semi- structured interview for each participant. The purpose of the teacher interviews was to gain in-depth data about their epistemic beliefs about technology, pedagogical beliefs about technology, practices with technology, and other factors that affected their beliefs and practices with technology. An additional purpose was to collect information on self- reported practices to be compared with subsequent observed practices. Thus, teachers’ pre-lesson interview data informed the schedule of semi-structured direct classroom observations, which aimed to obtain evidence on teachers’ practices and contrast the evidence with the reported beliefs. One additional purpose was to collect data on
13 observed factors affecting teachers’ practices with technology. The observational data informed the post-lesson semi-structured interview schedule, which aimed to collect data on teachers’ views on the observed lessons.
Beside data collected from teachers, questionnaires of 67 secondary school principals and interviews of 12 secondary school principals were conducted in August 2013 and December 2013. The purpose of the principal questionnaires was to provide data on their pedagogical beliefs about technology use and beliefs about teachers’ technology practices. The purpose of the principal interviews was to provide in-depth data on their pedagogical beliefs about technology use, beliefs about teachers’ technology practices, practices with technology, and other factors that affect teachers’ practices with technology. An additional purpose was to collect information on principals’ beliefs and compare them with teachers’ beliefs and practices and to shed more light on the status of, and conditions for, technology integration in schools.
The analysis involved quantitative and qualitative data analyses. Principals’ and teachers’ quantitative data analyses included a descriptive statistical analysis of the responses, including frequency distribution, percentages, means, and standard deviation. It also included inferential statistics through two types of tests – independent samples t- test and one-way ANOVA – to examine the differences in principals’ and teachers’ beliefs and practices with technology according to the different groups of independent variables. The qualitative analysis involved open coding, which resulted in the development of major themes. Sociocultural perspectives based on Engeström (2001) Activity Theory (AT) model and its inherent idea of ‘contradictions’ 5 within and between the components of a model was used as an analytical tool. The purpose of using AT was to understand the underlying issues. Teacher analysis was two- dimensional, based on both within- and cross-case investigations. Within-case analysis focused on interpreting each participant’s beliefs and practices. Cross-case analysis, which involved a comparison of the cases, and revealed the main types of responses across the sample, suggested the grouping of teachers. Principal analysis was a thematic analysis across the sample, and it indicated the main types of response and suggested the grouping of principals.
The findings of this study were intriguing and may be useful when planning
5 ‘Contradictions’ is referred to as ‘tensions’ in the thesis.
14 educational reform in the context of technology integration in Saudi Arabian secondary education.
1.3 Aims of the Study
Given the focus on expanding the use of technology in Saudi Arabia’s public schools, research is needed to explore the ways in which the existing beliefs of principals and teachers about technology use influence the use and practice of technology in the classroom. The objective of this mixed-methods study is to identify how the beliefs of Saudi Arabian secondary school principals and Arabic language teachers about technology use in teaching and learning can shape and affect classroom practices with technology. The key aim was to add to the knowledge base of ICT use in education by exploring the relationship between beliefs and classroom practices with technology and identifying other factors influencing this relationship.
The objectives of this study therefore were as follows:
1. To explore the beliefs of Saudi secondary school principals and teachers about technology use in teaching and learning 2. To explore Saudi secondary school teachers’ perceived and actual classroom practices with technology 3. To examine the relationship between principals’ and teachers’ beliefs about technology use and classroom practices with technology 4. To explore other factors influencing Saudi secondary school principals’ and teachers’ beliefs and practices with technology.
1.4 Significance of the Study
In public education in Saudi Arabia, the number of schools has increased to 33,280, with 5,146,165 students enrolled in schools located throughout the Kingdom. These numbers are expected to increase in the future (MOE in the K.S.A, 2010/2011). Unlike other educational institutions in the world, schools in Saudi Arabia have moved slowly towards technology use. Most Saudi schools still use the traditional teaching method and believe that it is the appropriate method to achieve educational objectives (Alaugab, 2007). Currently, attempts are being made to encourage school principals and teachers in public education to teach through technology as an integral part of traditional education, and in some schools located in major cities, this method is indeed applied. In spite of these significant endeavours, using technology in the classroom remains a big
15 challenge for teachers because they have to learn how to use technology, know how to identify and cope with the strengths and weaknesses of technology, and select the most appropriate form of technology for lesson activities (Al-Abdullatif, 2012).
With the current technological revolution and increasing amounts of information, teachers in Saudi Arabia are under increasing educational policy pressure to change their classroom practices with technology (Alaugab, 2007). There is also the fact that online learning implementation implies changes to the planning and delivery of lessons and subsequently a change in teaching approaches. In this scenario, rather than merely passing on knowledge, teachers become facilitators who show students how to use technology and engage in a more self-directed learning process (Guri-Rosenblit, 2005). Therefore, the need for this study stems from the potential usefulness of exploring principals’ and teachers’ existing beliefs and practices with technology and examining to what extent beliefs can affect classroom practices with technology in Saudi Arabia. This study also contributes to developing research-based understanding of the actual experiences and beliefs of principals and teachers as they manage the teaching and learning processes in their schools.
The problem with a lack of technology was thought to have been minimised due to the ICT resources available in the model schools, and the MOE’s plan is to expand the technologies in the model schools to all public secondary schools in Saudi Arabia within a few years. Therefore, the issues related to a lack of technology could be controlled to an extent, allowing for an emphasis to be placed on principals’ and teachers’ beliefs about technology use and other factors influencing teachers’ practices with technology. It also was considered valuable to undertake a study that could inform the reality of a situation anticipated to be widely generalised in the near future.
This study contributes theoretically and practically to the knowledge of practices with technology and the link between beliefs and classroom practices (Prestridge, 2012; Teo, Chai, Hung, & Lee, 2008). The findings of this study provide insights into the acceptance and feasibility of teaching and learning in technology-based used environments. Moreover, this study generally enriches the theoretical knowledge of learning and teaching with technology in Saudi secondary education. The conceptual framework adapted in this study provides insights and guidance for the research, development, and implementation of sound and typology of beliefs and practices with technology. Practically, the study puts forward recommendations for potentially
16 enhancing the effectiveness of classroom practices with technology. The study will help educational policymakers to improve their strategies for attaining the successful implementation of technology use in public education. Finally, the findings of this study will assist in identifying areas for future research.
1.5 Key Terms
Before closing this introductory chapter with an outline of the thesis structure, the following definitions of terms used in this study provide readers with a better understanding of the study:
1.5.1 ICT, New Technology, (Educational) Technology
The term ‘ICT’ encompasses Information and Communications Technologies, which generally refer to ‘a diverse set of technological tools used to communicate, and to create, disseminate, store, manage information and assist classroom teaching and learning’ (Blurton, 1999 as cited inTinio). Any facilities related to digital computers and the Internet comprise ICT. The term ‘new technology’ is often used as an alternative synonym for ICT.
This definition suggests that educational technology involves not only newer digital technologies of computers, the Internet, Email, the World Wide Web, Wireless technology, smartphones, etc. but also the older technologies of print, radio, and television that have been used in both distance education and classroom instruction. This thesis is not concerned with traditional types of technology; therefore, all three terms, ‘ICT’, ‘new technologies’, and ‘educational technology’, are used consistently and interchangeably to refer to digital tools. In particular, based on the availability of technology in empirical settings such as model schools, this thesis focuses on computers and software, IWBs, and the Internet.
1.5.2 Beliefs (and Knowledge)
Teachers’ beliefs in general have been labelled as a ‘messy construct’ (Pajares, 1992) due to the difficulty scholars have with the definition of the term. What has added much to this difficulty is the ‘fuzzy’ distinction between beliefs and knowledge (Pehkonen & Pietilä, 2003). Calderhead (1996) indicated that both teachers’ beliefs and knowledge comprise the broader concept of teacher cognition, whereas beliefs generally refer to ‘suppositions, commitments, and ideologies’, while knowledge refers to ‘factual
17 propositions and understandings’ (p.715). Therefore, after obtaining knowledge of a proposition, teachers are still free to accept it or disbelieve it; for example, teachers may obtain specific knowledge on how to use spread sheets for student records, but that is different from believing in the usefulness of spreadsheet in teaching contexts (Ertmer, 2006).
Considering the aforementioned points, scholars have concluded that beliefs have a stronger influence than knowledge in one’s decisions, and therefore they are stronger predictors of behaviour (Griffin & Ohlsson, 2001; Kagan, 1992; Nespor, 1987; Pajares, 1992). Furthermore, the notion that beliefs are informed by previous experiences suggests that they are underpinned by processes of affection and evaluation, something that is absent in the formation of knowledge.
However, because ‘teachers may have beliefs about their work, their subject matter and their roles…’ (Pajares, 1992, p. 315) recommended educational beliefs be narrowed further to specify what those are about (Pajares, 1992). Following recommendations, this thesis focuses on teachers’ epistemic beliefs about technology, which refer to beliefs about the nature of student knowledge and learning with technology use. This definition was adapted from Schommer (1990, 1994). Furthermore, this thesis focuses on teachers’ pedagogical beliefs about technology, which refer to beliefs about teaching with technology (Ertmer, 2006; Teo, Chai, Hung, & Lee, 2008).
1.5.3 Pedagogy, Classroom Practice, Pedagogical Practice
Although the term pedagogy is used worldwide, the complexity of defining this term has increased with growth, differentiation, and integration of knowledge about the elements that inform an adequate model of pedagogical activity (Watkins & Mortimore, 1999). Early studies focus on the teacher’s style, which incorporates either authoritarian or democratic styles of teaching (Watkins & Mortimore, 1999). Others assert that modes of pedagogy are more the teacher’s style. Therefore, the context of teaching has been adapted with managerial and organisational aspects of teachers’ classroom practices, including both teaching methods and pupil organisation as the two key aspects of pedagogy (Alexander, 1992).
In addition, the understanding of pedagogy, as discussed by Watkins and Mortimore (1999), has been developed to focus on teaching and student learning. This
18 change in the understanding of pedagogy is enhanced by educational theories, particularly the theory of constructivism inspired by Piaget and Vygotksy. Constructivism is based on the perspective that the learner plays an active role in meaning and knowledge construction. Students, rather than passively receiving knowledge from the teacher, can create knowledge, hypothesise, inquire, investigate, imagine, and invent (Schunk, 2012).
Other attempts at understanding pedagogy tend to define the term by interrelating its several dimensions, including educational goals, view of learning, view of knowledge, classroom context, learning, assessment activities, roles and relationship between teachers and students and among students, and classroom discourse (Leach & Moon, 1999).
Taking the above into account, in this thesis, the three terms ‘pedagogy’, ‘classroom practice’, and ‘pedagogical practice’ are used consistently to refer to teaching style, classroom organisation, teachers’ and students’ behaviour in the classroom, nature and structure of classroom activities assigned for students, and interaction between teachers and students.
1.6 Thesis Structure
This thesis consists of eight chapters, including this Introduction, in which brief references to the theoretical and empirical settings, research aims, and key terms are made. In Chapter 2, the literature review provides an expanded discussion to illustrate the theoretical framework of the research in detail. It is divided into nine sections: ICT in education; theoretical perspectives on technology integration; principals’ beliefs about technology use; teachers’ beliefs about technology use; pedagogical practices with technology; influence of beliefs about technology upon practices; factors influencing technology use; the conceptual framework of the current study; and chapter summary. The study methodology is presented in Chapter 3. The chapter is divided into seven sections: research design; methodological paradigm; the study population and sample; methods of data collection; data collection; data analysis; and chapter summary.
The analysis of the principals’ data is presented in Chapter 4 and Chapter 5, respectively. Chapter 4 presents principal quantitative findings and is divided into four sections: beliefs about technology use, beliefs about teachers’ practices with technology; relationship between principals’ beliefs about technology use and their
19 beliefs about teachers’ practices with technology and chapter summary. This chapter provides an overview of principals’ beliefs about technology use. Chapter 5 presents principal qualitative findings and is divided into seven sections: beliefs about technology use, beliefs about teachers’ practices with technology, beliefs about teachers’ technological skills, factors influencing technology use, school support for using technology, emerging groups; and chapter summary. The analysis of the teachers’ data is presented in Chapter 6 and Chapter 7, respectively. Chapter 6 presents teacher quantitative findings, and is divided into four sections: beliefs about technology use and practices with technology; relationship between teachers’ beliefs and practices; chapter summary. This chapter provides an overview of teachers’ beliefs and practices with technology. Chapter 7 analytically presents teacher qualitative findings and is divided into three sections: within-case analysis with narrative; cross-case analysis with emerging groups; and chapter summary. It presents teachers’ beliefs about technology use, practices with technology, relationship between teachers’ beliefs and practices, and other factors influencing technology use. Finally, Chapter 8 offers concluding remarks on the main findings based on the research questions and the literature. The chapter is divided into six sections: conclusions pertaining to the main findings; implications for change; recommendations for practice; contribution to knowledge; study limitations; and future research.
20 Chapter 2: Literature Review
2.1 Introduction
This chapter aims to introduce the theoretical domain in which this study took place. Evidence is drawn from the literature to indicate how technology has (or has not) been incorporated into education and to report the factors found to influence such an attempt. Particular emphasis is placed on principals’ and teachers’ beliefs about the use of technology in the classroom as a factor influencing teachers’ pedagogical practices. For a more comprehensive understanding of the requirements for change in the use of technology in education, frameworks for understanding practices with technology are also reviewed. The literature regarding the factors influencing beliefs and practices with technology is examined. Finally, the theoretical framework, which is built from the literature review and which guides this study, is articulated.
2.2 ICT in Education
In recent decades, information and communication technology (ICT) has been integrated into all aspects of life and society like never before. The development of new forms of ICT has changed the way in which economic and business interactions take place and has transformed the global economy (Soros, 2002). The field of education has also encountered changes as a result of the introduction of ICT, and these reforms have implications on education in terms of opportunities and challenges from human, technical and financial perspectives (ERT., 1997).
Haddad and Draxler (2002) summarise the need for ICT use in the field of education. Firstly, a focus on learning acquisition and outcomes should be made; students should actively engage in the learning process and contribute to the attainment of knowledge, and they should not remain as passive recipients of information. Secondly, the need for ICT in education is related to the basic right of everyone, regardless of age and location, to receive education; the demands of the modern world entail that all members of society be educated and have access to information, including those that are beyond the traditional classroom context. Lastly, teacher empowerment is needed; teachers need to be adequately prepared by being familiar with the objectives of today’s education and learning process, which aims to help students ‘apply knowledge and skills in key subject areas and to analyse, reason, communicate effectively as they raise, solve and interpret problems in a variety of situations’ (Ananiadou & Claro, 2009,
21 p. 7). The demand for teachers’ preparedness is necessary to confront the rapid expansion of knowledge and the multicultural ambience of the educational environment (Haddad & Draxler, 2002).
Research suggests that ICT will continue to play a critical role in the education setting and provide many options to support learning and teaching. ICT is said to facilitate the generation of knowledge, from classroom to individual learners; from teachers and information providers to tutors and facilitators; and from textbook to multimedia materials, which in turn are changing teaching and learning by making education more meaningful and rewarding (Levin & Wadmany, 2008; Pelgrum, 2001). The current study examines the pedagogical use of technology in teaching Arabic language, with the discussion focused on addressing whether ICT use has made a dramatic change in Arabic language classroom teaching.
2.3 Theoretical Perspectives on Technology Integration
This section presents and discusses three theoretical perspectives that help explain the use of technology in the teaching and learning process. Cook (2002) argued that with technology use, ‘the theoretic basis from a pedagogical perspective is very rudimentary, with much of the development being on a technical level’ (p. 23). When considering epistemological and theoretical perspectives on technology integration, technology can be an effective tool for teaching and learning. Johnson and Aragon (2003) argued that teaching and learning pedagogies involving technology use should be associated with learning theories. This means pedagogy encompasses not only the practical application of teaching, but also curriculum issues and theories regarding how and why learning takes place. The main learning theories and philosophies that may be relevant to technology pedagogical approaches include behaviourism, cognitivism and constructivism (Johnson & Aragon, 2003). Each will be discussed to deduce an effective pedagogy. As this study focuses on secondary education, a review of these theories will help school principals and teachers to understand learners, thus enhancing school principals’ awareness of appropriate pedagogies for teaching with technology use and enhancing teachers’ ability to utilise appropriate pedagogies while teaching with technology use.
22 2.3.1 Behaviourist Learning Theory
Behaviourist learning theory is based on the proposition that there is no knowable distinction between two states of mind except when there is a demonstrable difference in the behaviour associated with a given state (Schunk, 2012). It is also associated with the perspective that learning is regarded as action and studied through observable measures of overt behaviours (Davidson-Shivers & Rasmussen, 2006). Behaviourists believe that individuals’ behaviour can be predicted, controlled and measured (Harasim, 2012). Classical conditioning is one form of behaviourism, which focuses on the stimulus (external condition) and the response that represents the resulting overt behaviour. The second form of behaviourism, called operant conditioning, concentrates on shifting to the consequence of the responses (Schunk, 2012). Pedagogical approaches with technology use can incorporate the following aspects from behaviourism: (a) repeating task and sequenced practice until students master learning requirements; (b) using various technology features (text, visual and audio) to reinforce students’ responses; (c) responding to instructional stimuli through discussions to encourage students to become more active; (d) asynchronous and synchronous discussion between students, peers and teachers that results in operant conditioning (Patsula, 1999). Technology use might also allow for quick feedback and help build skills such as organisation and time management (Bradford, Porciello, Balkon, & Backus, 2007).
2.3.2 Cognitivist Learning Theory
Cognitivist learning theory attempts to answer how and why students learn by attributing the learning process to mental operations that individuals experience as they apply knowledge, skills and abilities. This is a subject virtually ignored by behaviourism, which focuses solely on the actions and behaviours of the learner (Dabbagh, 2005; Schunk, 2012). Cognitivists contend that learning is not, as behaviourists claim, simply a matter of behaviour modification; rather, learning involves the student obtaining knowledge not only through the acquisition of new knowledge but also through a process of adapting or discarding old constructs or ideas no longer conducive to his or her developing insight into the world (Jarvis, Holford, & Griffin, 2003). Cognitivism emphasises the importance of a learner-centred approach to teaching and learning, in which the structure and sequence of learning is crucial to the success of the learning experience (Burkes, 2007).
The use of tutorial software or computer-based tutoring systems provides a
23 typical example of the implications of cognitivist theory when it comes to teaching and learning. Such tools provide students with information-rich environments and function as guidelines helping them to discover knowledge while scaffolding their learning (Laurillard, 2013). However, information should be presented in multimedia representations (e.g., text, voice and visuals) in order to facilitate deep processing and knowledge transfer to long-term memory (Mayer, 2008). To contextualise their learning, students also should be given projects that allow them to use real-life information (Schunk, 2012).
The various features and functions of technology often lead to pedagogical improvements and changes in teaching practices (Heirdsfield et al., 2011). In traditional pedagogy, the teacher is responsible for transmitting information that students are required to memorise and later recite to evince understanding (Roblyer & Doering, 2010). In this context, teachers often encourage students to make use of ICT in the realm of technical skills. In this mode of teaching, teachers utilise specific software and hardware that serves the curriculum’s ends without changing content or developing a range of pedagogies (Prestridge, 2007).
2.3.3 Constructivist Learning Theory
Constructivist theory is based on the proposition that ‘learners construct their meaning during learning based on their experiences and through a social negotiation of that meaning during the learning process’ (Davidson-Shivers & Rasmussen, 2006, p. 45). This student-centred approach is a social theory that focuses on encouraging ongoing interaction between students and actively engages them in the construction of their own learning. Despite the fact that constructivism is considered to be a form of cognitive theory, it differs from cognitivism in the following two ways: it focuses on the role of learners in constructing their own knowledge, and it depends on social settings in the teaching process (Schunk, 2012). With technology use, constructivism is employed in teaching when teachers encourage students to become active creators of their own knowledge within the context of experience. Constructivist pedagogies concentrate on the learner or community of learners, whereas pedagogies based on behaviourism and cognitivism focus on the instructional designer rather than the learner in the organisation of learning. Constructivism has generated a number of teaching approaches based on the following principles: (a) active learning, which encourages students to participate in learning activities; (b) providing students with opportunities for hands-on
24 learning based on experience and experimentation; (c) scaffolded learning and collaborative learning (Harasim, 2012; Schunk, 2012).
The application of technology use in collaborative learning environments is informed by constructivist theory (Harasim, 2012). In collaborative theory and pedagogy, the teacher’s role is to involve students in the language and activities associated with building discipline and the language and processes of the knowledge community. The effective practice of collaborative learning pedagogy involving the use of technologies requires teachers to have the following abilities: a) to establish the problem to be discussed and the discussion processes; b) to provide students with analytical terms that lead them to discuss and understand the topic deeply; and c) to support students to reach a level of intellectual convergence and come to a position on the topic or a resolution of the problem (Harasim, 2012). Teacher competency in facilitating the process and providing students with various information resources and kinds of activities is essential to helping the students build knowledge collaboratively with the use of technology. Dilshan, Moustafa, and Yike (2012) stated that the use of collaborative learning pedagogy when implementing a curriculum with technology use would help teachers guide students in using and understanding information resources.
Kenny (2003) and Porter (2004) argued that the implementation of technology is likely to be most effective when used in conjunction with other face-to-face pedagogical approaches. Problem-based exploration is the key feature of pedagogical approaches that could be used with technology (Lim, Hung, Wong, & Hu, 2004). These approaches reflect the constructivist beliefs about learning and teaching. The constructivist pedagogy provides the learner with an active role in meaning and knowledge construction. Rather than passively receiving knowledge from the teacher, the learner can create knowledge, hypothesise, inquire, investigate, imagine and invent. Using these approaches, active learners can also reflect and make associations with prior knowledge to reach new understandings. Khine and Fisher (2003) observed that:
With the advent of global communications, network learning environments can now utilise local and global communities, peer interaction and knowledgeable others, and allow different, new and existing approaches to teaching, learning and assessment. Teachers can shift their pedagogical approach towards a collaborative, inquiry-driven, knowledge construction approach allowing students to achieve far beyond expectations. (p. 98)
25 However, the literature associated with technology use has demonstrated that the current implementation of technology relies on traditional practices: technology is usually used to transfer information from the teacher to the students by providing students with quick and easy access to required information (Johnson & Aragon, 2003). This traditional environment presents a challenge for teachers in terms of shifting their pedagogical approaches to integrate the most effective and innovative instructional strategies for delivering their courses. For example, the most effective learning environment requires that teaching professionals select the appropriate strategy and that the technology be transparent to the learner to allow for continuing learning opportunities (Gibson, 2001). The teachers must choose the appropriate strategy to help learners to achieve the learning objectives and satisfy individual learning needs (Gibson, 2001).
Dabbagh (2005), DeNeui and Dodge (2006), Douglas (2011), Hughes (2005) and Villar and Alegre (2008) outlined some significant pedagogical approaches in their analyses of the contributions of technology use to the teaching and learning process. Some of the approaches mentioned were: a) using various information sources; b) understanding how to facilitate collaboration among students; c) developing learning skills with specific tasks; d) developing collaboration among learners; e) emphasising the importance of learning higher-order cognitive skills; f) developing assessment methods including student self-assessment and formative assessment; g) understanding student motivation and developing the ability to promote students’ positive attitudes; h) having awareness of students’ diversity in all its forms; i) developing the competence to solve students’ problems; j) helping to develop students’ metacognitive skills; k) providing effective and free curriculum time; l) understanding the area being supervised (learning tasks, research, assessment, etc.); m) developing teaching and didactic skills for large groups; n) understanding questioning skills.
Jonassen (2003) advocates using technological innovations for knowledge construction rather than for instructional tools. The author argued that technology should be considered a “mindtool” for visualising and representing problems or lesson concepts while assisting students to construct and interpret their own learning. Ultimately, “mindtools” should enable students to achieve higher order thinking; as such, technology can only become a “mindtool” when students use it as a cognitive tool for learning. For example, instead of teachers using technology to present information
26 to students, the students themselves could engage in the learning process using technological tools, such as databases, semantic networks, spreadsheets, systems- modelling tools, international information search engines, visualisation tools, multimedia publishing tools, live conversation environment tools and computer conferences (Jonassen, 2003; Kirschner & Erkens, 2006).
In summary, the behaviourist, cognitivist and constructivist theories of learning deal with learning as an individualistic pursuit. Furthermore, the epistemological basis of behaviourism and cognitivism is objectivism (Harasim, 2012), and the idea that knowledge is static has implications for teaching. Pedagogies that emphasise ‘transmitting information’ as a method to ‘acquire knowledge’ are often reflected in approaches such as lectures or their mechanised counterparts (teaching machines and computer-based approaches). These views and approaches, which were appropriate for the Industrial Age, emphasised the ability of students to acquire and retain information and skills. In this traditional mode of teaching, the educational objective is to achieve the desired results.
2.3.4 Constructionism Learning Theory
Perhaps the most significant and challenging aspects of teaching are to develop students’ critical thinking skills, independent learning skills and ability to transfer their knowledge to practical applications (Krause, Bochner, & Duchesne, 2003). Among the ways to address these challenges is Papert’s constructionist theory, which was inspired by Piaget’s constructivism learning theory and Vygotsky’s soci- constructivism learning theory. All three theories emphasise students’ active and central role in the learning process and consider knowledge construction as active and interrelated processes (Ackermann, 2004). According to the constructionist perspective, learning needs to be an active process where knowledge is constructed by doing and experiencing with a focus on actions (Papert, 1991). It place the emphasis on the importance of constructing personally meaningful and shareable artefacts that are facilitated by the context in which students actively explore, experiment and expand their understanding (Girvan, Tangney, & Savage, 2013).
In order to implement constructionism learning pedagogy, the students’ learning context must be relevant to their lives, and students should have a chance to participate and demonstrate their individual knowledge with the teacher’s role being a learning facilitator (Harel, 1991). Research on the use of technology supporting constructionist
27 learning suggests that ICT tools, such as a three-dimensional (3D) environment, simulation programs or virtual worlds, appear to be the most suitable for broad constructionist learning because such tools provide students with an opportunity to construct objects that may facilitate students’ learning and making tangible objects in the real world (Girvan & Savage, 2010; Girvan et al., 2013). However, meaningful use of such tools to support constructivist experiences requires students to have existing knowledge to facilitate their engagement in the construction of complex artefacts (Dreher, Reiners, Dreher, & Dreher, 2009).
Constructionist pedagogy could also be supported by technology in that technology would help students share knowledge and artefacts. Handheld devices, for example, could easily help teachers and students capture multimedia data, including images, sound and video and taking notes (Patten, Arnedillo Sánchez, & Tangney, 2006). This capability of capturing multimedia data can be applied to a number of meaningful uses and could provide learners with an opportunity for reflection.
2.3.5 Connectivism learning theory
Connectivism learning theory has been described by Siemens (2005) and other researchers as a learning theory for the digital age (Loureiro & Bettencourt, 2010). It emphasises the idea that today’s students are the ‘Net Generation’ and digital natives who have grown up with ICT (Prensky, 2005). For this generation, technology is not merely a tool but a significant part of their communication, relationship and learning. Siemens (2005) argued that over the last twenty years, technology has shaped our lives, our communication, how we learn and our thinking. Ally (2008) argued the importance of connectivism learning theory in comparison with other learning theories:
Behaviourist strategies can be used to teach the facts (what); cognitivist strategies, the principals and processes (how); constructivist strategies to teach real-life and personal applications and contextual learning. There is a shift toward constructive learning, in which learners are given the opportunity to construct their own meaning from the presented information. In addition to the existing theories, connectivism should be used to guide the development of learning, since the other learning theories were developed before we become a networked world. (p.39)
Siemens (2005) emphasised the ability to synthesize and recognize connection
28 and patterns in a core skill. He argued that behaviourist, cognitivist, constructivist theories are associated with the actual process of learning rather than being concerned with the value of what is being learned. He also defined learning as a process of creating links between subjects, fields and concepts and as ‘actionable knowledge’ that exists outside ourselves within an organization or a database. According to the connectivism perspective, the outcome of learning is not the body of knowledge, which is currently known, but the learner developing and obtaining the capability to know more (Bell, 2011).
Connectivism learning theory is broadly associated with technology. Research indicates that technology, such as Web 2.0 tools, provides students with opportunities to communicate, share knowledge, produce information, write comments, distribute ideas and creative works and refine ideas or create original content (Bell, 2011). Connectivism learning theory could be adapted when learning takes place inside and outside the classroom through technology, such as social networking sites that allow students to make their own network of information and connect with other people who may belong to the same context to learn more (Al-shehri, 2012; Guder, 2010).
2.3.6 Social–cultural theory
Social–cultural theory is based on the Vygotksy’s (1978) proposition that human activity is a system of purpose-driven practices that include tacit and inexplicit methods and knowledge, physical material and conceptual symbols used as mediators when interacting with tools and executing activities. In research, such as that of Lewin, Somekh and Steadman (2008), the tools function has been adopted and concerned with the role of ICT tools in teaching and learning. Literature on the social–cultural theory and pedagogy emphasise that activity opportunities and practices are not provided by the tool itself but by the users and depend on the affordance of the tool, skills and competency of its users and their ability to assign new potential and roles to that tool (Somekh, 2007). The social–cultural perspective also assumes that the culture and context of teaching and learning should be considered when discussing technology integration in education (Sutherland, 2004).
The activity theory model (Engestrom, 1987, 2001) was developed to portray the elements of Vygotksy’s activity system, stressing that activities are situated within specific contexts and informed by both individual and social processes related to the mediation of tools. The discussion about the activity theory model, which is used as
29 analytical tool in this study, was more extensive in the methodology chapter. The activity theory model helps provide a broader social–cultural setting for understanding technology uses; ICT use in teaching and learning is influenced by the activities taking place in the classroom but is also influenced by school culture, system, policies and other governmental departments and agencies that are involved in the pedagogical adaption of technology.
Although the importance of school culture and context has been much highlighted in the literature, only a few studies on ICT use in teaching and learning have applied the activity theory model, which was developed based on social–cultural theory, to data collection and analysis. Ertmer and Ottenbreit-Leftwich (2010) concluded that the importance of building a supportive school culture is that it helps teachers adopt effective use of technology in teaching and learning. Somekh (2008) also acknowledged that ‘regulatory frameworks and policies on national education system and national culture’ could constrain or support teachers’ use of technology in the classrooms.
The Information Age of the twenty-first century requires learning theories and pedagogies that emphasise knowledge work, knowledge creation and knowledge community. Whereas twentieth-century industrial learning theories and pedagogies concentrated on narrow, individualistic tasks with certain rules, the twenty-first century Information Age stresses creative, conceptual work where there may be many possible answers, requiring students to collaborate to identify the best option (King, 2012). The teacher should possess the competency to mediate between students and the knowledge community (Ellis, 2012). In addition, effective pedagogical approaches should be aligned with appropriate learning theories and pedagogies and the beliefs of school principals and teachers. These components together contribute to the effective use of technology in classroom practice. According to Naicker (2011), there is a parallel between educators’ theories and beliefs about teaching and learning and the status of technology integration into school or classroom practices. The following section will review and discuss the beliefs of school principals about teaching with technology, supported by relevant studies.
2.4 Principals’ Beliefs about Technology Use
Literature resources on school improvement argue that school principals play a dominant role and serve as change agents within their school when adopting
30 innovations such as educational technology (Fullan, 2014; Leithwood & Riehl, 2003; Macneill, Cavanagh, & Silcox, 2005). Effective use of technology in schools requires principals to take the lead in helping teachers to develop a vision of how technology use benefits student learning (Bridges, 2003). Since beliefs about technology use in teaching and learning are considered to be the most influential factor impacting and shaping classroom technology practices (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010; Prestridge, 2012), it is important to explore principals’ beliefs about technology use, as they manage the teaching and learning process in their schools. Baylor & Ritchie (2002) and Liu (2011) investigated factors that facilitate teachers’ use of classroom technology and found that when teachers perceive that administrators value and promote the use of technology, the teachers may more widely value it and integrate it in the classroom. A principal can play a crucial role in facilitating teacher change when he or she believes in the significance of supporting teachers and giving them opportunities to try new technological approaches to effectively implement modern educational technologies in the classroom (Somekh, 2008).
Studies that have explored schools principals’ impact on classroom practices indicate the importance of the principals’ interventions, attitudes, visions and understandings of technology use in education (Hew & Brush, 2007; Voogt & Pelgrum, 2009). Findings from the IEA Computers in Education study revealed that principals of schools using technology maintained a more positive attitude towards the impact of technology use in education than those of schools not using technology (Voogt & Pelgrum, 2009). Furthermore, Granger, Morbey, Lotherington, Owston, and Wideman (2002) noted that principals who actively supported their teachers and built collaborative communities and cultures in their schools enabled technological innovation to progress effectively. Other researchers also agreed that principals who have the leadership abilities to initiate and carry out the pedagogical requirements of technological change in teaching and learning approaches can also affect the use of technology to enhance the school learning environment (Baylor & Ritchie, 2002; Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010). Facilitating technology use in classrooms, having a plan, articulating the vision, rewarding teachers as they strive to integrate technology, and sharing leadership are considered significant indicators that principals have positive attitudes toward technology and offer support that may affect teachers’ beliefs and classroom practices (Baylor & Ritchie, 2002). Despite essential support provided by the
31 school and positive beliefs and attitude to technology use from the principal, the teachers’ beliefs about technology use were considered to be the most influential factor affecting classroom practices with technology (Mumtaz, 2000).
2.5 Teachers’ Beliefs about Technology Use
A significant relationship between beliefs and behaviours has been established (Judson, 2006). In the teaching process, the significance of the construct lies in the finding that the behaviour of teachers is significantly affected by their beliefs rather than by their knowledge or experience. As indicated in the first chapter, both experience and prior knowledge are important, but beliefs are considered ‘driving forces’ in shaping teachers’ classroom practices (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010; Prestridge, 2012; Shahvarani & Savizi, 2007).
Constructivist beliefs, including student-centred, collaborative, and active learning, can lead teachers to use the activities of student-centred and constructivist pedagogical approaches when they integrate technology into their classroom practices (Hermans, Tondeur, van Braak, & Valcke, 2008). In addition, constructivist-teaching beliefs have an important direct correlation with teachers’ expected technology integration into their daily classroom practices (Sang, Valcke, Braak, & Tondeur, 2010). Niederhauser and Stoddart (2001) stated that there is a relationship between beliefs and technical competencies when using a new technology. For example, teachers who have a strong learner-centred belief tend to use open-ended software.
Although research on teachers’ beliefs about technology use is not particularly extensive, the significance of their beliefs has been acknowledged in relatively recently studies. A key finding of IEA Computers in Education studies revealed that teachers’ beliefs about the usefulness and effectiveness of computers were strong indicators of computer use (Plomp & Voogt, 2009; Reinen & Plomp, 1993). Later, a US interview study by McGrail (2005) similarly indicated that teachers’ perceived effectiveness and usefulness of ICT in their teaching and in student learning was a significant incentive that motivated teachers to use ICT. Komis and Jimoyiannis (2007), in a study on teachers in Greece, indicated a positive relationship between teachers’ beliefs about the value of ICT as a tool for teaching and student learning and their intention to use it in their teaching.
Research exploring teachers’ beliefs about the value of ICT has identified
32 several benefits that could overcome some shortcomings of traditional classroom teaching. One of those significant benefits is providing students with a creative learning experience and removing the limitations of time and place (Alaugab, 2007) to support classroom-learning activities. One way this is achieved is by enabling students to broaden their knowledge and experience outside of school by using available online resources along with their preferred learning styles (Gail & Terry, 2011). Mason and Rennie (2008) indicated additional positive qualities of online learning technology use in the classroom, such as social media. They found that the use of online technologies enabled students to participate in, think about, contribute to, and become active in their learning. In addition, using online learning technologies in the classroom allows the teacher not only to incorporate multimedia, but also to share information quickly and easily, providing a collaborative learning environment where students can communicate at any time. Other benefits of online technology use are related to self-directed learning, problem-solving skills, higher-thinking skills, and research skills for students along with collaborative feedback from other students and the teacher in learner-centred environments (Bebell, Russell, & O'Dwyer, 2004; Oyaid, 2009; Seok, 2008). Use of online learning technologies places high expectations on students, since they are able to monitor the quality of their responses in online activities until they are confident enough to submit them to their teacher. They have more time to think before answering questions, and they can conduct more research and review materials before submitting or discussing their work with classmates. Technology is another method that can help students keep up with their classmates and discuss a lesson they do not understand in the classroom. They can also ask a question via email or e-learning communication features (Trangratapit, 2010). Finally, a study conducted by Hsieh and Dwyer (2009) concluded that using various learning styles and approaches increased student achievement, self-esteem, and self-confidence. Teachers could also benefit from technology to develop or modify their own teaching methods (Ertmer, Ottenbreit- Leftwich, Sadik, Sendurur, & Sendurur, 2012).
Recent studies have moved on from focusing on teachers’ beliefs about the benefits of using technology in education to teachers’ pedagogical beliefs, which refer to the nature of teaching and how teaching should be conducted. Studies exploring teachers’ pedagogical beliefs about technology use indicate that they stretch from viewing technology as a tool for knowledge transmission to a tool that facilitates
33 students’ knowledge construction. In a study conducted by Tondeur, Van Braak, and Valcke (2007), three categories of teachers’ pedagogical beliefs about use of technology in education were highlighted: basic computer skills, the computer as an information tool (to research and process information) and the computer as a learning tool (to practise knowledge and skills). Similarly, Ertmer’s (2005, 2006, 2012) research provided three categories of teachers’ pedagogical beliefs about technology use: ‘supplementing the required curriculum’, where teachers believe that technology should be used to motivate, reinforce and practice skills; ‘supporting the existing curriculum’, where teachers believe that technology is an educational tool for teaching content, collaboration, and higher-order thinking; and ‘facilitating an emerging curriculum’, where teachers believe that technology is a transparent tool for 21st-century literacies that transform the way students learn. With similar types of beliefs, Prestridge (2012) explored four categories of pedagogical beliefs about technology use: 1. skill-based; 2. Functional, where teachers believe in productivity outcomes such as spreadsheet; 3. Developing, where teachers believe that using technology supports the existing curriculum and 4. digital, where teachers believe using technology changes pedagogy and enables new ways of learning. Mama and Hennessy (2013) in their study suggest four types of pedagogical beliefs: ‘diversifying’, where teachers believe using technology in teaching technology enables different approaches to student learning; ‘powerful’, where teachers believe use of technology as a new tool will motivate students to learn; ‘convenient’, where teachers believe in the administrative usefulness of technology; and ‘subversive’ where teachers avoid using technology due to their fear of being replaced by technology.
Researchers have focused on the relationship between teachers’ epistemological beliefs and their pedagogical beliefs on the basis of the argument that these two types of beliefs are associated (Pajares, 1992). Hofer and Pintrich (1997) argued that ‘beliefs about learning and teaching are related to how knowledge is acquired, and with regard to the psychological reality of network of individuals’ beliefs about learning, teaching and knowledge are probably intertwined’ (p. 116). Researchers commonly use the developmental model of Perry (1968) to examine teachers’ epistemic beliefs (Brownlee, 2004; Chai, 2010). In his significant work on epistemic beliefs, Perry (1968) provided a development trajectory of four stages, which are as follows: (a) a dualistic view in which the teacher believes in right-or-wrong knowledge that is only handed down by
34 authority, such as textbooks and teachers; (b) a multiplistic level in which the teacher begins to realise the probabilities of multiple viewpoints or resources of knowledge, but he or she still sticks to the belief that knowledge is certain; (c) a relativistic view in which the teacher tends to see knowledge as tentative and contextual and created by the self; and (d) committed relativism in which the teacher tends to believe that knowledge is uncertain, and learning is based on the weight accumulated. Other studies depend on Schommer’s (1990) multi-dimensional model (Cano, 2005; Deng, Chai, Tsai, & Lee, 2014; Lee et al., 2013). Schommer (1990) supported a multi-dimensional nature of epistemic beliefs—that epistemic beliefs consist of a system of more or less independent beliefs. The first two dimensions focus on beliefs concerning learning, such as innate ability and quick learning, whereas the second dimension focuses on beliefs concerning knowledge, which are simple and certain. Later, Schommer and Walker (1995) added a fifth dimension focusing on epistemic beliefs concerning omniscient authority, which has access to other forms of inaccessible knowledge.
Although research on the relationship between epistemic beliefs and pedagogical beliefs is not particularly extensive, the relationship between the two constructs has been acknowledged by a few empirical studies. In the western context, relativistic epistemic belief has been reportedly connected with constructivist pedagogical beliefs. Schraw and Olafson (2003), in an interview study, found that 23 out of 24 practicing teachers can be categorised as relativist and they tend to prefer constructivist-oriented teaching. Sinatra and Kardash (2004), in a survey of per-service teachers undertaken in the US, concluded that pre-service teachers’ relativistic epistemic beliefs have been reportedly related to constructivist pedagogical beliefs. Brownlee (2004), in an Australian study, reiterated these conclusions. Kang and Wallace (2005) noted that teachers who view science as a body of factual information, were inclined to express a transmissionist pedagogical belief. In the Asian context, Chan and Elliott (2002) explored epistemic beliefs and pedagogical beliefs of 385 pre-service teachers in Hong Kong and found a positive association between traditional beliefs and three dimensions of epistemic beliefs: (a) innate/fixed ability, (b) authority/expert knowledge, and (c) certainty knowledge. However, constructivist beliefs about teaching were found to be negatively related to the learning process. Later Chai, Teo, and Lee (2010), in a survey of pre-service teachers in Singapore, found that transmissionist pedagogical beliefs were positively related to a fixed ability but were negatively related to a process dimension.
35 This means that teachers were more focused on content development than on the learning process.
Although the above studies investigated relationships between epistemic beliefs and pedagogical beliefs, the majority of them were predominantly based on a survey approach with collected data being limited to self-reports that lacked verification and confirmation. According to Hofer (2008), these simplified survey-based measures may risk trivializing the complexity of individual beliefs. She also suggested that ‘assessment has been most reliable and valid with interviews’ (p. 7). Furthermore, the reviewed studies above seemed to examine the relationship by recruiting pre-service teachers. Very few studies, especially within the Arab cultural background, have explored how in-service teachers’ epistemic beliefs and pedagogical beliefs are intertwined in their real teaching practices.
2.6 Pedagogical Practices with Technology
A large number of literature resources acknowledge changes in the nature and source of knowledge and its construction (McCormick & Scrimshaw, 2001). It is argued that ICT tools and resources, involving the Internet have increased exposure to knowledge and exploded perceptions of knowledge as a static entity, obtained exclusively through textbooks and teachers. However, when discussing knowledge, the difference between knowledge and information should be taken into account. The distinction between these words is provided by Ackoff (1989)’s hierarchy, in which information is useful for answering who, what, where and when questions, while knowledge is useful for answering how questions. Although information has become easily accessible from electronic and online resources and is available to anyone at the click of a button, this does not necessarily mean that faster or greater knowledge is obtained (as is sometimes assumed). Technology as an ‘information tool’ that teachers use to access information bases (Internet, CD-ROMs) is only one of the categories identified by Ainley et al. (2002) in describing the typology of technology use. Other categories include the use of technology as an ‘authoring tool’, where teachers use technology to present information; as a ‘knowledge construction tool’, where learning is used to construct knowledge (e.g. Inspiration, GeoGebra); and as ‘knowledge reinforcement’, where classroom teaching and learning promote drilling and practice activities to reinforce basic skills and facilitate the acquisition of factual information (e.g. closed-type educational games).
36 Generally, in line with pedagogical beliefs, pedagogical practices can be categorized as a having a constructivist orientation or a traditionalist orientation (Cowlishaw & Budge, 2012; Meyer & Eley, 2006). Constructivist pedagogical practices enable students to participate in discussions, collaborate, inquire, and reflect, in order to support the development of reasoned knowledge. On the other hand, traditionalist pedagogical practices direct learning as a series of steps that lead to the production of intended and target knowledge (Ertmer et al., 2012). Frameworks for teachers’ pedagogical practices with technology will be proposed in this section.
Beauchamp (2004) developed a transitional framework for pedagogical practices with ICT which described how teachers’ pedagogical practices with regard to technology use have developed. According to his framework, teachers experience five stages, including different levels and types of classroom practices with technology. The ‘Mechanical (technical) skills’ stage of transition, where teachers use classroom technology such as Interactive White Board and computers as blackboards/whiteboards or overhead projector substitutes and implement existing practices using a new writing/presentation tool. The next stage is ‘Apprentice user’, where teachers start exploring new software applications such as PowerPoint. In the third stage, ‘Initiate user’, teachers begin to appreciate the potential of technology to change and enhance practices and begin to consider involving students’ needs and skills in their pedagogy. In the next stage, ‘Advanced user’, teachers consciously move toward the excitement of discovering the impact of technology on teaching and learning, moving from a linear direction in lessons to more creative, interactive, and discursive use. In the final stage, ‘Synergistic user’, students and teachers combine joint technical skills and the teacher’s pedagogic vision to create new interactive learning environments which facilitate achieving the goals of a lesson through a fluid structure.
Another framework for pedagogical practices with ICT was also proposed by Lewin et al. (2008). Their framework involved three stages: stage one, where teachers fit technologies into established pedagogies; stage two, where teachers engage in collaborative exploration of new opportunities offered by these technologies; stage three, where teachers use technology skilfully and intuitively in ways that extend or transform their established pedagogic practices. The difference between their framework and Beauchamp’s (2004) framework is that for Lewin et al. advanced technical knowledge and skills are not necessary for teachers to change their
37 pedagogical practices.
Another framework for pedagogical practices with technology was also introduced by Donnelly, McGarr, and O’Reilly (2011). They added a multi-dimensional approach where pedagogical practices are categorized into four typologies: ‘contented traditionalist’, where teachers focus on assessment and adapt ICT using traditional practices; ‘selective adopter’, where teachers use technology in traditional ways that enable better outcomes for assessment of existing curriculum; ‘inadvertent user’, where teachers are more likely to use technology in a student centred approach if that is perceived as a school requirement; and ‘creative adapter’, where teachers strongly focus on student-centred approaches that facilitate students’ meaningful learning.
2.7 Influence of Beliefs about Technology upon Practices
The significance of beliefs has been consistently highlighted in the literature as a major indictor for understanding teacher practice (Kane, Sandretto, & Heath, 2002; Pajares, 1992). In describing this influence, Pajares (1992) noted, ‘few would argue that beliefs teachers hold influence their perceptions and judgments which, in turn, affect their behaviour in the classroom’ (p.307). This influence has also been pointed out by Kagan (1992) in his discussion of the significant evidence supporting this influence: ‘Empirical studies have yielded quite consistent findings: A teacher’s beliefs tend to be associated with a congruent style of teaching that is often evident across different classes and grade level’ (p.66).
Researchers (Chai, 2010; Chai, Chin, Koh, & Tan, 2013) have found that teachers’ classroom practices tend to be associated with their epistemological beliefs and their pedagogical beliefs. Although the aforementioned evidence rightly adds credibility to teachers’ epistemic and pedagogical belief that technology informs, or at least has the potential to inform, practice in a positive or negative way, most research has been predominantly based on a survey approach with collected data being limited to self-reported uses that lacked verification and confirmation (Judson, 2006). Findings from studies that followed a more in-depth approach, using classroom observations in addition to surveys and or interviews, reported inconsistencies between teachers’ beliefs and their classroom practices with technology (Ertmer, Gopalakrishnan, & Ross, 2001; Fang, 1996). Fang (1996) described a number of studies in which researchers found little relationship between teachers’ beliefs and their instructional practices. Ertmer et
38 al. (2001) acknowledged that teachers’ vision for, or beliefs about, classroom technology use did not always match their classroom practices. Cox and Webb (2004) noted that despite teachers holding positive beliefs about and attitudes to technology use, their pedagogic practices were limited to small adjustments to their conventional way of teaching, without any significant impact on teaching and learning. Judson (2006) stated that despite teachers demonstrating strong constructivist orientations and recognizing the positive link between a particular theory of learning and ICT use, the analysis of his observational data contradicted these statements since no significant relationship between beliefs and practices was identified. This highlights the need for in-depth exploration of the association of beliefs not only with self-reported, but also with observed practice.
Inconsistencies between beliefs and practices have been identified in education research in general and attributed to the contextual factors that interfere with teachers’ ability to apply their beliefs in practice (Fang, 1996; Keys, 2005). The literature also argues that the inconsistencies between beliefs and use of technology could be attributed to the lack of comprehensive conceptualisation of the integration process (Davis, 2010; Mishra & Koehler, 2006). At the macro-level, technology use could be affected by the policymakers and their strategies (e.g. ICT training programs, integration of technology in the curriculum subjects, design of learning materials, teacher information and support), while at the meso-level, technology use could be affected by school administration and school-based polices and support. The next section addresses the factors found to hinder technology integration.
2.8 Factors Influencing Technology Use
There are a number of factors identified in the literature which appear to influence teachers’ practices with technology. Researchers (Kane et al., 2002; Pajares, 1992) have pointed out that teachers’ beliefs are important predictors of teaching practices. This section discusses the most commonly acknowledged factors and explanations for the impact of teachers’ beliefs on technology use in education, with focus on teachers’ low use of technology and the need to facilitate teachers’ use of technology.
2.8.1 Technology Access and Technical Support
A large number of literature resources acknowledge that technology availability and access and technical support are the most important and frequently reported factors
39 influencing technology integration in education (Liu, 2011; Mello, 2006; Plomp & Voogt, 2009; Younie, 2006). Voogt & Pelgrum, (2009) emphasized that both quantity and quality of available hardware and software technology were factors affecting their potential use in schools. Ertmer, Ottenbreit-Leftwich, and York (2006) added that insufficient access to online resources and tools is a major obstacle to educational technology use. Pelgrum (2001) identifies lack of technical support by assigned personnel as a significantly influential deficiency.
While technical obstacles have been overcome to a great extent in developed countries with technology infrastructure having increased over the last decade (National Center for Education Statistics, 2006), teachers’ classroom use of technology has remained low (Condie & Munro, 2007).
2.8.2 Policy, Curriculum, and Communication
The absence of an ICT-in-education policy that can act as a guide for teachers has been highlighted in the literature as a major obstacle to teachers’ classroom ICT integration (Watson, 2001; Wozney, Venkatesh, & Abrami, 2006). Balanskat, Blamire, and Kefala (2006) stated that educational policymakers should pay more attention to policies that facilitate teachers’ ICT integration into the classroom. Balanskat et al. (2006) also suggested that ICT policy should involve schemes for identifying and incentivizing teachers’ pedagogical use of technology, and for including technology in the curricula.
However, the process of establishing or implementing ICT policy is complex and requires collaboration among national agencies at the ministerial and regional levels, and among schools and teachers. Thus, when there is no ICT policy or communication between Ministry officials who are responsible for the scheme of technology use, it creates a hindrance to ICT integration in the classroom (Karagiorgi & Symeou, 2005; Webb, 2002). Research indicates that when head officers of either a national agency or an organization fail at decision-making or provide vague instruction to school principals, teachers’ implementation of policy and technology use is indeed obstructed (Younie, 2006).
Several studies have in particular explored the influence of an overloaded curriculum on teachers’ classroom practice with technology. The findings indicate that insufficient time for teachers is among the top obstacles that hinder technology integration in the classroom (Pelgrum, 2001). Teachers need time to become familiar
40 with, incorporate, and manage teaching curricula involving technology. They also need time to discover available resources and plan their lessons and students’ learning (Jones, 2004; Mumtaz, 2000). Additionally, student achievement and examination scores have been reported as obstacles to technology integration in view of the limited lesson time available (Lim & Khine, 2006).
2.8.3 Professional Development
Numerous research studies have indicated that lack of professional development is a key factor affecting teachers’ use of technology in the classroom. Teachers’ unfamiliarity with technology and lack of knowledge and skills relating to ICT have been reported by teachers and principals as significant factors in teachers’ low use of educational technology (Albirini, 2006; Jones, 2004; Mumtaz, 2000; Pelgrum, 2001). This is natural; teachers cannot handle tools effectively unless they know to use them. Tearle (2003) emphasised the importance of professional development, stating that it not only increased teachers’ awareness of the benefit of technology use, but also improved teachers’ confidence/competence and contributed to the increased use of technology in education.
Later studies developed the argument about the content of ICT professional development and the way that it should be conducted. The debate is related to the need for pedagogical ICT programs that aim to improve pedagogical classroom use of technology instead of focusing only on technical skills (Beauchamp, 2004; Ertmer, 2005; Prestridge & Tondeur, 2015). ICT professional development programs should not only focus on technology itself but on how to use technology to promote pedagogical intentions. In particular, it has been suggested that ICT training programs should be based on constructivist epistemology and pedagogy and encourage collaborative meaning, knowledge construction, active learning, and independent learning (Kirschner & Davis, 2003; Vrasidas & McIsaac, 2001).
It has been argued that ICT professional development should be based on teachers’ needs and classroom use of ICT (Watson, 2006). It has been claimed that for successful implementation to be achieved, professional development programs should be locally modified, according to the school and its staff (Younie, 2006) and customised according to individual needs (Charalambous & Karagiorgi, 2006).
In addition, teachers’ ICT professional development programs need to be
41 continuous and career lasting to achieve effective outcomes (Galanouli, Murphy, & Gardner, 2004). Professional development programs that are not conducted regularly do not help teachers meet the requirements of a changing environment (BECTA, 2004). Research highlights the success of teacher-led workshops as a form of continuous professional development that is provided by teachers rather than to teachers (Watson, 2006). Furthermore, Hennessy, Deaney, Dawes, and Bowker (2008) suggested other forms of continuous professional development involving peer observation-based programs and collaborative programs that encourage peer learning and reflective practices and provide teachers with explicit opportunities to explore how they can introduce new technologies into the classroom to promote student learning.
2.8.4 Technological Competency
Lack of technological competency is another important factor affecting teachers’ classroom practices with technology. Technological competency refers to the ability to handle and work on computer hardware and software (Mishra & Koehler, 2006). Besides the significance of appropriate pedagogical approaches to teaching with technology, identifying technical competencies that support pedagogical approaches is equally important (Goodyear, Salmon, Spector, Steeples, & Tickner, 2001). Watson (2001) emphasised that identifying and reinforcing pedagogies for use with technology must be related to appropriate technical skills prior to the implementation phase. The relationship between the level of ICT skills and teachers’ beliefs and how they use technology in the classroom is, however, an area that has not received much attention (Chai et al., 2013). Current classroom teachers must be prepared to provide technology- supported learning opportunities to their students. Being prepared to use technology and knowing how to use that technology to support pedagogical approaches, are integral qualities that must be in every teacher’s professional repertoire. Pituch and Lee (2006) concluded that prior technical competencies in using the Internet may affect the intention to use technology. Attieh’s study (2002) indicated the need for identifying and reinforcing the levels of ICT competencies among teachers at all levels of education and across all subjects. Prendes, Castaneda, and Gutierrez (2010) stated that modern educational technology requires teachers to be able to master specific ICT competencies: competency to use the usual Internet communication methods; competency to use various internet browsers; competency to surf the Internet and follow links and hyperlinks provided by websites; competency to download programs,
42 competency to use images and audio files; competency to use various Internet search engines; competency to organise information gathered from the Internet; awareness of the essential variation between free or open and proprietary software; competency to use the Internet to conduct video conferences via net meetings; competency to assess the effectiveness of information sources and ICTs to improve classroom activities; competency to use online learning management system (OLMS) tools and resources to manage and communicate personal and professional information; and competency to use the tools provided by OLMS to share information and resources using the classroom network. The ability to create an online lesson with clear structure, objectives, contents, and flexibility is a key competency that teachers must master. Besides this competency, using Microsoft programs such as Word, Excel, Adobe Acrobat, or other programs may need to be mastered because teachers will need them when they provide students with lesson content (Theodore, 2005). Both Al-Abdullatif’s (2012) and Alaugab’s (2007) studies concluded that technical skills were be one of the critical components for constructing an effective technology-based learning environment.
Recent studies have aimed at associating ICT skills with pedagogical use of technology. Mishra and Koehler (2006) suggested that viewing technology in isolation from knowledge of content and pedagogy is inappropriate. They developed a TPACK model (Figure 2.1) where they emphasised the need for each of the following components along with technology use: content, pedagogies, and technology. They also pointed out the need to regard the components in pairs. The first component is pedagogical content knowledge (PCK), which refers to the knowledge of how technology can change the way the subject matter is taught. The second component is technological content knowledge (TCK), which refers to the knowledge of capabilities of technologies used in teaching and learning, and how these can change teaching.
43
Figure 2.1. Technological PCK framework (Mishra & Koehler, 2006) Generally, technological competency could be categorised into two main typologies: (a) basic tools, where teachers must know basic hardware and software operations, as well as productivity application software, web browsers, communications software, presentation software, and management applications and (b) complex tools, where teachers must be knowledgeable about subject-specific tools and applications such as multimedia authoring or visualisations in science, graphics creation, web design, databases, data analysis tools in mathematics, and role-play simulations in social studies (UNESCO, 2011). A survey study conducted by Lee, Chai, Teo, and Chen (2008) among Singaporean pre-service teachers indicated the lack of complex ICT skills such as those related to producing multimedia and web-based resources. Another typology of technological competency highlighted in Ertmer’s research (2005, 2006, 2012) that differentiated between two types of technology tools is (a) technical use and (b) pedagogical use. Ertmer also argued that teachers’ ICT skills should be developed to meet 21st-century competencies such as critical thinking, problem solving, communication, and collaboration. Studies found that teachers with constructivist beliefs tend to use technology more frequently (Hermans et al., 2008) and in challenging ways (Chai, 2010; Ertmer et al., 2012) than teachers with traditional beliefs. Recently, the Sang, Valcke, van Braak, and Tondeur’s (2010) study that investigated the relationship between constructivist beliefs, teacher efficacy, attitudes towards computers, use of computers in classrooms among China pre-service teachers, indicated that teachers with a high level of technical skills can put other teachers at ease about the prospect of integrating technology into their lesson plans. Researchers
44 indicated that teachers also need to be flexible, creative, and open-minded in seeking technological tools that improve their students’ learning and understanding. Teachers also need to “look beyond the immediate technology and ‘reconfigure’ it for their own pedagogical purposes” (Mishra & Koehler, 2006, p. 17).
2.9 The Conceptual Framework of the Current Study
A conceptual framework provides a focused structure, determined by a literature review, and clarifies the relationships of focus areas with the research questions. According to Teddlie and Tashakkori (2009), ‘A conceptual framework is a consistent and comprehensive theoretical framework emerging from an inductive integration of previous literature, theories and other pertinent information. Usually, a conceptual framework is the basis for reframing research questions and formulating hypotheses’ (p. 39). Furthermore, a conceptual framework is an organised body of concepts and principles that enables researchers to interpret subsequent findings and explain particular issues by understanding the situation being studied and supporting this explanation with well-documented findings (Smyth, 2004).
This study aims to explore the impact of the beliefs of principals and teachers on the classroom use of technology. With respect to teacher performance, recent studies indicate that teachers’ behaviours are significantly influenced by their beliefs, which are considered a driving force in shaping classroom practices (Ertmer & Ottenbreit- Leftwich, 2010; Shahvarani & Savizi, 2007). To provide a structure for this study, which evaluated the beliefs and practices associated with technology use, three focus areas were synthesised from the relevant literature: principals’ and teachers’ beliefs, their technological practices and factors influencing beliefs and practices with technology. These three distinct focus areas are interrelated and directly influence the quality of classroom practices associated with technology. Moreover, these focus areas informed the development of the conceptual framework of this study. The conceptual framework of the three focus areas contributing to beliefs and practices associated with technology in Saudi secondary schools is outlined in Figure 2.2.
45
Figure 2.2. The conceptual framework of the study The conceptual framework of this study represents the comprehensive conceptualisation of the technology integration process in schools, focusing on three main areas: beliefs, practices and factors. The framework begins with principals because they play an important role within schools and serve as change agents in the adoption of technologies. Beliefs about technology use must be determined by principals based on professional activity. In this way, they are able to establish a core reflective process in line with their personal beliefs about technology use and beliefs about teachers’ technological practices.
The arrow next to the principals’ beliefs rectangle represents the direction of the impact of principals’ beliefs on teachers’ beliefs about technology use. The next rectangle shows teachers’ beliefs, which align with the principals’ beliefs and are divided into two types: teachers’ beliefs about technology use and their perceived practices. The small arrow next to teachers’ epistemic beliefs shows that teachers’ pedagogical beliefs are also affected by their epistemic beliefs. The arrow next to the teachers’ rectangle shows that teachers’ beliefs are initially affected by school principals and subsequently align with classroom practices in the exemplary environment. The bracketed information represents the relationship between beliefs and practices and how it is affected by contextual factors, including technology access, technical support,
46 policy, curriculum, communication, ICT professional development programmes and technological competency. These contextual factors can interfere with the teachers’ ability to apply their own beliefs and fulfil principals’ expectations in their practices. The circle shows that, due to interactions between principals’ beliefs, teachers’ beliefs and the effects of contextual factors, the relationship between beliefs and different types of practices affect teachers’ technological practices, which range from teacher-centred to student-centred, depending on contextual factors. The study framework provides a holistic overview of the focus areas that form the basis of beliefs and practices associated with technology use. The conceptual framework for this study is based on the literature, informs the research design and provides reference points for discussion in the literature review, methodology and data analysis sections.
There are some important points that must be addressed when developing and utilising a conceptual framework. First, because the framework is a construction of relevant knowledge, it is restricted by the experiences of the person who has developed it; therefore, the framework should not be assigned any credibility. Second, the conceptual framework informs beliefs regarding practices associated with technology by increasing the personal sensitivity, consciously or unconsciously, of users to particular occurrences. Third, researchers should not expect to analyse all the data exclusively using the framework, because this carries the risk of limiting the inquiry results (Smyth, 2004). Consideration of these points will facilitate the acceptance of unpredicted occurrences in the data and investigation.
2.10 Chapter Summary
Despite massive worldwide investment in the implementation of technology in education, many initiatives have failed with regard to teachers’ practices with technology in schools. Additionally, the introduction of technology in the classroom was often more gesture than realistic attempt, despite occasional innovative pedagogical practices. Researchers attempting to identify the reasons that have led to the failures, point to the influence of both teachers’ beliefs and contextual factors.
Particular attention is devoted – in the literature and in this study – to principals’ and teachers’ beliefs about technology and how these act as a filter through which teachers’ classroom practices are shaped. A review of frameworks underpinning technology use contributed to an understanding of the nature of, and conditions for, the
47 sought-after change at the levels of beliefs and practices. Additionally, the literature review highlighted the factors influencing technology integration. Finally, the conceptual framework of the study was articulated. In the next chapter, the methodology and methods employed to explore Saudi secondary school principals’ and teachers’ beliefs and practices with technology will be detailed.
48 Chapter 3: Study Methodology and Design
3.1 Introduction
The previous chapter provided a review of the literature on principals’ and teachers’ beliefs and practices with technology. Three focus areas were drawn from the literature in terms of beliefs and practices with technology as follows: beliefs about technology use (epistemic beliefs and pedagogical beliefs), classroom practices with technology, and factors affecting beliefs and practices with technology. These focus areas informed the development of the conceptual framework to guide this study, which was discussed in the conclusion of the previous chapter.
This chapter aims to provide a detailed description of the study methodology and design including the research focus, methodological paradigm, research design, the study population and sample, methods of data collection, data collection and data analysis.
3.2 Research Focus
This study focused on exploring what participants believed about learning and teaching with the use of technology and examined the connection between principals’ and teachers’ beliefs and real classroom practices with technology. Therefore, four research questions (RQs) were formed to facilitate and structure this investigation. These questions are listed as follows in the table below:
Table 3 Research Questions
1. What are principals’ and teachers’ beliefs about technology use in teaching and learning?
2. What are teachers’ perceived and actual practices with technology?
3. Do principals’ and teachers’ beliefs relate to teachers’ practices with technology use, and if so, how and to what degree?
4. What other factors affect principals’ and teachers’ beliefs and practices with technology?
To clarify some concepts, ‘beliefs about technology use in teaching and learning’ refers to both epistemic and pedagogical beliefs, in that principals and teachers
49 see pedagogic benefits to the use of technology for student knowledge, student learning, and teaching. As indicated in the literature review, epistemic beliefs consist of two dimensions – beliefs concerning learning and beliefs about knowledge (Schommer, 1990) – while pedagogical beliefs consist of the teaching dimension (Hung et al., 2008).
Next, ‘practices with technology’ refers to teaching approaches, teacher roles, student roles, student-technology interaction encouraged by teachers and frequency of the same, different types of technology used by teacher and students, and activities assigned for students and the relationship between the use of technology and lesson objectives.
3.3 Methodological Paradigm
Over the past few decades, educational researchers have begun to use a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods, employing a mixed-methods approach that has been described as a new paradigm (Creswell & Plano, 2011; Gay, Mills, & Airasian, 2011). Creswell and Plano (2011) defined this mixed-methods research design as involving ‘the use of both quantitative and qualitative methods, in combination, [which] provides a better understanding of the research problem and questions than either method by itself’ (p. 12). Denscombe (2008) argued that the mixed-methods approach can be used to increase data accuracy and to provide a more complete picture of the topic under study. The mixed-methods approach is more appropriate when a holistic view of an educational outcome is required, so it is important to test the qualitative explorations of the first phase of a study (Creswell, 2009).
According to Creswell (2012), the rationale for using a mixed-methods approach when administering a questionnaire is that this approach provides general information regarding a sample that represents an entire population. However, semi-structured interviews and observations are tools that enable researchers to investigate respondents’ beliefs, feelings, attitudes, and perceptions in greater detail, providing actual evidence that complements generalizable data. The use of the mixed-methods approach in this study enabled the researcher to explore principals’ and teachers’ beliefs and practices with technology, by using both quantitative and qualitative data. Quantitative research is generally used to answer questions regarding correlations among measurable variables, with the intention of explaining, anticipating, and controlling phenomena. In contrast, qualitative research is used to address the complex nature of phenomena, with the
50 intention of describing and understanding them from participants’ perspectives (Leedy & Ormrod, 2013).
Quantitative data collected from principal and teacher questionnaires helped the researcher to obtain an overview of principals’ and teachers’ beliefs and self-reported technology practices, and to sketch a profile of each participant. The qualitative data collected from teachers’ pre-lesson interviews were used to explore, in depth, the typology of beliefs and practices with technology, the relationship between beliefs and practices and the contextual factors influencing that relationship.
In addition, for this research, a multi-case-study approach was used to explore the relationship between teachers’ beliefs and practices, as well as the contextual factors affecting it. A case study was defined by Gerring (2004) as an in-depth exploration of a single unit, based on the researcher’s aim of exploring the features of a large class of similar phenomena. Stake (2005) explained that case study research is not a methodology but a choice about what is to be studied. The case study approach was considered appropriate for this study of teachers, which employed rich data (a questionnaire, pre-lesson interviews, classroom observations and post-lesson interviews) that enabled the researcher to compare and identify the similarities and differences between cases, and thus better understand the technology-related beliefs and practices of Saudi secondary school teachers of Arabic language. According to Yin (2014), in-depth case-study research should be based on multiple sources of evidence.
Some may wonder why a multi-case study of teachers did not involve principals. This is because although the principals and teachers who participated in the questionnaire were from the same schools, the principals and teachers who agreed to participate in the follow-up interviews and classroom observations were from different schools. However, the comparison between principals’ data (questionnaire and interviews) and teachers’ multiple case studies enabled the researcher to identify the similarities and differences between principals’ and teachers’ beliefs and practices. It thus provided a better understanding of the relationship between Saudi secondary principals’ beliefs and teachers’ beliefs and practices related to technology.
In this study, the aim was also to determine how the three variables (beliefs, practices, contextual factors) were related and why, and so in-depth examination was required. Research approaches using surveys, interviews and experiments often struggle with limited variables that make it difficult to collect data intensively. One of the major
51 virtues of a case study is thus the depth of analysis that it offers. Furthermore, the case study approach allows for the generation of a great number of hypotheses, and reveals insights that might not be apparent to the researcher without empirical data spanning a large number of units. The case study approach is thus suitable for exploring teachers’ beliefs and practices in detail, providing new insights and identifying the relationship between teachers’ beliefs and their actual classroom practices.
Moreover, the case study approach allows the researcher to be integrally involved in the case, as the result of interaction with participants over the study period (Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, 2011). This enabled the researcher to view phenomena from the participants’ perspectives and helped him to obtain insights during data interpretation.
3.4 Research Design
The research design involved three stages. Yin (2009) indicated that one of the best methods for developing a database with which to conduct an in-depth investigation of a contemporary phenomenon and its real-life context is to adopt a stage-wise approach and employ a variety of research instruments. The major aim of this study’s three-stage approach and its use of diverse research instruments was to acquire a richer set of materials for analysing outcomes. These three stages also included subsequences, as shown in Figure 3.1.
Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3
Principals’ general Typology of Typology of principals’ beliefs about teachers’ beliefs beliefs about technology technology use about technology use use
Teachers’ general Typology of Typology of principals’ beliefs about teachers’ practices beliefs about teachers’ technology use with technology practices with technology Overview of teachers’ Teachers’ beliefs practices with about factors Principals’ beliefs about technology influencing factors influencing
technology use technology use
Observed factors influencing technology use
Figure 3.1. Three stages of research design
52 Figure 3.1 illustrates the three stages in this study. The vertical dotted lines divide beliefs and practices concerning technology into the stages that provided the structure for this study. The first stage focused on general beliefs and practices with technology. The second and third stages focused on the typology of beliefs and practices involving technology, as well as the other factors influencing those beliefs and practices.
Stage 1: In the first stage, quantitative data were collected by using principal and teacher questionnaires, so as to obtain an overview of principals’ and teachers’ beliefs and self-reported practices concerning technology use. In stage one, the data collection process helped the researcher obtain general answers to the following research questions:
1. What are principals’ and teachers’ beliefs about technology use in teaching and learning? 2. What are teachers’ perceived practices with technology? 3. Do principals’ and teachers’ beliefs relate to teachers’ technology practices, and if so, how?
The data collected during the first stage provided an overview of principals’ and teachers’ beliefs and practices involving technology, as well as the relationship between those beliefs and practices. It also helped in the examination of the impact of demographic factors on those beliefs and practices.
Stage 2: In stage two, the initial quantitative data from stage one, combined with qualitative data collected during this stage, informed a multi-case study of teachers that helped to provide deep insight into teachers’ beliefs and practices concerning technology. In this stage, the collected data helped to answer the following research questions in greater depth:
1. What are teachers’ beliefs about technology use in teaching and learning? 2. What are teachers’ perceived and actual practices involving technology? 3. Do teachers’ beliefs and perceived practices relate to their actual practices concerning technology use, and if so, how? 4. What other factors affect teachers’ beliefs and practices involving technology?
The data collected during this stage made it possible to explore the typology of teachers’ beliefs about technology use, in terms of their epistemic and pedagogical
53 beliefs about technology use. The data also facilitated the exploration of the typology of teachers’ practices with technology use, and the relationship between their beliefs and practices. In addition, it revealed reported and observed factors that influence technology use.
Stage 3: In stage three, qualitative data were collected that offered deep insight into principals’ beliefs about technology use, as well as their beliefs about factors that influence technology use. In this stage, data collection made it possible to answer the following research questions in depth:
1. What are principals’ beliefs about technology use in teaching and learning?
2. Do principals’ beliefs relate to teachers’ beliefs and practices concerning technology use, and if so, how? 3. What other factors affect principals’ beliefs and teachers’ technology practices?
The data collected during this stage facilitated exploration of the typology of principals’ beliefs about technology use, in terms of their pedagogical beliefs. The data also made it possible to examine the typology of principals’ beliefs about teachers’ technology practices, as well as the relationship between principals’ beliefs and teachers’ beliefs and practices involving technology. Finally, it aided in the exploration of principals’ beliefs concerning other factors that influence technology use.
3.5 The Study Population and Sample
The target population of this study comprised school principals and Arabic language teachers in boys’ secondary schools in Saudi Arabia. Brown and Dowling (1998) noted that ‘the selection of empirical setting is very often a matter of seizing an opportunity’ (p. 29). This was indeed the case in this study; at the time of this research, there were only about 75 secondary schools equipped with advanced technological infrastructure in the Jeddah administrative area of Saudi Arabia during the 2013–2014 school year. In Jeddah, according to the Department of Education, there are approximately 75 secondary schools that are supposed to be model schools in terms of their building facilities, management, and technological infrastructure. In each school, there are computer labs and learning room resources, and in some classrooms, there are student computers as well as a computer for the teacher and an IWB (instead of the conventional blackboard) connected to the Internet via broadband. Further demographic information about each model school is presented in Table 3.2.
54 Table 3.2 Demographic Information of Model Schools School size: Large (above 300 students) Average class size: 20 students Student social background/Ethnicity: Mixed/Approximately 95% Saudi Arabian, 5% other Arab countries (Egyptian, Yemen, and Syrian). Faculty: 69 principals and 90 Arabic language teachers randomly assigned to participate in this study. Student attainment: Mixed abilities
As mentioned earlier, the technologies in the model schools are expected to be generalised and available to all schools within the next few years6. The principals and Arabic language teachers serving at the model schools were randomly assigned and no ICT training or other criteria were set for their selection.
It is evident that the selection for this study of 75 model secondary schools which had 75 principals and 115 Arabic language teachers was purposive and opportunistic. The principals and teachers were selected because they worked at schools that, due to their innovative technological infrastructure, were characterised by their uniqueness in operating as model schools. As mentioned, at the time of this research, there were only about 75 secondary schools in Jeddah equipped with advanced technological infrastructure, including personal computers (PCs) connected to broadband Internet and IWBs in the classrooms (instead of the conventional blackboard) and student computers in some classrooms and learning resources. The MOE proclaimed their plans to expand the operational system of the model schools to all public secondary schools in Saudi Arabia within a few years. Therefore, it was considered purposeful to undertake research that could inform the reality of a situation expected to be widely generalised in the imminent future.
The principals and teachers at model schools were selected because for them, the problem of lack of technology was thought to have been minimised due to the ICT resources available in the schools. Consequently, the issues of lack of technology could be controlled to an extent, allowing for emphasis to be placed on principals’ and teachers’ beliefs as factors influencing teachers’ practices with technology. Even though
6 At the time of writing of this dissertation, little progress has been made towards this goal.
55 the available ICT resources are not sufficient, the fact that principals and teachers benefited from the same technology but also faced similar problems encouraged comparisons, especially in term of the different impact of these external factors on principals and teachers with different beliefs and practices with technology.
From the 75 model schools, 70 principals and 90 teachers were randomly assigned to participate in the quantitative phase of this study. Most of the principals and teachers were contacted, 75 principals and 115 teachers were invited to participate in this study, however only 70 of principals and 90 of teachers agreed upon contribution. A random sampling approach, which is a popular strategy in mixed-methods studies (Cohen, Manion, Morrison, & ebrary, 2011), is an appropriate method for making generalizations and obtaining responsiveness from a wider population. As compared to the non-probability method, the probability (random) method has less risk of bias (Cohen et al., 2011). In this study, the random sampling method was used in the selection of a sample at random from a large group, referred to as a population, and each person in the population was given an equal chance of being selected (Gay et al., 2011).
In the qualitative phases, purposive sampling was used to select the interviewed principals and the interviewed and observed teachers. This type of sampling refers to the intentional selection of participants who are interested in participating in the research project, based on their relevant professional roles, powers, access to the Internet, and experiences (Cohen et al., 2011). The researcher selected 12 out of 23 principals who provided their consent to participate in the follow-up interviews. The 12 participants were selected based on their responses to the quantitative questionnaire about their beliefs about technology use, and their beliefs regarding teachers’ practices with technology. The questionnaire results indicated that principals’ beliefs about technology use and their beliefs about teachers’ practices with technology overall agreed; they ranged from neutral to strongly agreeing, Therefore, in the selection of the twelve principals for interviews, the researcher specifically sought to obtain a variety of beliefs including neutral, agreeing, and strongly agreeing.
Similarly, the researcher selected 12 out of 18 teachers who provided their consent to participate in the follow-up interviews and observations based on their responses to the quantitative questionnaire about their beliefs about technology use, and their practices with technology. The questionnaire results indicated that teachers’ beliefs
56 overall agreed; they ranged from neutral to strongly agreeing, while their practices with technology were generally moderate, and ranged from low to high. Therefore, in the selection of the twelve teachers, the researcher specifically sought to obtain a variety of beliefs, including neutral, agreeing, and strongly agreeing. Similarly, in the teachers’ practices, the researcher specifically sought to obtain a variety of reported practices, including low, moderate, and high levels.
3.6 Methods of Data Collection
As indicated, data were collected in three stages, with six research instruments for gathering data and answering research questions (RQs). The following section describes the research instruments and provides further details on the pilot study, validity, reliability, credibility, transferability and dependability.
Table 3.3 Research Questions and Research instruments
Research Questions RQ 1: RQ 2: RQ 3: RQ 4: Research Principals’ Teachers’ Relationship Factors affect and teachers’ perceived and between beliefs instruments beliefs and beliefs about actual practices and practices practices with technology with with technology technology use technology 1. Principal ✓ ✓ ✓ questionnaire 2. Teacher ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ questionnaire 3. Pre-lesson ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ teacher interview 4. Classroom ✓ ✓ ✓ observation schedule 5. Teacher post- ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ lesson interview 6. Principal ✓ ✓ ✓ interview
57 3.6.1 Stage 1 Data Collection Methods
Data were collected in Stage 1 using a principal questionnaire and a teacher questionnaire. Data were collected to generate an overview of principals’ beliefs and teachers’ beliefs, and an understanding of their practices with respect to technology use. Each method is discussed in detail below.
Principal Questionnaire
As indicated in Table 3.5, data were first collected using a questionnaire survey (Appendix A). The term ‘survey’ typically refers to a method of data collection that uses an instrument comprising a series of questions, statements, or items that have a clear structure, sequence, and focus (Cohen et al., 2011; Leedy & Ormrod, 2013). Surveys are generally categorized by the manner in which data are collected. The information items, which are collected from survey participants, are called variables. Variables can be characterized into three popular types on the basis of the content of the questions contained in a survey instrument: Background (demographic) questions collect information on personal characteristics such as age, sex, marital status, previous education, and teaching experience (number of years). A second group of questions relates to attitudes, opinions, beliefs, and preferences, for example, ‘To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement?’ A third group of questions is related to the behaviour of the participants in the sample, and explores the questions of ‘What’, ‘When’, and ‘How often’ (Creswell, 2012).
According to Leedy and Ormrod (2013), surveys are usually used for one of the following purposes: descriptive, explanatory, and exploratory. Since this study is considered to have descriptive and exploratory purposes, it is appropriate to adopt the survey method for this study. This study is exploratory because it explored principals’ beliefs and teachers’ beliefs and practices with technology. Furthermore, it aimed to explore how principals’ and teachers’ beliefs can influence classroom practices with technology.
The principal questionnaire (Appendix A) consisted of a total of 24 questions and was divided into four sections: A) Personal information, B) Principals’ beliefs about technology use, C) Overall technological skills, and D) Principals’ beliefs about teachers’ practices with technology. All questionnaire items were close-ended questions. In Sections B and D, principals were asked to select their answers on a five-
58 scale Likert rating scale, with response options ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree. In Section C, they were asked to select their answers on a five-scale Likert rating scale, with response options ranging from very high to very low. Section C dealt with issues of competence with ICT. Primarily, it was related to RQ4 and was intended to collect data on principals’ overall technological knowledge and skills.
Section B was primarily related to RQ1 and was designed to obtain principals’ pedagogical beliefs about technology use. The principals were asked to rate their agreement with nine statements concerning their beliefs about the pedagogical value of technology use in teaching and learning (Appendix A). Each of the nine statements refers to a particular belief and the pedagogical value of technology use in teaching and learning. Item 1 is dedicated to the benefit that teaching with technology would help each student to learn in way he or she prefers. Item 2 is associated with the pedagogical value that technology use could expand student learning outside the classroom perimeters. Item 3 is associated with the change to student-centred approaches that could occur in teaching approaches as the result of technology use in teaching and learning. Item 4 is associated with the pedagogical value that teaching with technology would lead to teachers having high expectations of their students learning better with technology use. Item 5 is associated with the pedagogical value relating to the effectiveness of teaching with technology use compared to traditional classroom learning that is not supported by ICT. Items 6 and 7 are associated with the beliefs and the pedagogical value that teaching with technology will lead to improvements in students’ research skills and encourage them to learn collaboratively. Item 8 is related to the pedagogical value that teaching with technology will improve student achievement. Item 9 is related to the administrative pedagogical value that using technology in teaching could help teachers to organise and manage student learning; usually, this benefit is either unrelated to the learning focus, for example, using technology to manage classroom time, or supports low-level cognitive tasks such as drills and practices (Ertmer et al., 2012; Mama & Hennessy, 2013).
Section D commenced with exploration of principal’ beliefs about practices that should be undertaken by teachers with regard to technology use, thereby addressing RQ1. Principals reported their beliefs about ten statements concerning the classroom use of technology that should be undertaken by teachers. Each of the ten statements refers to particular types of teachers’ classroom practices with technology. Items 1, 2, 3,
59 and 4 are associated with using technology to support teacher-centred practices, where technology is used as: 1) a communication tool to facilitate communication between teachers and students or among students, for example, with email and social networks (Facebook, Twitter); 2) to present information to the classroom (e.g. word processors, presentation packages, etc.); 3) as a research tool to access information bases (Internet, CD-ROMs); and 4) as a knowledge reinforcement tool, where students engage in drill and practice activities to reinforce basic skills and the acquisition of factual information (e.g. closed-type educational games). Usually, these types of practices support low-level cognitive tasks and passive receipt of knowledge from the teacher (Ainley et al., 2002; Ertmer et al., 2012). Items 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 refer to student-centred practices in which students, rather than passively receiving knowledge from the teacher, can collaborate, hypothesise, inquire, investigate, and share knowledge and assess their own performance (Ertmer et al., 2012; Hermans et al., 2008).
The questionnaire was designed by a researcher in Arabic and translated into English, adapting the Brislin (1970) model for translating and back-translating instruments in order to avoid conceptual nuances with the English-speaking readers of this thesis. The researcher and supervisors checked the English version of the questionnaire, making sure that the wording reflected the concepts appropriately. As explained later, the Arabic version was also checked by a native Arabic colleague and finalized after the piloting study.
Teacher Questionnaire
The main objective of a teacher questionnaire survey (Appendix B) is to gather a large set of data from teachers to develop a profile for all participants. The teacher questionnaire comprised 36 questions and was divided into four sections: A) Personal information, B) Beliefs about technology use, C) Competence with ICT, and D) Practices with technology. All questionnaire items were close-ended questions. In the second section, teachers were asked to select their answers on a five-scale Likert rating scale (see Appendix B), with response options ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree (Creswell, 2012). Next, in the third and fourth sections, they were asked to select their answers on the five-scale Likert rating scale, with response options ranging from Very high to Very low. A questionnaire form was used in conducting this survey so that participants responded to the questions with the assurance that their responses
60 would be anonymous, which would enable them to be more truthful than they might be in a personal interview (Leedy & Ormrod, 2013).
Section B was primarily related to RQ1 and was informed by the notion that technological use is assumed to mostly adhere to constructivist benefits in teaching and learning, and that it might also include other traditional benefits (Ottenbreit-Leftwich, Glazewski, Newby, & Ertmer, 2010). Benefits from using technology in teaching and learning were taken into account in designing section B, with the aim being to explore teachers’ beliefs about technology use and its pedagogic value. It was informed by the same content as Section B’s, where the principal questionnaire was used to obtain principals’ perspectives on addressing RQ1.
Section C dealt with issues of competence with ICT. Primarily, it was related to RQ4 and was intended to provide data on teachers’ technological knowledge and skills in an attempt to take into account technical barriers to technology integration. It was informed by questionnaires employed in other studies addressing similar issues (Chai, 2010; Coffland & Strickland, 2004).
The last section commenced with an exploration of teachers’ practices with technology, thereby addressing RQ2. The purpose was to provide data on teachers’ practices with technology, taking into account student-centred (ST) practices and teacher-centred (TC) practices. It was informed by questionnaires employed in other studies addressing practices with technology (Ertmer et al., 2012; Palak & Walls, 2009). It was informed by the similar content of Section C in the principal questionnaire to obtain teachers’ reported classroom practices with technology. Like the principals’ questionnaire, the teachers’ questionnaire was designed by the researcher in Arabic, translated into English, and back translated in Arabic.
3.6.2 Stage 2 Data Collection Methods
Data were collected in Stage 2 using pre-lesson teacher interviews, classroom observations, and post-lesson teacher interviews. Data were collected to explore the typology of teachers’ beliefs and practices with respect to technology use, as well as the relationship between their beliefs and practices and the factors that influence this relationship. Each method is discussed in detail below.
61 Pre-lesson Teacher Interview
The survey data were reviewed. These data provided an overview of participants’ beliefs and practices with technology and information for each of the participants. Following this, data were collected using semi-structured interviews (Appendix C). As stated earlier, the central purpose of pre-lesson interviews was to obtain a deep insight into teachers’ epistemic and pedagogical beliefs about technology use. An additional purpose was to collect data on teachers’ stated practices with the intention of comparing them with observed practices. Furthermore, pre-lesson teacher interviews were used to collect data on factors affecting teachers’ beliefs and practices with technology.
Researchers who use surveys face limitations in controlling the conditions under which a survey questionnaire is completed, and possibly misinterpreted, by participants. Furthermore, the use of surveys does not enable participants to support their answers with reasons. Since this study aims to provide a deep insight into principals’ beliefs and teachers’ beliefs and practices with technology, the researcher designed qualitative semi-structured interview questions and conducted interviews with secondary school principals and teachers. Cohen et al. (2011) stated that qualitative interviews provide participants with the opportunity to discuss their interpretations and support their answers through appropriate reasons and comments.
In research studies, semi-structured interviews are considered the most important data collection method. In a semi-structured interview, the interviewer has a series of questions that are in the general form of an interview schedule, but the interviewer can vary the sequence of questions and the manner in which they are asked to gain clarification or question a participant’s reasoning (Leedy & Ormrod, 2013). Usually, the frame of reference of the questions in semi-structured interviews is more general than that of the questions found in a structured interview schedule. In other words, for obtaining a better understanding, in semi-structured interviews, the interviewer usually has some latitude to ask further questions in response to what are seen as important replies (Gay et al., 2011). A semi-structured interview is described as a purposeful conversation that focuses on exploring and probing participants’ responses to gather a more in-depth understanding about their experiences, feelings, beliefs, and interests (Cohen et al., 2011).
The teacher pre-lesson interview schedule (Appendix C) comprised four themes. The first (Section A) one was epistemic beliefs. The reasons for including this were,
62 first, because it was assumed that teachers’ epistemic beliefs aligned with their pedagogical beliefs about technology (Chai, 2010; Hofer, 2001). Secondly, it was also assumed that teachers’ epistemic beliefs influenced their practice with ICT (Lee et al., 2013). Therefore, teachers were asked to discuss their beliefs about the nature of student knowledge and student learning with technology use, and its benefits for student knowledge and learning. Teachers were also asked how they decided what to teach and what not to teach using technology. The purpose of epistemic beliefs was to understand teachers’ typology of epistemic beliefs with technology use in order to answer RQ1, and to determine how these types aligned with pedagogical practices and possibly affected teachers’ practices, thereby addressing RQ3.
The second theme dealt with pedagogical beliefs about technology; its purpose was to understand teachers’ levels and types of teachers’ pedagogical beliefs about technology. The reason for including this was the same as in the survey, with the proposition being that teachers’ pedagogical beliefs were assumed to relate to their practices (Ertmer, 2006; Prestridge, 2012; Tondeur, Hermans, van Braak, & Valcke, 2008). Teachers were asked to discuss their beliefs about the nature of teaching processes with technology use, and its benefits for the teaching process. Their responses would be used to answer RQ1 and RQ3. Turning to practice, the next theme (Section C) aimed to provide data on teachers’ self-reported ICT uses in response to RQ2. Teachers were to be asked to describe their practices with technology; their pedagogical approaches, the roles of teacher and students; classroom activities, ways of using ICT resources; and technical competencies needed for technology use. This section at a later stage was to be compared to actual practices. Finally, the last part of the pre-lesson interview schedule (Section F) aimed to identify any factors affecting classroom use of technology-related technical issues, school support, and mistrial support to answer RQ4. As with the questionnaire, the interview schedule was designed in Arabic, translated into English, and back translated into Arabic.
Classroom Observation Schedule
As mentioned, direct classroom observations were planned to take place after reviewing the interview data. Although both questionnaires and interviews can investigate participants’ beliefs and self-reported practices with technology, they cannot reflect real classroom practices. Cohen et al. (2011) claimed that a significant characteristic of observation as a research instrument is that it provides researchers with the opportunity
63 to gather live data in naturally occurring social situations. The classroom observation schedule (Appendix D) was designed to address teachers’ practices and fulfil the core quest of RQs, namely, to examine the relationship between beliefs and practice along with questionnaire and pre-lesson interview data that were needed in order to characterise such a relationship.
The classroom observation schedule was designed to obtain information about a) the background, including date, lesson setting, number of students, subject, classroom layout, and lesson purpose and structure; b) technology integration, including pedagogical approaches, teachers’ and students’ roles, classroom activities, ways of using ICT resources, and students’ interaction with technology; and d) observed obstacles in technology integration. The questionnaire and pre-lesson interview data helped inform the classroom observation schedule and the self-reported practices were compared with actual classroom practices.
Teacher Post-lesson Interview
The teacher pre-lesson interview schedule (Appendix E) was designed in advance and comprised three sections: the first section (Section A) contained teachers’ evaluation of their observed practices and their opinion on whether they felt that their technology use had successful effects on lesson outcomes and student learning. Section B contained activities that teachers introduced in the observed lessons. Section C was designed to obtain teachers’ reflections on the potential for more or different practices with technology.
The purpose of a teacher pre-lesson interview schedule was to encourage teachers to justify their observed practices or make any modifications the teachers needed to make during the observed lessons, either regarding the technology use or other teaching approaches.
3.6.3 Stage 3 Data Collection Methods
Data were collected in Stage 3, using a semi-structured principal interview. Data were collected to explore the typology of principals’ beliefs with respect to technology use, their beliefs concerning teacher practices that involve technology, and their beliefs concerning the factors that influence technology use. This method is discussed in detail below.
64 Principal Interview
The principal interview schedule (Appendix F) comprised three sections. The first (Section A) pertained to principals’ pedagogical beliefs about technology use and its pedagogic value in teaching, thereby addressing RQ1. As with the teacher pre-lesson interviews, principals were to be asked to discuss their pedagogical beliefs about technology. The purpose of this was to understand principals’ levels and types of pedagogical beliefs about technology use in teaching and learning. Regarding principals’ beliefs about teachers’ practices with technology, in Section B, the aim was similar to the questionnaire aim: collection of data on principals’ beliefs on practice with technology that should be undertaken by teachers. This would answer RQ1 and RQ3. As mentioned in the literature review chapter, the reason for including principals’ beliefs in this study was that teachers’ beliefs and practices were assumed to be influenced by school principals’ beliefs and attitudes (Voogt & Pelgrum, 2009).
As with the teacher pre-lesson interview, the last part of the principal interview schedule (Section C) was designed to identify any other factors affecting teachers’ classroom use of technology and whether they pertained to technical issues, school support, or mistrial support. The responses would answer RQ4. The principal questionnaires and interviews were also designed to confirm teachers’ responses and identify the relationship between principals’ beliefs and teachers’ beliefs and practices with technology.
3.6.4 Pilot Study
Pilot studies were conducted before the researcher commenced the fieldwork for the main study. The term ‘pilot study’ refers to a small-scale preliminary research project in which the investigator tests procedures in order to set the stage for the actual study (Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2009). A pilot study is crucial for pretesting the research hypothesis and instruments, as it contributes to an increase in the likelihood of success in the main study. Therefore, a pilot study can provide the researcher with ideas and approaches in advance, which can help to avoid issues that may arise before conducting the larger study. It can answer questions associated with clarity, feasibility of the project, reliability and validity of the instruments for the selected population, and the methods of acquiring the planned information (Cohen et al., 2011). Prior to the full implementation of the general data collection procedures, the principal and teacher questionnaire and interview schedule was piloted in August 2013 with two teachers and
65 two principals in Saudi secondary schools. The pilot study was useful for making the questions in the questionnaires conceptually clear, and for estimating the time needed for their completion. All participants’ remarks were addressed and taken into account when producing the final copy.
Additionally, the researcher arranged a trial session under the terms of the approvals given for conducting the study and arranged to do pilot individual interviews and classroom observations with the participants. The researcher began by presenting information about the research topic, comprised of written and verbal descriptions of the research project and an explanation of the purpose and nature of the proposed interview and classroom observation sessions. A copy of the consent form was provided to each trial participant, advising him/her that signing the consent form and participating in the interview and classroom observation was voluntary. The purpose of conducting the pilot interview and classroom observation was to determine whether modification of the planned procedures was required. They also helped the researcher to develop confidence in his interviewing and observational skills through the use of semi- structured interviews and classroom observation notes (Cohen et al., 2011). The participants were asked to give audio recordings and field notes on the evolution of the interview and classroom observation sessions, together with any recommendations they would like to offer concerning improvements to the interview and classroom observation session processes. The researcher asked them for immediate verbal recommendations and emailed written recommendations if the participant wanted to add anything about the interview or classroom observation. An open question regarding the session, such as, ‘How was the session for you?’, was asked by the researcher, and at the end of the pilot interview and classroom observation, the researcher gave the trial participants assurance that their comments would be reported anonymously. The transcription and analysis of parts of the interview and classroom observation are described in the data analysis section.
In order to identify the problems observed during the trial interview and classroom observation, the researcher evaluated and analysed parts of them with the intent of identifying all the problems noticed by the researcher and the participants or of modifying the procedures, if necessary, to overcome any apparent problems that might have appeared during the trial interview and classroom observation.
66 3.6.5 Validity and Reliability
Validity and reliability are considered the most important factors of effective research. Both quantitative research and qualitative research require validity and reliability. Reliability refers to the degree to which a survey instrument consistently measures whatever it is supposed to measure (Cohen et al., 2011). Although reliability is an essential contributor to validity, it is not a sufficient condition for validity, which refers to the degree to which an instrument actually measures the concept it is intended to measure (Drost, 2011).
Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient is one of the most popular reliability coefficients for determining the internal consistency of different measurement instruments (Osburn, 2000). DeVellis (1991) stated that the accepted degree of reliability for an instrument is as follows: (a) below 0.60 is unacceptable, (b) between 0.60 and 0.65 is undesirable, (c) between 0.65 and 0.70 is minimally acceptable, (d) between 0.70 and 0.80 is acceptable, (e) between 0.80 and 0.90 is highly acceptable and (f) above 0.90 is strongly reliable. As explained later, in this study, Cronbach’s alpha scores for all of the principal questionnaire subscales fell between 0.82 and 0.85, while the Cronbach’s alpha scores for all of the principal questionnaire subscales fell between 0.84 and 0.89, which suggested that for this study, the subscales of the questionnaire for the principals and teachers achieved a highly acceptable level of internal consistency. More details about the reliabilities for the subscales of principal and teacher questionnaire are reported in the finding chapters.
All the participants in this study were native Arabic speakers; therefore, to ensure validity, all the study instruments (survey questionnaires, semi-structured interviews, and classroom observations) were translated into Arabic. Furthermore, to ensure validity, a probability (random) quantitative sample was used in the first stage of the study and data were collected from various secondary school principals and teachers to effectively examine variations in principals’ and teachers’ beliefs and classroom practices with technology. Cohen et al. (2011) stated that a probability (random) sample is one of the best methods of selecting a research sample, because it has less risk of bias compared to a non-probability sample. Moreover, to enhance the validity of data findings, the researcher used two types of statistical analysis, nonparametric and parametric tests, to explore the correlations between principals’ and teachers’ beliefs and teachers’ classroom practices with technology. Additionally, in the mixed-methods
67 approach, the validity of the qualitative approach can be enhanced by quantitative results acquired from the first stages of study (Gay et al., 2011).
3.6.6 Credibility
The term ‘credibility’, which is a qualitative analogue of internal validity, refers to whether or not a research report is ‘credible’ to the research participants. Credibility techniques are comprised of prolonged engagement between the investigator and participants within their own cultural milieu, persistent observation, and the triangulation of data through the use of several methods of data collocation (Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2009). The credibility of this study was evaluated by a group of researchers and interested, informed individuals, and throughout this process, the researcher was in contact with his supervisor. All issues arising during the different stages of this study were discussed with this supervisor. Additionally, the researcher provided each participant with an account of what was said in the individual interviews and what was observed in the classrooms. The Department of Education library in Jeddah province, Saudi Arabia, will be provided with a copy of these writings and they will also be made accessible to all participants (articles, final theses). The goal is to seek confirmation that the study’s findings and researcher’s impressions conform with the views of those on whom the research was carried out, and to seek out areas in which there is a lack of correspondence as well as the reasons for the same.
Furthermore, triangulation can be seen in this study through the process of corroborating evidence from different individuals (school principals, teachers) and from the data collection methods (teacher pre-lesson interviews, classroom observations, teacher post-lesson interviews, principal interviews). The multi-method research design provided multiple approaches to data being collected and enabled data triangulation, which ensured the validity and credibility of the study (Creswell, 2012).
3.6.7 Transferability
The term ‘transferability’ refers to the degree to which the findings of a particular research study are comparable to the findings of other research conducted with similar people, contexts, and settings (Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2009). The researcher used a mixed-methods database that included questionnaires with school principals and teachers, and interviews with these same school principals and teachers and classroom observations with teachers. The organization and documentation of this type of database
68 helped to produce a detailed description of the contexts under investigation and therefore helped in developing comparable findings among different secondary schools in the study by comparing this study’s findings with other research study findings.
3.6.8 Dependability
The term ‘dependability’, which parallels ‘reliability’ in quantitative research, is the qualitative analogue for the quantitative concept of data measurement, and it is concerned with the extent to which the research study can be repeated by other investigators with regard to the explanation of the study methodology and design and how the methodology is applied in collecting and analysing the data (Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2009). The researcher discussed all issues arising during different stages of data collection with supervisors and, further, benefited from consulting the published educational studies in interpreting and undertaking the findings. In particular, the researcher consulted educational studies relevant to the purpose and aim of the study, and to the philosophical and methodological goals of the study, as explained in the data collection methods section and discussion chapter.
3.7 Data Collection
3.7.1 Principal Data Collection
In this study, data were collected from school principals to identify to what extent the principals’ beliefs aligned with findings of teachers’ responses. As stated earlier, 67 principals and 82 teachers were assigned to participate in this study. The researcher commenced principals’ data collection on the same day that teachers’ data collection commenced. In August 2013, the researcher also distributed the principals’ questionnaire. He asked respondents to return the questionnaires within a week. As mentioned, the researcher stayed around the school during that time to collect the completed questionnaire. In fact, most of the principals filled in the questionnaire during their free period at the school so it could reach the researcher immediately. Two principals did not complete the questionnaire due to a ‘lack of time’. In December 2013, following extensive teacher data collection, the researcher visited the school principals, who had agreed to participate in the interviews. Semi-structured interviews were conducted and audio-recorded with twelve principals.
All interviews were conducted face-to-face and took approximately one hour per principal during the principals’ free periods. Member checking and stimulated recall
69 were also used in principals’ interviews; namely, the researcher reminded principals about the responses they provided in the survey so as to help them follow up these responses or to further develop their thoughts. As indicated earlier, the main aim of principals’ data collection was to identify to what extent the principals’ beliefs were aligned with the findings of teachers’ responses and to explore other factors affecting teachers’ use of technology.
3.7.2 Teacher Data Collection
In this study, the data were collected from teachers in different stages through several research instruments: questionnaires, pre-lesson interviews, classroom observations, and post-lesson interviews. Fowler (2002) emphasised that the conduct of data collection is of major importance and revealed three basic factors to be taken into account: (a) the capability of the data collection procedure to reach all sample individuals, (b) the willingness of the sample to respond, and (c) the inability of the sample to respond.
The researcher decided to collect all data in person in order to control the first factor as well as the administration process, although the Department of Education in Jeddah offered to distribute the questionnaire to save the researcher’s time. The researcher commenced fieldwork in August 2013. In each school, the school principal introduced the researcher to the teachers in an introductory meeting. In this way, although they apparently still had the choice not to participate, their willingness to do so was enhanced, controlling the second factor. At the same time, this could have undermined the validity of the data. In other words, if the principals had suspected that the teachers were going to be informed on how they should use technology or if the teachers suspected that the principal was going to be informed about their responses, they might have been biased and provided answers adhering to what the principal or teacher would like to hear. To avoid this, the researcher informed the principals and teachers about a) who he was and what he was interested in, b) why and in what ways he needed their participation, and c) why and for whom he was undertaking this research under the guarantee of confidentiality (Munn & Drever, 1990).
As stated earlier, 67 principals and 82 teachers volunteered to participate in this study. The first step was the distribution of questionnaires, which the researcher asked teacher respondents to return within a week. The researcher informed them that he was going to be around the school during that time as, by being available during the completion of the questionnaire, he expected to have control over the third factor
70 indicated by Fowler (2002) regarding the factor of inability to respond caused by misunderstanding of questions. In fact, most of the teachers filled in the questionnaires during their free period at the school so they could reach the researcher immediately. No difficulty or unexpected parameter affected the questionnaire distribution and collection. However, not all teachers completed the questionnaire because of a ‘lack of time’.
In September 2013, following a review of the questionnaire data, the teacher pre-lesson interviews were held. All of them were conducted at the Visitors’ Office during free periods or during teachers’ free time. All interviews were face-to-face and audio recorded. The researcher followed the standard method for capturing interviews, namely, digital audio recording (Gay et al., 2011). Beyond the schedule questions, the researcher occasionally used the stimulated recall strategy (Lyle, 2003); namely, he reminded participants about the responses they had provided in the survey in order to help them follow up these responses, and he provided them with the opportunity to further develop their thoughts. The researcher also used prompting and probing to expand the discussion (Robson, 2002) when some teachers were laconic in their answers (although the researcher had to be careful not to sound aggressive or critical).
In the next stage, direct classroom observations took place during October- November 2013, with the same interviewed participants. The researcher informed the participants that he did not want them to modify their normal lesson plan, as the purpose was to observe a typical lesson. This was to ensure that teachers would not prepare a ‘model’ lesson in view of the researcher’s presence. The researcher decided on the week he was going to observe the participants in order to avoid clashing with major events, school activities, or test days, but without identifying the exact date. The participants were observed over an average of two periods which involved more than one subject to obtain triangulation in data and consistency in classroom practices (Creswell & Plano, 2011). The researcher chose to sit at a place where he would not attract attention in order to avoid ‘observer effects’. The presence of an observer may alter the behaviour of the participant being observed (Cohen et al., 2011). After each lesson, the researcher immediately asked the participants to provide clarification and confirm and enhance the accuracy and validity of the observation data (Stake, 2006).
Following the classroom observations, the teachers’ post-lesson interviews, which were of approximately one-hour duration, were conducted. All interviews were
71 face-to-face and audio recorded. Member checking and stimulated recall were again used. The researcher tried here to check for (in)consistencies between reported beliefs and practices and observed practices or limited use of technology.
Although the researcher completed data collection over different stages, he tried to keep in touch with the participants. The purpose was to develop empathy and maintain a rapport between the researcher and workers in schools for the sake of future development research in the use of educational technology. The date collection sequence is outlined in Figure 3.2:
Principal data collection August 2013 Principal questionnaires December 2013 Principal interviews Teacher data collection August 2013 Teacher questionnaires September 2013 Teacher pre-lesson interviews October-November 2013 Classroom observations December 2013 Teacher post-lesson interviews Figure 3.2. Timeline of data collection 3.8 Data Analysis
This section outlines the manner in which quantitative and qualitative data will be analysed in this study.
3.8.1 Quantitative Data Analysis
Creswell (2012) indicated that the first step in the process of analysing quantitative data is to prepare the data for analysis by determining how numeric scores should be assigned to the data, assessing the types of scores, selecting a statistical program that would put the data into a program-readable format, and subsequently cleaning up the database for analysis. Therefore, each of the statements in the survey questionnaires for evaluating principals’ and teachers’ beliefs and practices with technology were coded as variables. The procedure for data coding was organized and detailed in a computer format, which enabled data entry. The second step in the process of analysing quantitative data was entering the data. The coded data for the 149 surveys were manually entered into IBM SPSS statistics v.22. The third step was cleaning up the data,
72 which was done by the software once the researcher had entered the data. After these three steps were performed, the researcher conducted statistical analysis on the data.
A descriptive statistical analysis of the responses, including frequency distribution, percentages, means, and standard deviation, was conducted for each statement of the questionnaire and for the overall responses. In this study, the descriptive analysis provided descriptions of the principals’ demographic information and general insights into principals’ beliefs about technology use. A number of 67 secondary school principals rated their beliefs about technology use, their overall technological competency, and their beliefs about teachers’ classroom practices with technology. In this study, the descriptive analysis also provided descriptions of teachers’ demographic information and general insights into teachers’ beliefs and practices with technology. Eighty-two teachers of secondary schools rated their beliefs about technology use, overall technological competency, their personal technical competencies, and their classroom practices with technology.
Inferential statistics through two types of tests—independent samples t-test and One-Way ANOVA test—were performed. Although the data collected according to position (principal or teacher), age, level of education, years of experience, and ICT training level were ranked normal, which violated the general assumption of the one- way ANOVA and an independent samples t-test, the researcher also checked the population normality and homogeneity of variance as the other two essential assumptions of those tests. The population normality and homogeneity of variance had not been violated, which enabled the application of one-way ANOVA and An independent samples t-test on the data gathered concerning position, age, level of education, years of experience, and ICT training. These tests examined the differences in principals’ beliefs and teachers’ beliefs and practices with technology according to their position, age, level of education, years of experience, and ICT training. The one- way ANOVA was performed to compare the means of the different groups of independent variables for age, level of education, and years of experience. In this analysis, the F-ratio was the ratio of between-groups variance to within-groups variance. The F-value was set at an alpha level of 0.05 between and within the three groups of years of experience in response to beliefs and practices with technology. The null hypothesis was that there were significant differences between principals’ and teachers’ beliefs and practices with technology according to their age, level of education, and
73 years of experience. If the p-value was greater than 0.05, the null hypothesis was rejected, and if the p-value was less than the alpha level of 0.05, it was retained, indicating statistically significant differences in participants’ responses to beliefs and practices with technology across the four categories of age, the three categories of level of education, and the three categories of years of experience.
An independent samples t-test was conducted with independent variables position (principal or teacher) and ICT training. The null hypothesis was that there were significant differences between principals’ and teachers’ beliefs and practices with technology based on their position and attending ICT training. In these two cases, the reason for using an independent samples t-test was because it is equivalent to the one- way between-groups ANOVA. In short, it allows for differences between two groups to be inspected (Coakes, Steed, & Ong, 2010). The p-value of independent samples t-test at an alpha level of 0.05 was used for statistical significance. Results with a p-value greater than 0.05 led to the rejection of the null hypothesis, while results with a p-value below the alpha level of 0.05 led to retaining the null hypothesis, which statistically indicated that there were significant differences in participants’ responses between different groups.
3.8.2 Qualitative Data Analysis
A qualitative data analysis was conducted to analyse data collected from principals’ semi-structured interviews and teachers’ semi-structured pre-lesson interviews, classroom observations, and semi-structured post-lesson interviews. The researcher employed qualitative analytic procedures to develop a clear modelling of concepts and their interrelationships. This enabled the researcher to develop his understanding about Saudi secondary school principals’ beliefs and Arabic language teachers’ beliefs and practices with classroom use of technology.
Teachers’ Qualitative Data Analysis
Transcription and Translation
In the transcription and translation step, each audiotaped interview and classroom observation was transcribed. The transcription was conducted in Arabic. However, for ensuring research integrity, the transcripts for one interview and one classroom observation, besides those for some sections of other interviews and classroom observations, were translated into English for conducting discussions with the two
74 supervisors of this study. The initial translation was conducted by the researcher because he was the best person to understand the content and context of the transcription. All the translated texts were subsequently reviewed and validated by a certified translator. The certification was verified by two transcripts (Arabic and English).
The data gathered from the interviews and classroom observations were carefully organized. Each transcript was identified by a code number, which was known only to the researcher. This code number was recorded in a notebook beside the participant’s name and the school name. All the codes were stored in a secure place separately from the transcripts to ensure confidentiality even in the case of any misadventure with the transcripts (Leedy & Ormrod, 2013). The dates (month, day, and year) of conducting each interview and classroom observation were written in each transcript and in the notebook. The researcher also made two photocopies of all the transcripts and notebooks and retained the original copies. When transcribing the audiotape, two-inch margins on each side of the text were created to enable the researcher to take notes during data analysis. Moreover, extra spaces were left on the pages between the interviewer’s questions and interviewee’s responses. The researcher also made notes regarding what was actually being said or what happened and possible interpretations of the same during the interviews and classroom observations. The researcher made notes of any impressions, ideas, thoughts, or concepts that had occurred in the process of data collection and analysis.
Reading the Data
After each interview and classroom observation had been organized and transcribed, time was devoted to reading the transcripts. Mason (2002) suggests three ways to read data: the literal way, when the researcher is ‘interested in their literal form, content, structure, style, layout’ or, in other words, the linguistic nature; and the interpretive, when the researcher wants to construct his/her own meaning or representation of the data; and the reflexive, which allows the researcher to identify their role in interpreting the data. In this process, the researcher’s reading of transcripts involved all three ways to some extent: the literal, as he found comparing the tone of some teacher participants’
75 responses in the pre-lesson with post-lesson interviews7 to be interesting because the responses in post-lesson interviews was more justifiable and defensive.
Thematic analysis
In next phase, a thematic analysis was undertaken across all interview transcripts and observational field notes. In this phase, the researcher wrote some memos to help in this initial process of exploring the data. Then the researcher started the coding process, in which he identified broad themes in the data. As mentioned earlier, each dataset informed and modified the subsequent instruments employed. Therefore, the questionnaire data informed the pre-lesson interview schedule, which in turn informed the observation schedule and later formed the basis for the post-lesson interview schedule.
Creswell (2013) pointed out that with growth of the data pile, a constant comparison strategy is important to confront the emergent imperative to group beliefs and actions. In accordance with this view, a randomly selected transcript was read and coded. After that, a second transcript was randomly selected, and the researcher tried to apply the codes developed from the first one. If new codes emerged from the second transcript, they were added to the code list. At the same time, the researcher went back to the first transcript to check whether the new codes could be applied, acknowledging that he might have missed a point before. He repeated this process until the transcripts (from interviews and observations) were coded. For every newly emerged code, he revised the previously coded transcripts to check their applicability.
This constant comparison included an additional coding set with the initial open one. The researcher also used Miles and Huberman (1994) second-level coding in order to further reduce the data and narrow down the initial codes into groups of codes or categories and then themes. An example of this process is presented in Figure 3.3:
7 Both audio and transcripts were used for this comparison.
76 ICT is used in teaching to Supporting existing Pedagogical beliefs motivate students. curriculum ICT is used to facilitate students’ understanding of lesson content.
CODES CATEGORIES THEMES (Second-level coding) Figure 3.3. Example of teacher thematic coding As mentioned, coding was applied to the analysis of both interviews and observations. After developing the categories, the researcher recoded the transcript using the categories as codes in order to identify quotes and observational notes with regard to each category and theme.
In terms of the observational data, the researcher also used the event flow network (Miles & Huberman, 1994) to illustrate classroom practice with technology and facilitate the understanding of its purpose. An example is shown in Figure 3.4:
Subject: Arabic literature Lesson topic: homesickness poem
Lesson objective: Student understanding of how Multimedia presentation people used to live in the past.
Technology use: Pictures and documentary video slideshows on the IWB about the history of Saudi Arabia (Jeddah). Figure 3.4. Event flow network about the use of technology Cross-case analysis and qualitative grouping
The above-mentioned processes were applied to teachers’ within-case and cross-case analyses. Cross-case built upon within-case analysis, with the objective being to compare the cases and identify similarities and differences in the patterns across cases (Yin, 2014), drawing data from the four teachers presented in the within-case section and data from the other eight teachers. Using this type of analysis was expected to
77 enhance the generalizability and provide more evidence as explanation of the findings (Yin, 2014).
Four main types of responses were identified among the 12 teachers. These responses were expressed strongly by the four teachers; detailed descriptions and their case narratives are presented in Chapter 5. The rest of the teachers were classified using the categories suggested by the four cases. Thus, four groups (A, B, C, D) emerged based on commonalities in teachers’ responses, as reflected across the data. The criteria for this qualitative grouping comprised teachers’ epistemic beliefs about technology, their pedagogical beliefs about technology, their technological skills, their practice with technology, the level of (in)consistency between reported and observed practices, and the impact of external or contextual factors on teachers’ practices. Group A was composed of one teacher, Group B of two, Group C of six, and Group D of three.
The above-mentioned processes were also applied to principals’ thematic analysis. Cross-case built upon the thematic analysis, with the objective of comparing the cases and identifying similarities and differences pattern across cases (Yin, 2014), drawing data from the 12 principals presented in the cross-case analysis. As mentioned earlier, using this type of analysis was expected to enhance generalizability and provide more evidence in explanation of the findings (Yin, 2014).
Four main types of responses were identified among the 12 principals. Four groups (A, B, C, D) were emerged based on commonalities in principals’ responses, as reflected across the data. The criteria for this qualitative grouping comprised principals’ pedagogical beliefs about technology use, their beliefs about teachers’ technological skills, their beliefs about teachers’ practice with technology, and their beliefs about external or contextual factors influencing teachers’ practices with technology and their school support for using technology. Group A was composed of two principals, Group B of five, Group C of three, and Group D of two.
Principals’ Qualitative Data Analysis
With principals’ qualitative data analysis, a thematic analysis was undertaken across all interview transcripts. In this phase, the researcher wrote some notes to help in this initial process of exploring principals’ qualitative data. Then, the researcher started the coding process. As in the teachers’ qualitative data analysis, the researcher here again used Miles and Huberman (1994) second-level coding to reduce the data and narrow down
78 the initial codes into groups of codes or categories and themes. An example of the process is presented in Figure 3.5:
Teacher should use ICT to Teacher-centred Beliefs about teachers’ present lesson content to practices with technology students.
CODES CATEGORIES THEME (Second-level coding) Figure 3.5. Example of principals' thematic coding The researcher then crosschecked the themes carefully with each principal’s transcript to relate the linked data between principals. Finally, he examined data that were grouped under one theme and marked these with supplementary interpretive notes. Consequently, four groups (A, B, C, D) emerged based on commonalities in principals’ responses. The criteria for principal qualitative grouping comprised principals’ pedagogical beliefs about technology use, their beliefs about teachers’ practices with technology, and their beliefs about contextual factors affecting teachers’ practices with technology. Group A was composed of two principals, Group B of five, Group C of three, and Group D of two.
3.8.3 Theoretical Frameworks for Data Analysis
As described above, the data analysis was initialized by open coding, followed by the application of the AT as the second analytical framework for interpretation of the findings. The development of the AT theory was based on the Vygotsky’s (1980) concept that human activity entails a complete system of human practices, which involves tools, physical or conceptual, serving as mediators when executing activities. A model was developed by Engeström (1987) to portray these elements of the activity system, but he expanded it by adding the components of community, rules, and division of labour (shown in Figure 3.6). Engeström’s representation of activity suggested that it had a mediating structure and also one which was socially collective and systemic, highlighting the interrelationship between individual subject and the community surrounding it. Another significant aspect of Engeström’s conceptualisation of AT was the emphasis on ‘contradictions within an activity system as [a] driving force of change and development’ (Daniels, 2001, p. 89). Engeström (1987) described two types of
79 contradictions: primary inner, appearing within the components; and secondary, appearing between the components.
Figure 3.6. The structure of the human activity system (Engeström, 1987) In this study, the researcher decide to adapt the AT model because AT is based on the assumption that human activities are context embedded and the researcher also assumed that teaching practices are situated in certain contexts. Furthermore, the AT model has been of interest to recent research, where it has often been called cultural- historical AT (Roth, 2007). The model has also been effectively adopted for the analysis of interactions or exploration of the requirement for change in education (Burnard & Younker, 2008). The AT model has been proved a powerful conceptual framework tool for several studies about ICT in the educational context (Lim & Hang, 2003; Murphy & Rodriguez-Manzanares, 2008). Most previous studies used AT to understand technology use in teaching and learning, focusing on peer collaboration and knowledge co-construction (Brine & Franken, 2006); understanding teachers’ perceptions (Hardman, 2005); and concern (Karasavvidis, 2009).
In this study, the researcher used the AT model largely in the way it was used in Hu and Webb’s research (Hu, 2007; Hu & Webb, 2009; Webb, 2010), which explored the integration of technology in Chinese higher education. These researchers studied teachers’ perceptions and attitudes towards ICT and related pedagogy when teaching English for business purposes, applying AT to identify contradictions that undermined change with ICT use. Similarly, AT was used in this study to explore the relationship
80 between teachers’ beliefs and practices and, taking into account the idea of ‘contradictions’, to identify the factors that determine this relationship and affect technology use in the classroom. Overall, AT will help to understand technology integration by addressing issues which, as mentioned in the literature, several previous studies have missed, including the perceptions of teachers who are asked to use technology (Hermans et al., 2008) through their activity systems and the social and contextual structures characteristic in an environment comprising technology (Davis, 2010).
To use AT with the current study, the key terms in principal’s and teacher’s activity system, with reference to Figure 3.4, are defined. The definitions are similar to those in other studies (Hu & Webb, 2009; Mama & Hennessy, 2013; Sweeney, 2010), as shown in Table 3.4.
Table 3.4 Definition of Components in Principals’ and Teachers’ Activity System Activity (What is the focus) Refers here to Principals and teachers’ integration of technology. Subject (Who is conducting the activity) The principal and teacher in general, but also the specific attributes of his/her beliefs about technology (epistemic beliefs, pedagogical beliefs), perceived practices, and technological skills. Object (to be achieved) In general, the teacher’s actual classroom practices with technology, but to be more specific, classroom choices with technology which take place to support lessons and teaching and learning. Tools Which facilitate this support, referring to any ICT available to the teachers at school.
Rules (External/contextual regulations) Include the policy, curriculum, system regulations (e.g. assessment requirement, school rule, content and structure of the technology training program). Community (Who constitute the environment) Include school principals, supervisors, teachers, colleagues, students, ICT technicians, and ICT trainers. Division of (Who is responsible for what) Refers to the role and responsibilities of labour the school principal, the teacher, the student, and the Ministry, and the
81 cooperation and support of administration between the different agents. Outcome (What actually happened) Effects on the use of technology in teaching and learning. Tension In this study, the term ‘tension’ is used instead of ‘contradictions’, as the opposition within or between concepts or situations and elements is not always strong. Both primary and secondary tensions are identified. For example, primary tension is identified within teachers’ pedagogical beliefs about the benefits of technology to encourage students’ independent learning being undermined by their epistemic beliefs in knowledge certainty and authority. An example of secondary tension is teachers’ intention to use student-centred technology being discouraged by their limited technological skills.
Overall, the activity theory, which is used as an analytical framework in this study, can provide insights into changes in teachers’ classroom practices with technology that have become part of their classroom teaching and student learning activities. Furthermore, the study AT analytical framework could allow the researcher to obtain insights into the study context of implementing technology in education, such as the tensions that occur between principals’ and teachers’ beliefs, perceived practices and actual classroom practices from introducing new technology. AT is also useful as a lens to analyse the activity of a secondary school as an educational organisation that involves technology to understand the use of technology as part of the larger scope of human activities.
3.9 Ethical Considerations
In all research studies, it is important for researchers to consider ethical considerations before designing the study. They need to protect the identities of the research participants and ensure confidentiality of all the information shared by them as a part of the research study so that the participants can talk honestly about their experiences, knowledge, beliefs, and performance (Weiss Roberts, Geppert, Coverdale, Louie, & Edenharder, 2005).
In any social research, issues related to justice, respect, and beneficence have to be given due importance (Creswell, 2012). Justice means that a researcher can request participants to contribute to his/her study without burdening or constraining them.
82 Beneficence requires a researcher to minimize the risk of harm and maximize the possibility of benefits while designing a study. Respect for participants means that participants should be treated as autonomous individuals. Researchers should familiarize survey participants with the nature of the research. The participants should be given the freedom to decide whether they want to participate in the study or not and should be allowed to withdraw their participation at any time during the study. Furthermore, all the data gathered during the study should be kept confidential and researchers should not disclose the names of any of participants. Researchers should strike a balance between the pursuit of scientific knowledge and the rights of the participants or of other people in society (Neuman, 2006).
The research ethics approval procedures were completed prior to the data collection process. Ethical clearance for undertaking research was obtained from Griffith University Human Ethics before initiating the empirical part of the study. The process of data collection commenced after the successful completion of confirmation of candidatures. The researcher obtained ethical approval from the Griffith University Human Research Ethics Committee (GU Ref No: EDN/53/13/HREC). The researcher also obtained permission from the Directorate of the Department of Education in Jeddah province, Saudi Arabia, to initiate this research. Moreover, consent forms were used to obtain permission from principal and teacher interviewees to participate in this study and from teachers to observe their classroom performances. The consent forms were translated into Arabic. This form explained the context and purpose of this study, the length of the interviews and classroom observations, participants’ rights, and plans for using the results of the questionnaire. The consent form clearly stated that the participant had the right to refuse participation or to withdraw his/her consent at any time. The responses of participants in the questionnaires, interviews, and classroom observations were kept confidential to retain anonymity. Confidentiality was also maintained in the transcription of audiotapes, at each stage of the data analysis, in all draft documentation, and in the publication of research findings.
Confidentiality and anonymity were maintained through coding of participant identity in all data collection. Each participant’s questionnaire response, interview, and classroom observation were uniquely coded. The first page that had the participants’ details (names, schools) was subsequently detached before data analysis. For example, participant one, Naif (pseudonym), principal of Nasem School (pseudonym), was coded
83 as NPN1001 and participant two, Saeed (pseudonym), teacher of the same school, was coded as STN1002. This unique code appears on the first two pages of the participant’s questionnaire, interview, and classroom observation. Once the first page was detached, the code on the second page helped to match it with the participant’s details for further research. Coding of participants’ and schools’ names served to disconnect the principals and teachers from their schools or Department of Education.
3.10 Chapter Summary
A sequential mixed-methods design was implemented to answer the proposed research questions relating to principals’ and teachers’ beliefs and practices with ICT in the classroom. Teachers’ data were collected using quantitative questionnaires and qualitative pre-lesson interviews, unobtrusive classroom observations, and post-lesson interviews. Principals’ data were collected using quantitative questionnaires and qualitative interviews. The next chapter presents the quantitative analysis of principals’ questionnaire findings.
84 Chapter 4: Principals’ Quantitative Results
The aim of the current study was to explore Saudi secondary school principals’ and teachers’ beliefs and practices and the relationship between them with regard to technology. It also aimed to explore other contextual factors influencing this relationship and technology use. To examine these beliefs, practices, and contextual factors, the study applied a mixed methods approach. This chapter is the first of two that presents the quantitative results of the study. The aim of the analysis of the principals’ quantitative data presented in this chapter was to explore the principals’ beliefs about technology use and their beliefs about teachers’ classroom practices involving technology. This will provide an answer to the first sub-question of Research Question 1 relating to the principals’ beliefs about technology use in teaching and learning. The results of these analyses were also used to answer Research Question 3 in terms of the relationship between principals’ beliefs and teachers’ classroom practices involving the use of technology. Furthermore, the results of these analyses were used to answer Research Question 4 in terms of other factors affecting principals’ and teachers’ beliefs and practices with technology, which, in this chapter, were related to the impact of demographic factors on principals’ beliefs.
The principals’ quantitative data were analysed using IBM SPSS Statistics v.22. This chapter presents the quantitative results obtained from the principals’ questionnaires in the following sections. The first section presents a description of the principals’ demographic characteristics. The second section presents descriptive statistics of the principals’ pedagogical beliefs about technology use. The third section presents descriptive statistics of the principals’ beliefs about teachers’ practices with technology. The fourth section employs correlational analysis to examine the relationship between principals’ pedagogical beliefs about technology use and their beliefs about teachers’ classroom practices with technology. The fifth section employs inferential statistics analysis and correlational analysis to examine the impact of demographic factors on the principals’ beliefs. Finally, an overall summary is provided with concluding remarks on the main findings obtained in this chapter.
4.1 Demographic Characteristics
The principals’ demographic information was collected from part A of the questionnaire (see Appendix A), including age, level of education, years of school principalship, and
85 attendance at ICT training. The target population in this study was comprised of 70 Saudi secondary school principals employed in technology-equipped public schools for males in the Jeddah administrative area of Saudi Arabia during the 2013–2014 school year. After copies of the questionnaire were distributed to all principals, 69 principal questionnaires were returned, resulting in a response rate of 98%. Two principal questionnaires were found to be incomplete in that one or more parts were missing. These incomplete questionnaires were excluded from the analyses, leaving a study sample of 67 principals. Table 4.1 presents a summary of the principals’ demographic characteristics.
Table 4.1 Summary of Principals’ Demographic Characteristics
Demographic Characteristics Categories % (n) Under 30 years 17.91 (12) 30–39 years 43.28 (29) Age 40–49 years 31.34 (21) 50 years and over 7.46 (5) Diploma 0 (0) Bachelor’s degree 86.57 (58) Level of education Master’s degree 10.44 (7) PhD 2.98 (2) Under 2 years 5.97 (4) 2–5 years 19.40 (13) Years of experience 6–9 years 23.88 (16) 10 years and over 50.74 (34) Very high 13.4 (9) High 61.2 (41) Overall technological skills Moderate 7.5 (5) Low 14.9 (10) Very low 3.0 (2) Yes 44.77 (30) ICT training No 55.22 (37)
86 About half of the principals were aged from 30 to 39 years (43.28%, n = 29), most had a Bachelor’s degree (86.57%, n = 58), 10.44% had a Master’s degree (n = 7), and 2.98% had a PhD (n = 2). Over 50% of the principals had 10 or more years of principalship experience, 5.97% were new principals with under 2 years of experience, and the remainder were split between the categories of 2–5 and 6–9 years of principalship experience. Almost three-quarters of the principals (74.6.%) reported a high to very high level of overall technological skills. Less than one-fifth (17.9.%) of the principals reported a low to very low level of technological skills. Finally, over half of the principals stated that they had not undertaken any ICT training (55.22%, n = 37).
Reliability of the Principals’ Beliefs Questionnaire
The reliability of the Principals’ Beliefs Questionnaire (PBQ) was measured using Cronbach’s alpha () reliability coefficient to determine the internal consistency of the PBQ subscales (pedagogical beliefs about technology use, beliefs about teachers’ practices with technology) and total items (see Table 4.2).
Table 4.2 Cronbach’s Alpha and Number of Items of the PBQ Subscales and Total Items for Principals (n = 67)
No. Items Pedagogical beliefs about 9 0.82 technology use Beliefs about teachers’ 10 0.83 practices with technology Total items 19 0.85 According to DeVellis (1991), a degree of reliability between 0.80 and 0.90 is considered acceptable for Cronbach’s alpha scores. The Cronbach’s alpha scores for the subscales of the PBQ were 0.82 and 0.83, respectively, and for total items, = 0.85, which suggested that the subscales and total items of the PBQ achieved a highly acceptable level of internal consistency.
4.2 Principals’ Pedagogical Beliefs about Technology Use
This section provides the results regarding the beliefs of Saudi secondary school principals in terms of the use of technology. The beliefs about technology use section consists of nine items, which were used to examine principals’ beliefs about technology use in teaching and learning. Participants responded using a 5-point Likert-type scale.
87 The range included (5) ‘Strongly Agree’, (4) ‘Agree’, (3) ‘Neutral’, (2) ‘Disagree’, and (1) ‘Strongly Disagree’. As noted earlier, the data were derived from 67 principals who work at secondary schools with unique technological infrastructures. The descriptive analyses of the means and standard deviations were used in the data analysis of this section, as presented in Table 4.3.
Table 4.3 Principals’ Pedagogical Beliefs about Technology Use
I believe that using technology in teaching and learning: M (SD) 1. accommodates students’ personal learning preferences. 4.37 (0.57) 2. promotes students’ learning both inside and outside the 4.63 (0.52) classroom . 3. promotes student-centred teaching approaches. 4.46 (0.61) 4. maintains high expectations of students. 3.99 (0.73) 5. is more effective than non-technology-based classroom 4.16 (0.91) learning. 6. improves the research skills of students. 4.63 (0.52) 7. enhances collaboration among students. 4.40 (0.78) 8. improves students’ learning achievements. 4.24 (0.82) 9. helps teachers organise student learning. 4.27 (0.79) Total mean 4.35 (0.45) Note. M = Mean; SD = standard deviation
The principals were asked to rate their agreement with nine statements concerning their beliefs about the pedagogical value of technology use in teaching and learning. Each of the nine statements refers to particular pedagogical values of technology use in teaching and learning. The score of each item was transferred to SPSS to calculate the mean and standard deviation scores for each type of belief.
The descriptive analyses of the means and standard deviations were used to answer the first sub-question “What are principals’ beliefs about technology use in teaching and learning?”. As indicated in Table 4.3, the results showed that the overall beliefs of the principals regarding technology use were positive (M = 4.35, SD = 0.45). The mean scores of these items ranged from 3.99 to 4.63, and the strongest agreement occurred with the notions that using technology promotes students’ learning both inside and outside the classroom (M = 4.63, SD = 0.52) and improves students’ research skills (M = 4.63, SD = 0.52) while the weakest agreement among principals’ beliefs about
88 technology use was found on Item 4—that using technology maintains high expectations of students (M = 3.99, SD = 0.73)—which suggests that some Saudi secondary school principals might have low expectations that their students would learn more effectively with technology use. In other words, some principals remain doubtful about the effectiveness of using technology in student learning.
4.3 Principals’ Beliefs about Teachers’ Classroom Practices with Technology
The beliefs about teachers’ classroom practices with technology section consisted of ten statements, which were used to examine principals’ beliefs about teachers’ classroom practices with regard to technology using a 5-point Likert-type scale. The range included (5) ‘Strongly Agree’, (4) ‘Agree’, (3) ‘Neutral’, (2) ‘Disagree’, (1) and ‘Strongly Disagree’. The descriptive analyses of the means and standard deviations were used in the data analysis of this section.
Table 4.4 Principals’ Beliefs about Teachers’ Classroom Practices with Technology
I believe teachers should use technology: M (SD) 1. as a communication tool. 4.64 (0.48) 2. as an information presentation tool. 4.63 (0.55) 3. as a research tool. 4.49 (0.68) 4. as a knowledge reinforcement tool. 4.63 (0.49) 5. for multimedia presentations. 4.49 (0.66) 6. to enable cooperative student learning. 4.63 (0.49) 7. to enable student problem solving in learning. 4.39 (0.63) 8. to enable students’ independent learning. 4.31 (0.72) 9. to enable student sharing of knowledge . 4.45 (0.66) 10. to enable student self-assessment. 4.54 (0.56) Total mean 4.53 (0.39) Note. M = Mean; SD = standard deviation
Principals reported their beliefs about ten statements concerning classroom practices with technology that should be undertaken by teachers. Each of the ten statements refers to particular types of teachers’ classroom practices with technology. The score of each item was transferred to SPSS to calculate the mean and standard deviation scores for each type of practice principals believed teachers should use when their classroom practices incorporate technology use.
89 The descriptive analyses of the principals’ beliefs about teachers’ classroom practices scale were also used to answer the first sub-question. As shown in Table 4.4, there is no appreciable difference between principals’ beliefs about teachers’ practices with technology. The principals generally endorsed all of the practices in the questionnaire, indicating that they believed teachers should integrate and employ all types of classroom practices with technology (M = 4.52, SD = 0.39). The mean scores of these items ranged from 4.31 to 4.64. However, closer examination of the mean scores revealed that principals strongly believed that teachers should use technology as a communication tool in their classroom practices (M = 4.64, SD = 0.48), as an information presentation tool (M = 4.63, SD = 0.55), as a knowledge reinforcement tool (M = 4.63, SD = 0.49), and to enable cooperative student learning (M = 4.63, SD = 0.49).
4.4 Relationship between Principals’ Pedagogical Beliefs about Technology Use and their Beliefs about Teachers’ Classroom Practices
This section provides the results regarding the relationship between Saudi secondary school principals’ beliefs about technology use and their beliefs about teachers’ classroom practices. Pearson’s correlation coefficient analysis was performed between the items of those two variables measured by the principals’ pedagogical beliefs about technology use scale and the principals’ beliefs about teachers’ classroom practices scale, as presented in Table 4.5.
90 Table 4.5 Pearson’s Correlation Coefficients of Principals’ Beliefs about Technology Use and Their Beliefs about Teachers’ Practices with Technology
Beliefs about Teachers’ Practices with Technology Pedagogical beliefs about CT MP SCL SPSL IPT SIP RT SSK KRT SSA technology use 1. accommodates students’ personal .271 .188 - .091 .051 .113 .226 .182 .354* .398* .263 learning preferences. 2. promotes students’ learning both inside .063 .014 .040 - .013 .143 .115 .185 .098 .161 .075 and outside the classroom. 3. promotes student- centred teaching - .046 .140 .334* .183 .253 .078 .027 .080 .131 .060 approaches. 4. maintains high expectations of .157 .142 .112 .136 .100 .182 .046 .077 .112 - .092 students. 5. is more effective than non-technology-based .272 .241 .072 - .007 .064 .288 .063 .178 .242 .091 classroom learning. 6. improves the research .306* .280 .281 .378* .358* .196 .228 .231 .161 .284 skills of students. 7. enhances collaboration .228 .286 .162 .159 .145 .230 - .008 .234 .123 .226 among students. 8. improves students’ .296* .200 .113 .132 .135 .179 .058 0.333* .113 .245 learning achievements. 9. helps teachers organise .216 .149 .146 .029 .060 .142 .116 .232 .304* .183 student learning. Note. CT = communication tool; MP = Multimedia presentations; SCL = Student cooperative learning; SPSL = Student problem solving learning; IPT = Information presentation tool; SIP = Students’ independent learning; RT = Research tool; SSK = Student sharing of knowledge; KRT = Knowledge reinforcement tool; SSA = Student self-assessment. *p < 0.05 (2-tailed)
91 There were positive connections between the items of the two variables. First, a significant, moderate strong relationship was found between principals’ belief that using technology accommodates students’ personal learning preferences and their beliefs that teachers should use technology to enable student sharing of knowledge (r = .354, p = .003) and as a knowledge reinforcement tool (r = 0.398, p = .001). This suggests that principals believed that teachers’ use of technology enables student sharing of knowledge and their use of technology as a knowledge reinforcement tool would accommodate students’ personal learning preferences.
In addition, a significant, moderate correlation was found between the principals’ belief that using technology promotes student-centred teaching approaches and their belief that teachers should use technology to enable student cooperative learning (r = .334, p = .006). A possible interpretation of this result is that school principals are aware that using technology to enable student cooperative learning would promote student-centred learning.
Significant, moderate correlations were found between the principals’ belief that the use of technology improves the research skills of students and their beliefs that teachers should use technology to enable student problem solving (r = 0.28, p =.002), to serve as an information presentation tool (r = 0.358, p = .003), and to serve as a communication tool (r = .306, p = .012). This suggests that principals believe that if teachers incorporate the abovementioned practices, students’ research skills would be improved.
A significant moderately correlation was also found between the principals’ belief that technology use improves students’ learning achievements and their beliefs that teachers should use technology to enable student sharing of knowledge (r = 0.333, p = .006) and to serve as a communication tool (r = 0.30, p = .015). This suggests that principals believed that students’ learning achievements would be improved if teachers enabled student sharing of knowledge and used technology as a communication tool.
Furthermore, a significant moderately correlation was found between the principals’ belief that technology use helps teachers organise student learning and their belief that teachers should use technology as a knowledge reinforcement tool (r = 0.30, p = .012). This suggests that principals believed that teachers’ use of technology as a knowledge reinforcement tool would help to organise student learning.
92 As indicated, the correlation between principals’ beliefs about technology use and their beliefs about teachers’ practices with technology revealed, out of 9 items of principals’ beliefs about technology use, 5 items were significantly related to items of their beliefs about teachers’ practices with technology.
4.5 Demographic Factors Influencing Principals’ Beliefs
A one-way ANOVA was conducted to examine the effect of demographic factors including age, level of education, and years of experience on the principals’ pedagogical beliefs about technology use and on their beliefs about teachers’ practices with technology. See Appendix G for more statistical details. There was no significant effect of age between and within the three age groups (F = 1.009, p = .395) on principals’ pedagogical beliefs about technology use. There was also no significant effect of age between and within the three age groups (F = .099, p = .960) on the principals’ beliefs about teachers’ practices with technology. A possible interpretation of this result is that the majority of principals were the same age, as indicated in the analysis of the demographic information (77.62% of principals were between 30 and 49 years of age while only 17.19% were under 30 years of age).
A one-way ANOVA also indicated that there was no significant effect of level of education between and within the three education-level groups (F = 1.694, p = .192) on principals’ pedagogical beliefs about technology use. In addition, there was no significant effect of level of education between and within the three education-level groups (F = 1.786, p = .176) on principals’ beliefs about teachers’ practices with technology. This could be because the majority of principals had the same level of education, as indicated by the analysis of demographic information (86.57% had a Bachelor’s degree).
There was not a significant effect of years of experience between and within the three years-of-experience groups (F = 0.443, p = 0.644) on the principals’ beliefs about technology use and their beliefs about teachers’ practices with technology (p < 0.05). There was also not a significant effect of years of experience between and within the three years-of-experience groups (F = 0.613, p = 0.545) on the principals’ beliefs about teachers’ practices with technology. This could have been due to the fact that the majority of principals had the same years of experiences, as indicated by the analysis of demographic information (74.62% had 6 or more years of experience).
93 Furthermore, the relationship between Saudi secondary school principals’ pedagogical beliefs about technology use, their beliefs about teachers’ classroom practices, and their technological skills was also examined. Hence, Pearson’s correlation coefficient analysis was performed between those variables, measured by the Principals’ Pedagogical Beliefs about Technology Use, Principals’ Beliefs about Teachers’ Classroom Practices, and their Technological Skills scales. There was a non- significant correlation between principals’ pedagogical beliefs about technology use and their overall technological skills (r = 0.09, p = .46) while there was a moderately strong correlation between their beliefs about teachers’ classroom practices and their overall technological skills (r = 0.34, p = 0.05).
An independent samples t-test was also performed to examine the effect of ICT training on the principals’ beliefs about technology use and on their beliefs about teachers’ practices with technology. The independent samples t-test showed no significant differences between principals (t(65) = 1.96, p = .055) who attended and did not attend ICT training with regard to their beliefs about technology use. Similarly, no significant differences were found between principals (t(65) = -1.620, p = 0.110) who attended and did not attend ICT training in terms of their beliefs about teachers’ practices with regard to technology. This result could be attributed to a lack of ICT training as over half of the principals stated that they had not undertaken any such training (55.22%, n = 37). It also could be attributed to the content of the current ICT training provided to Saudi secondary school principals, which does not focus on the pedagogical value of using technology in teaching and learning.
4.6 Chapter Summary
This chapter presented an analysis of the quantitative data collected during phase one of this study. In this phase, the data were collected via a self-report questionnaire from 67 principals in technology-equipped public secondary schools in the Jeddah administrative area of Saudi Arabia during the 2013–2014 school year. The analysis of the principals’ demographic characteristics indicated that 77.62% of the principals were between 30–49 years of age, 86.57% had a Bachelor’s degree, 74.62% had 6 or more years of experience, 74.6 % of principals reported a high to very high level of overall technological skills and only about half (44.77%) attended ICT training.
With regard to Research Question 1 “What are principals’ beliefs about
94 technology use in teaching and learning?”, the descriptive analyses of the means and standard deviations revealed that Saudi secondary school principals generally appeared to have positive pedagogical beliefs about technology use, and they strongly believed that the use of technology promotes students’ learning both inside and outside the classroom and improves students’ research skills. The weakest agreement among principals’ beliefs was that using technology maintains high expectations of students. The Saudi secondary schools also reported a moderate overall level of technological skills. Furthermore, the analysis of principals’ beliefs about teachers’ practices with technology indicated that there were no appreciable differences between principals’ beliefs about teachers’ practices with technology. However, closer examination of the mean scores revealed that principals strongly believed that teachers should use technology as a communication tool, as an information presentation tool, as a knowledge reinforcement tool, and to enable cooperative student learning. The correlational analysis examining the relationship between principals’ pedagogical beliefs about technology use and their beliefs about teachers’ classroom practices with technology indicated positive moderate connections between the items of the two variables. Further correlational analysis indicated a non-significant correlation between principals’ pedagogical beliefs about technology use and their overall technological skills, whereas a positive, moderate correlation was found between principals’ beliefs about teachers’ classroom practices with technology and their technological skills.
Further analysis for the fourth research question “What other factors affect principals’ beliefs about technology use?” indicated that principals’ pedagogical beliefs about technology use and their beliefs about teachers’ practices with technology were not affected by demographic factors including age, level of education, years of experience, and ICT training.
As mentioned in Chapter 3, the aim of the current study was also to explore Saudi secondary school principals’ beliefs about technology using a mixed methods approach. The next chapter, Chapter 5, presents an analysis of the principals’ qualitative results.
95 Chapter 5: Principals’ Qualitative Results
This chapter presents the qualitative results of the interviews with the principals. The data analysis of the principals’ quantitative questionnaires provided an overview of their beliefs about both technology use and teachers’ classroom practices with technology. In this chapter, the qualitative data from the 12 interview transcripts provides detailed information about their beliefs. This data allows for further analysis of these beliefs, including the principals’ specific beliefs about teachers’ use of technology. More specifically, the analysis examines the typology of principals’ pedagogical beliefs, their beliefs about both teachers’ practices and teachers’ technological skills, their support for technology use and their beliefs about factors influencing teachers’ integration of technology in Saudi secondary schools.
The researcher selected 12 out of the 23 principals who had participated in the follow-up interviews. This selection was based on their responses to the quantitative questionnaire about their beliefs regarding technology use and teachers’ practices with technology. The questionnaire results indicated that principals’ beliefs (about both technology use and teachers’ practices with technology) were similar overall; they ranged from neutral to strongly agreeing. Therefore, in the selection of the 12 principals, the researcher specifically sought to obtain a variety of beliefs, including neutral, agreeing and strongly agreeing. Table 5.1 summarises this data and provides biographical sketches of the 12 principals who participated in the qualitative interviews. For confidentiality reasons, pseudonyms are used when referring to the participants.
Table 5.1 Demographic Information about the Principals Interviewed
Principal’s Age Level of Years of ICT Beliefs Overall Beliefs pseudonym education experience training about technological about technology skills teachers’ use practices Saeed 45 BA & DIP 12 Yes Agree Moderate Strongly agree Fhaid 48 BA & DIP 11 Yes Strongly Very High Strongly agree agree Khalid 38 BA 5 Yes Strongly High Strongly agree agree Zaid 34 BA 3 Yes Agree Very High Strongly agree Deeb 42 PhD 13 Yes Agree High Strongly agree Abdullah 39 MA 10 Yes Agree High Agree
96 Adel 37 BA 6 Yes Strongly High Agree agree Mutasim 36 BA 11 No Strongly Moderate Strongly agree agree Ahmed 38 BA 9 Yes Agree Moderate Strongly agree Amjed 40 PhD 4 No Neutral Moderate Agree Ali 45 BA 13 No Neutral Moderate Agree Naif 42 BA 14 No Neutral Low Neutral
The qualitative data analysis indicated that the principals’ beliefs could be categorised into four groups (A, B, C and D) according to their beliefs about technology use and teachers’ practices with technology. As summarised in Table 5.2, Group A was composed of two principals, Group B was composed of five principals, Group C was composed of three principals and Group D was composed of two principals. These groups are described in detail in this chapter.
Table 5.2 Typology of Principals’ Beliefs about Technology Use
Beliefs about Beliefs about Pedagogical beliefs Group teachers’ teachers’ practices about technology use technological skills with technology A New ways of learning Complex tools Student-centred Two principals Fhaid and Khalid B Supporting existing Complex tools Mixed-primarily Five principals curriculum student-centred Abdullah, Ali, Amjed, Deeb and Zaid C Supplement the Basic tools Mixed-primarily Three principals required curriculum teacher-centred Adel, Ahmed and Mutasim D Developing computer Basic tools Teacher-centred Two principals and rudimentary skills Naif and Saeed
97 As explained in the methodology, the qualitative data analysis of the interviews began with an initial open code. Second-level coding further reduced the data and narrowed down the initial codes into categories, before finally identifying themes. Activity Theory (Engeström, 1987) was also used as an analytical framework for exploring and explaining the relationships between principals’ beliefs about technology use, their beliefs about teachers’ classroom practices with technology, their beliefs about teachers’ technological skills and their support for using technology. Activity Theory takes into account the idea of ‘tensions’ and how these tensions can be used to identify the factors that affect these relationships and—consequently—the use of technology in the classroom.
The following aspects were derived from the thematic coding of the qualitative data from the principals’ interviews:
Pedagogical beliefs about technology use Beliefs about teachers’ classroom practices with technology Beliefs about teachers’ technological skills Factors influencing teachers’ technology use School support for using technology Emerging groups: principal’s activity system
5.1 Pedagogical Beliefs about Technology Use
The majority of principals interviewed (10 out of 12) emphasised that the integration of technology into Saudi secondary school education could be beneficial to learning processes and the teaching environment, regardless of the subject. However, closer examination of the data revealed substantial differences among the principals’ pedagogical beliefs, which ranged from focussing on ‘developing computer and rudimentary skills’ to ‘new ways of learning’. Some principals (Naif and Saeed) seemed to have pedagogical beliefs in line with ‘developing computer and rudimentary skills’; they focussed on the administrative benefits of using technology. Other principals (Adel, Ahmed and Mutasim) had a focus on supplementing the required curriculum; they emphasised disseminating supplementary information to students. Some principals’ (Abdullah, Ali, Amjed, Deeb and Zaid) beliefs were based on supporting the existing curriculum; their pedagogical beliefs focussed on enhancing students’ understanding of curriculum concepts. Other principals (Fhaid and Khalid)
98 focussed on ‘new ways of learning’ type of pedagogical beliefs that technology enables students to learn independently and cooperatively.
New ways of learning
Two principals, Fhaid and Khalid, appeared to have the ‘new ways of learning’ type of pedagogical beliefs. They focused on changes that occur in student learning when teachers use technology to teach. These participants believed that teaching with technology enables students to learn independently and cooperatively. Khalid claimed that using technology to enable students’ independent learning would ‘promote students’ lifelong learning skills’ and would ‘help students learn how to learn’. Fhaid also claimed that teaching with technology would ‘help students learn by themselves, both inside and outside the classroom’. Additionally, both Fhaid and Khalid shared beliefs that ‘teaching with technology increases collaboration amongst students’ and ‘encourages students to collaboratively construct their knowledge’.
Fhaid indicated that in his school, the official curriculum only seemed to promote the lower levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Learning, such as knowledge and memorisation. This led Fhaid to collaborate with the King Abdulaziz and His Companions Foundation for Giftedness and Creativity8 to help the school learn how to integrate technology into the current curriculum in a way that would promote student cooperative learning and students’ learning at the higher levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Learning, including Application, Analysis, Synthesis, and Evaluation.
Supporting existing curriculum
Five principals—Abdullah, Ali, Amjed, Deeb and Zaid—appeared to support the existing pedagogical beliefs exemplified by their schools’ curricula. They all shared the belief that teaching with technology enhances students’ understanding of curriculum concepts. Amjed and Abdullah believed that using technology, especially multimedia technology, provides students with opportunities to learn and understand the difficult aspects of the curriculum. Similarly, Deeb and Ali believed that when they are taught with technology, students are supported by digital multilateral texts that augment classroom comprehension. Zaid remarked:
8 This organisation was established in 2007 by King Abdullah. One of its aims is to provide educational consultation to governmental and non-governmental institutions.
99 Before technology was used in the classroom, teachers always encountered problems with some students. These students had a hard time understanding difficult lesson concepts when they were taught using only the teacher’s verbal explanation. Using technology that consists of text, sounds, pictures, video . . . could help those students explore and better understand the difficult ideas or concepts of the lesson.
Supplement the required curriculum
Three principals—Adel, Ahmed and Mutasim—appeared to have the ‘supplement the required curriculum’ type of pedagogical beliefs. These participants focussed more on the use and pedagogical value of technology for teachers and students outside of the context of classroom learning, rather than focussing on the impact technology could have on student learning and on teaching methods in the classroom. These three participants shared the belief that teaching with technology helps teachers to disseminate and make information accessible to students. They also shared the belief that with the use of technology, it has become easy for teachers to put any lesson content or other lesson resources on the Internet using the school website or emails to convey knowledge to students any time. Both Ahmed and Mutasim believed that teachers could use email, while Ahmed and Adel both believed that teachers could use social networks (e.g., Twitter and Facebook) to send students course information. All three principals also believed that when teaching with technology, teachers could benefit from using an IWB to access the Internet and to present what they have already put on the school website to the whole classroom.
Developing computer and rudimentary skills
Two principals, Naif and Saeed, seemed to have a focus on the importance of developing rudimentary computer skills. Their pedagogical beliefs focussed on technology use for the administrative aspects of education, rather than on the pedagogical value technology could have for teaching or student learning. Both Naif and Saeed believed that the teachers at their respective schools found technology to be convenient for completing administrative tasks. For example, Microsoft Word could easily be used to construct exams, or Spreadsheet could be used to create student reports. These participants also reported that teachers who made use of technology could now go online and enter student results into the MOE’s electronic system. They also believed that technology could help teachers record student attendance in the
100 classroom more easily. Naif and Saeed struggled to provide examples from their schools of the pedagogical value technology played in teaching and student learning, despite the researcher’s attempts to help them articulate the pedagogical value of technology use for teaching and learning. Instead, both participants held the limited viewpoint that ICT is effective for administrative tasks, and that this technology is mainly beneficial for teachers.
The analysis of the reasons for Naif and Saeed’s pedagogical beliefs about technology use also indicated that they did not have clear reasoning or explanations for their responses to the interview questions. For example, the analysis of Naif’s interview responses revealed that he did not have a clear reason for encouraging the teachers to use technology; instead, the use of technology was optional in his school. Similarly, Saeed’s beliefs about the teachers’ use of technology were not based on the benefits of that technology; instead, he believed that the teachers in his secondary school should use technology “in order to be like the other schools in Jeddah City that use technology”.
5.2 Beliefs about Teachers’ Classroom Practices with Technology
The beliefs of the principals about teachers’ classroom practices with technology ranged from exclusively teacher-centred to primarily teacher-centred and primarily student-centred to exclusively student-centred. Some principals (Naif and Saeed) seemed to take the teacher-centred view exclusively, as they believed technology has no impact on classroom teaching and learning. Other principals (Adel, Ahmed and Mutasim) primarily took the teacher-centred view that combines both traditional and constructivist aspects, but the traditional aspects were more dominant than the constructivist aspects as they believed technology should be used by teachers as a tool to present information and help students build their prior knowledge. In contrast, some principals (Abdullah, Ali, Amjed, Deeb and Zaid) primarily took the student-centred view that combines both constructivist and traditional aspects but they were more likely to take the student-centred view. Other principals (Fhaid and Khalid) exclusively took the student-centred view.
Student-centred
The analysis of Fhaid and Khalid’s beliefs about teachers’ technology practices revealed that these two principals tended to have student-centred beliefs; that is, they
101 believed that teachers’ technology practices should help students ‘act as independent learners’ throughout the learning process. Khalid and Fhaid mentioned that in using technology, teachers should not restrict themselves to certain pedagogies. They believed that technology evolves and teachers should remain aware of new developments and potential impacts of these developments on teaching and learning approaches. However, Khalid and Fhaid emphasised that teachers’ new technology- based pedagogies should promote interaction and collaboration amongst students, and that technology should be in the hands of students. The teacher’s role should be that of a student learning facilitator. These two principals had high expectations for the positive impact technology use could have on teaching and learning:
When I visit any teacher who uses technology in the classroom, I very much expect to see changes in his classroom teaching methods. I actually look for how students interact with one another and collaborate while they learn to use new types of technology. If I find students using computers or learning from the IWB and they are mostly silent, for me this means the teacher is not a good teacher and no change has been made. In this situation, I give the teacher a note asking him why the students are silent and not participating [Khalid].
With regard to a teacher’s technology practices, I really look to see new changes in that teacher’s classroom practices, including students’ roles and where students sit. If every student sits at his own table, looking at the teacher, this is not good for me either. Are the students sitting in a circle or in small groups so they can see each other? Do they have the opportunity to participate, to discuss the idea themselves, and to present on the smart board? Can they use their own computers to answer their own personal inquiries in order to learn? I think the teacher should be a facilitator who encourages the students’ own learning [Fhaid].
Mixed-primarily student-centred
The analysis of Abdullah, Ali, Amjed, Deeb and Zaid’s beliefs about teachers’ technology practices revealed that these participants tended to have mixed- primarily student-centred beliefs. They believed that teachers should make ICT tools a part of their classroom explanations, and that the process of student learning should involve using multimedia presentation technology to enhance students’ understanding of
102 complex concepts. These five participants shared the belief that teachers should use audio-visual, video, movement, 3-D, and text functions of technology, because all of these media can provide students with opportunities to learn and understand different aspects of the curriculum. They also believed that teachers should use visual resources to present lesson concepts in many different ways, and that teachers should also give students opportunities to think and explore new and difficult concepts rather than simply providing explanations for these concepts. Abdullah and Zaid shared the belief that even though teachers should use multimedia, they should also keep students thinking to ensure that they understand the concepts. Ali also mentioned that “using multimedia technology does not mean the teacher provides a direct explanation of the concept; instead, he should let the students think first”. Amjed stated that “teachers’ use of multimedia technology is appropriate, but it should be used to facilitate students’ understanding of the lesson concepts”. Deeb remarked:
Some teachers might think that I recommend them using multimedia technology to present lessons to students. What I mean here is that teachers should use multimedia technology, but at the same time, they should give students the opportunity and time to explore and understand the meaning of the lesson concepts.
Mixed-primarily teacher-centred
The analysis of Adel, Ahmed and Mutasim’s beliefs about teachers’ technology practices revealed that these participants tended to have mixed– primarily teacher- centred beliefs. They shared the belief that teachers should use different types of technology as information presentation tools. They believed that teachers should use technology to inform students, prior to the start of class, about the upcoming lessons. According to Adel, informing students about lessons before they come to class is helpful:
This awareness maximises the learning process, as it allows students to acquire basic understanding of the lesson before actually attending the class. Once they attend the class, the students can expand on their prior knowledge of the lesson’s content, identify key points of the lesson, and ask for clarification on points they don’t understand. Students can access lesson content for upcoming classes through the LMS, social networks, or on the teacher’s website.
103 Furthermore, Adel, Ahmed and Mutasim all believed that with the use of technology, teachers could share course-related information with students outside of school, such as additional recommended readings to help students further their understanding of certain topics.
Teacher-centred
The analysis of Naif and Saeed’s beliefs about teachers’ technology practices indicated that Naif and Saeed did not perceive any impact of teachers’ technology use on the improvement of teaching and learning. They seemed to believe in teacher authority, and they had developed the notion that technology did not serve any pedagogical purpose in classroom teaching. According to Naif, the existence of technology in the classroom was not significant, as the use of textbooks was still required for teaching coursework. Naif seemed to believe that the importance of technology in the classroom was being exaggerated by others. Saeed referred to technology as “a mere tool for teaching, one that came at an additional cost”. Therefore, Naif and Saeed believed that teachers could keep up with traditional teaching pedagogies, where teachers prepare all lesson materials and teach in the classroom without the use of technology. Furthermore, Naif and Saeed concluded that students were not yet able to use technology effectively in their learning. Naif explained that he had agreed to teachers’ use of technology in the classroom because he thought that it would improve student learning and enrich classroom practices. However, after reviewing students’ classroom use of technology, he found that students tended to use websites such as newspaper and chat sites that were not relevant to the lesson content. He thus felt that students were still not capable of using technology to support their classroom learning. Saeed explained that he refused to allow the negative experiences that had occurred in other schools, such as students’ inappropriate use of technology in the classroom (i.e., personal laptop or smartphone usage), to affect students’ attention in class.
5.3 Beliefs about Teachers’ Technological Skills
The principals’ beliefs about teachers’ technological skills ranged from the views that teachers should have knowledge and skills about basic and isolated tools (Naif and Saeed), and that teachers should have knowledge and skills about basic tools (Adel, Ahmed and Mutasim), to the views that teachers should have knowledge and skills for using complex tools (Abdullah, Ali, Amjed, Deeb, Zaid, Fhaid and Khalid).
104 Complex tools
Fhaid and Khalid’s beliefs about teachers’ technological skills revealed that they had a focus on knowledge and skills for using complex tools. They also focussed on the pedagogical use of technology rather than on the acquisition of technical or isolated skills. Khalid mentioned that ‘teachers should have knowledge of the software most relevant to their discipline, as well as the skills needed to use this software, to help them create and monitor students’ individual and group work, analyse students’ individual and group work, and facilitate students’ collaborative work’. Fhaid believed that ‘teachers should have the knowledge and skills required to help students solve problems by designing and creating ICT tools to help students access information databases and communicate with experts in the subject field’. Fhaid mentioned that ‘teachers should be more competent in high-tech skills, including the use of Blackboard learning tools— such as online queues and discussion boards—in order to promote student learning inside and outside the classroom’. Khalid also indicated that ‘teachers should use simulation programs that provide students with opportunities to learn from experiments by simulating real scenarios’.
The interview data analysis revealed that Abdullah, Ali, Amjed, Deeb and Zaid also focussed on the knowledge and skills required for using complex tools, especially for the use of multimedia technologies, including video creation, audio, text, and image technology. Abdullah stated that he believed ‘teachers should be able to transfer their lessons from abstract text to video, pictures, movement, and sound content’. Ali stated that ‘multimedia technology design that includes audio, video, text, and sound should be the top skill being mastered by teachers’. Amjed remarked that ‘Arabic teachers encounter a lack of Arabic multimedia content options’, and thus he believed that ‘Arabic language teachers should take the initiative to design multimedia Arabic content’. Deeb remarked:
Using traditional PowerPoint is very boring for students, or for anyone who must work with or view presentations from the program for a long period of time. Therefore, I highly recommend that Arabic teachers and other teachers in the school incorporate different elements into their presentations, such as video, voice, sounds, and pictures. I like to see multimedia presentations.
Zaid believed that teachers should use LectureMaker software, which enables the use of multimedia technology:
105 I hope that teachers use LectureMaker software. It is an interactive software, and it is better than PowerPoint. With LectureMaker software, teachers can incorporate different elements into their presentations, such as videos, audio, text, images, and links to relevant websites.
Basic tools
The analysis of Adel, Ahmed and Mutasim’s beliefs about teachers’ classroom practices with technology revealed that they believed in the importance of focussing on the use of basic tools. Adel mentioned that ‘teachers should be able to use computers and should be competent with Microsoft Word programs’. Ahmed further mentioned that the ‘teacher should be competent when using email, web searching, and using WhatsApp to post questions to students or to keep absent students updated about what is being taught in the classroom’. Mutasim believed that ‘teachers should be competent at designing and preparing PowerPoint presentations and should know how to use the IWBs and data projectors in the classroom’.
Naif and Saeed also focused on the knowledge and skills required to use basic tools, but for them, the use of technology tools seemed to be isolated from pedagogical uses for technology. Naif indicated that ‘teachers should be competent at using Microsoft Word to write and report on students’ examinations and results’. Saeed mentioned that the ‘teachers should know how to use computer software and how to use Spreadsheet to compile data about students’ attendance records and test results’. Saeed indicated that ‘teachers who have access to an IWB should be able to connect the IWB to their PC’. He also mentioned that ‘teachers should use an electronic program called Noor’; this program was designed by the Ministry of Education, and it is used to record and track students’ exam results at the end of each semester.
5.4 Factors Influencing Teachers’ Technology Use
One aim of this study was to explore principals’ beliefs about technology usage in education. The following section presents the factors that school principals believe may affect teachers’ use of technology. Several contextual factors influencing Saudi secondary school teachers’ classroom use of technology have been reported by principals. These include the absence of an ICT policy, an overloaded curriculum, exam requirements, insufficient ICT resources, inadequate external support, lack of ICT
106 training, school culture, lack of technological pedagogical knowledge, and a passion for technology use.
ICT school Policy
The 12 principals stressed that equipping schools with new technologies should be done by identifying tools and methods that could improve teaching and learning processes and that lead to the need to establish an ICT policy in secondary school education. None of the principals’ schools had ICT policies or plans to help manage the teachers’ use of technology. The principals further mentioned that technology integration into secondary school is still ‘a new and unevaluated project’ (Deeb, Mutasim and Ali). Thus, many of the principals did not have a thorough understanding of the teachers’ use of technology in the classroom (Abdullah, Naif, Saeed and Zaid). However, the principals acknowledged that the effort to integrate technology has been intense since 2005, in cooperation with the Department of Education and MOE. The integration of technology includes the use of technical equipment in the classroom, switching to an electronic curriculum, and implementing an ICT training program.
Curriculum and Exam requirements
Some principals pointed out that the teachers’ use of technology should adhere to the official curriculum and that to some extent, some teachers had not effectively been using technology to support student learning. Naif and Saeed held negative attitudes towards technology, believing that technology provided students with useless information and that the teacher should focus on syllabus coverage and meeting exam requirements. Naif stated that he ‘mostly encouraged teachers to focus on syllabus coverage and meeting exam requirements, whether the teachers used available technology or not’. Similarly, Saeed stated:
Yes, technology facilitates our daily lives, but for student learning, I really believe that we should put more effort on syllabus coverage. For students, I think that using technology takes their attention away from the lesson and wastes their time. It is better for them, in terms of passing their exams at the end of the semester, to focus on what the teacher says in the classroom.
Naif and Saeed seemed to have developed the notion that using technology undermines the teacher’s authority and control in the classroom. In their view, teachers’ use of technology could have a negative effect on students’ learning, as it may distract
107 students’ attention from the lesson at hand and waste their classroom time.
ICT resources in participants’ schools
The principals indicated that availability of ICT resources was a potentially significant factor influencing the teachers’ use of technology. The availability of ICT resources was also discussed during the qualitative interviews. Table 5.3 outlines the technology that was available to teachers at each principal’s school.
Table 5.3 ICT Availability in the Principals’ Schools
Name ICT Resources From Inside Classrooms Outside Classrooms Principal Naif Teacher PC, IWBs in some Learning resources room: None classrooms, Internet access teacher computer and IWB. in some classrooms Saeed IWB, teacher PC, and data Learning resources room: None show projectors in some teacher computer and IWB. classrooms, Internet access in some classrooms Amjed IWBs in some classrooms, None None Internet access in some classrooms None Ahmed Teacher PCs, IWBs, Internet Learning resources room: access in some classrooms teacher computer, projector, and IWB. Adel Teacher PC, IWBs in some None None classrooms, Internet access in some classrooms Mutasim Teacher PC, IWBs in some Learning resources room: None classrooms. teacher computer and IWB, Internet access Ali Teacher PC, IWBs in some None None classrooms, Internet access in some classrooms. Zaid Teacher PC, IWBs in some Learning resources room: None classrooms, allowed teacher computer, projector, students to use smart devices and IWB.
such as iPhones and iPads, Internet access in some classrooms. Deeb Teacher PC, Internet access, Learning resources room: Student PCs, projectors, IWBs in all computers for students. CD Lab classrooms. library,
108 Name ICT Resources From Inside Classrooms Outside Classrooms Principal Blackboard system. Abdullah IWBs, projectors, teacher Learning resources room: Blackboard PC, Internet access in all computers for students and system. classrooms. Internet access. Khalid IWBs, teacher PC, Learning resources room: Simulation computers for students in computers for students and software some classrooms, Internet Internet access. programs. access in all classrooms. Fhaid IWBs, projectors, teacher Learning resources room: School PC, computers for students computers for students and Blackboard in some classrooms, Internet Internet access. system. access in all classrooms. Note. IWB = Interactive White Board.
Table 5.3 indicates the variations in the availability of ICT resources in the schools of the participating principals. All participating principals mentioned that ICT resources were the most important factor influencing teachers’ effective use of technology in teaching and learning. The majority of the principals (n = 8) indicated that only some classrooms in their respective schools had ICT resources and Internet access. Only four principals, Abdullah, Deeb, Khalid and Fhaid, mentioned that their secondary schools had ICT resources inside all classrooms, including teacher PCs, computers for students, Internet access, projectors, and IWBs.
Ahmed, Mutasim, Saeed and Zaid mentioned that their schools had a learning resources room. The rooms had either computers or other devices, such as projectors or smart boards. These learning resource rooms were supposed to be used by the teachers and students ‘once every couple of weeks’, and teachers had to schedule use of the rooms ahead of time. Some principals, including Ahmed, Saeed, Mutasim and Zaid, were under pressure because their schools had only one learning resources room for the entire school. Therefore, these principals tended not to encourage teachers in their schools to use the learning resources room.
In addition, only four principals—Deeb, Abdullah, Khalid and Fhaid—indicated that their schools had extensive ICT resources and that these resources had been initiated by the principals themselves. Examples of such additional resources were the CD Lab library in Deeb’s school, the simulation software programs in Khalid’s school, and the Blackboard system in Abdullah, Deeb and Fhaid’s schools. According to these
109 school principals, ‘using these further ICT resources enhanced student understanding and student learning both inside and outside classroom’.
Interestingly, the findings of the analysis indicated that despite the number of ICT resources available inside or outside the classrooms of the schools, Naif and Saeed’s beliefs about teachers’ use of technology focussed on administrative work, while Adel, Ahmed and Mutasim’s beliefs about technology use focussed on presenting information, and were teacher-centred or primarily teacher-centred. It seems that factors other than the availability of ICT resources affected the teachers’ use of technology. For instance, Naif’s school had recently been equipped with a learning resources room that held one computer for the teacher and one smart board. Naif believed that teachers’ use of technology should be limited, as this method of teaching is not effective for student learning. On the other hand, Ahmed and Saeed indicated that the learning resources rooms in their schools were not well equipped; that is, they lacked sufficient ICT resources for the teaching and learning process.
The availability of ICT resources seemed to be a significant factor that influences teachers’ use of technology. As shown previously, the principals who focussed on administrative work tended to hold negative beliefs about the teachers’ use of technology, and the principals who focussed on enhancing student understanding and enabling students’ independent learning tended to hold positive and advanced beliefs about teachers’ use of technology in teaching and learning. Most principals who held negative beliefs about teachers’ use of technology had insufficient ICT resources. On the other hand, most principals who held positive and advanced beliefs about teachers’ use of technology were from schools that were either equipped with advanced technology both inside and outside the classroom, or had further ICT resources provided by the principals themselves. The findings showed that factors other than the availability of ICT resources contributed to the differences in principals’ beliefs about teachers’ use of technology. These other factors are described in the following sub- sections.
Inadequate external support
All of the principals in the study, with the exception of Khalid and Fhaid, emphasised that their schools lacked technical support services. These principals stated that their schools either did not employee a technician or employed only one technician who was available when teachers had technical problems of any kind. The absence of technical
110 support services or its insufficiency seemed to prevent some principals from encouraging their teachers to use technology in the classroom. This was true even for the schools that were equipped with some ICT resources, which was the case for the schools of Amjed, Saeed, Ahmed, Adel, Ali, Mutasim, and Zaid. The unavailability and insufficiency of technicians prevented many principals from encouraging teachers to integrate technology in their teaching and learning methods.
On the other hand, principals with efficient IT support in their schools encouraged and promoted teachers’ use of technology. Fhaid mentioned that his school had an IT department, and that his teachers benefited from the IT support provided by this department. For example, before and during the use of any new software, the IT staff at Fhaid’s school conducted several professional development sessions to ensure that the teachers could use the new software properly. Fhaid mentioned that this service was established by the school. If any technical problems were to arise, the school principal would immediately contact the IT department to request a technician to address the problem.
Professional development
Almost all of the participating principals considered an ICT training program to be one of the most significant factors influencing the teachers’ use of technology in their schools. Table 5.4 shows the training courses that were provided for teachers by the schools of the participating principals.
Table 5.4 ICT Training Courses Provided in the Participating Principals' Schools
Principal Training Program From the Ministry of From the School Education Naif Yes None General computer skills Saeed Yes None PowerPoint Amjed Yes Very basic skills (e.g., None operating IWBs) Ahmed Yes None Very basic skills (e.g., operating smart boards) Adel Yes Operating IWBs. None
111 Principal Training Program From the Ministry of From the School Education Mutasim Yes Operating IWBs None
Ali Yes None General computer skills
Zaid Yes Operating IWBs None
Deeb Yes None Presentation software, spreadsheets, digital imaging, online Blackboard learning, and Internet tools Abdullah Yes Operating IWBs Using the school’s Blackboard learning system Khalid Yes Using IWBs Summation program Fhaid Yes None Using Blackboard learning tools Note. IWB = Interactive White Board
As Table 5.4 shows, few training courses were provided to teachers by the MOE. Six of the principals indicated that the MOE had never provided any professional development to help the teachers learn to use technology. Furthermore, the training programs focussed on providing basic technological skills rather than advanced technological skills and pedagogy. The majority of the training programs focussed on teaching the use of computers, smart boards, and PowerPoint.
The analysis also found that all of the principals who believed that teachers should use technology for administrative work were focussed on teachers’ basic technological proficiency rather than on their advanced skill levels. Naif, Ahmed, Adel, Amjed, Ali, Mutasim and Saeed only provided their teachers with training programs about general computer skills, the operation of smart boards, and the use of PowerPoint.
On the other hand, the analysis also indicated that most principals who believed that teachers should use technology for multimedia presentations and independent learning focussed on teachers acquiring advanced technological skills. The training programs these teachers were enrolled in involved a higher level of technical proficiency. For example, the schools of Abdullah, Deeb, Khalid and Fhaid provided
112 teachers with training programs about presentation software, spreadsheets, digital imaging, Blackboard learning, and Internet tools.
School culture
School culture appeared to be a factor influencing teachers’ application of technology. Saeed mentioned that among the factors that affected the use of technology in his school, one was the teachers’ resistance to technology. Some teachers in his school still believed that using technology was a waste of classroom time, and that the use of this technology would not properly transmit knowledge to students. Saeed expressed that he respected these teachers’ feelings, but he found it difficult to convince them to use technology in their teaching or to support other teachers who chose to use technology. He said that because he also focussed on syllabus coverage in addition to technology use, he believed the teachers could compensate for not using technology by providing in-depth explanations about the lesson content.
Naif said that group teamwork and support between staff members was lacking at his school, which was a hindrance, as teachers needed to support each other in terms of using new technology as a learning resource. He said that solving technical problems or explaining how to use a new technology mostly depended on two volunteer teachers, and when those two teachers were not available, other teachers stopped using the technology. Interestingly, Naif said that the teachers in his school preferred to work alone rather than discuss their ideas in a group.
Technological pedagogical knowledge
Naif and Saeed, who held teacher-centred beliefs about teachers’ technology practices, lacked pedagogical technological knowledge (TPK). This term refers to knowledge of the existence, components, and capabilities of various technologies as they are used in teaching and learning settings, and knowledge of how teaching might change as the result of using particular technologies (Graham, 2011). Both Naif and Saeed struggled to provide specific examples of technological tools that teachers could use in their teaching methods, although the researcher tried to help them by mentioning some examples. Conversely, the principals who held advanced beliefs about technology use—including supporting existing curriculum pedagogical beliefs, having primarily student-centred beliefs about pedagogical practice, and focusing on the knowledge and skills required for the use of complex tools—were able to provide examples of the
113 technological tools that teachers might use in the classroom. For instance, Fhaid and Khalid mentioned that teachers could use a collaborative learning strategy using students’ laptops, iPads, smartphones, and the school’s Blackboard (the online platform). They mentioned how students could search online, listen to audio clips, watch YouTube videos, communicate through social networks, read and write texts, as well as explore and investigate, and that all of these strategies would support their collaborative learning. Finally, Fhaid and Khalid shared that the students could then use the IWB to present the findings taken from their individual inquiry and learning.
Passion for technology use
Another significant theme that emerged from the analysis of the qualitative data was linked to the principals’ passion for technology use. Such passion included a strong belief in the importance of technology and enthusiasm for teachers’ use of technology in teaching and learning. Almost all of the principals who were either primarily teacher- centred or mostly teacher-centred held negative beliefs about teachers’ classroom use of technology. That is, they believed that teachers’ use of technology should be limited, and they doubted the effectiveness of using technology for the purpose of teaching and learning. Generally, the findings suggested that the principals who had low passion for technology believed in developing only rudimentary computer skills, had teacher- centred beliefs, and remained focussed on only basic technological skills. For example, Naif believed that the use of technology should be limited, and that knowledge taken from the Internet is not as trustworthy as knowledge provided by a teacher or a school syllabus. Furthermore, his lack of passion for technology led Saeed to accept the feelings of teachers who, like himself, were resistant to using technology in the classroom. Thus, he did not try to convince those teachers to use technology.
On the other hand, the principals who supported both existing curriculum and new ways of learning pedagogical beliefs, who held primarily student-centred beliefs about pedagogical practice, and who focussed on high levels of technological competency, all had a strong passion for using technology. For example, Deeb stated that passion was the paramount factor in regard to an individual’s support for technological integration. Deeb’s passion helped him deal with the attempts of some teachers to avoid using technology, as his passion helped him convince others to use technology more often. Fhaid also mentioned that he strongly believed that using technology was a central element in his teaching and learning, and he believed that
114 using paper, a blackboard, and textbooks was no longer beneficial in the era of technology.
5.5 School Support for Using Technology
The analysis of the principals’ interviews revealed substantial differences amongst the school principals in terms of their levels of support for using technology. Both Fhaid and Khalid first supported technology use in their respective schools by assigning a full-time technician to help teachers use software programs and hardware equipment. Before using any new software, the teachers would undergo several training sessions with the technician. Fhaid mentioned that after the end of each day, the teachers would all spend one or two hours attending professional development sessions held by the IT department or by other teachers who were already familiar with the school’s technology. The content of these professional development programs was regularly updated, based on the needs of teachers and on new technological developments. Khalid further indicated that his school provided technical support for teachers as they used the technology. He mentioned that the school had an ICT staff who were willing to train teachers or help them to use ICT resources.
Fhaid and Khalid also said that they tended to support technology use in their schools by encouraging teachers to share their technological experiences and skills with one another. For example, Khalid mentioned that each teacher in his school would visit other teachers in their classrooms and formally report on the teaching methods of those other teachers, including technology integration, such as use of the Internet, IWB, and the data projector. Fhaid also mentioned that when a new teacher would come to the school, even if that teacher were competent in using technology and highly qualified to do so, he would still spend at least two weeks with other teachers in his discipline to practise using the types of technologies used in the school’s classrooms, as well as to learn how to adapt to the students, classroom, and school environment. Additionally, Fhaid expressed that he would rather have students use technology to explain the lesson content and have teachers facilitating the use of this technology, in order to promote independent learning.
Furthermore, Fhaid and Khalid indicated that the availability of ICT resources had an effect on the teachers’ use of technology. They mentioned that in their schools, each classroom was equipped with an IWB, a data projector, and access to the Internet.
115 Both schools had an ICT resources room that allowed teachers to use technology in their lessons.
Fhaid and Khalid both indicated that in their schools, the maximum number of students in each classroom was 25. This number facilitated the students’ use of ICT resources and helped teachers monitor student learning and the role technology use played in this learning. Fhaid further mentioned that this number provided students with the opportunity to interact with each other and allowed the teacher to assess the learning progress of the students. In Fhaid’s school, further support was provided to staff through direct contact with the principal. This was achieved using a special phone line that connected Fhaid with his teachers and the ICT staff, allowing technical issues to be discussed and solved promptly upon occurrence.
Fhaid further supported his teachers’ technology use by evaluating the teachers’ use of technology. Fhaid emphasised that when he visited teachers in their classrooms, he focussed on how they used technology and the role played by the students in this process. He said that when the teacher used technology to explain the lesson content and the students were silent, it meant that the teacher’s performance was not good. He expressed that he preferred to see the students using technology to explain the lesson content, and to see the teacher facilitating the students’ learning.
With regard to Amjed, Abdullah, Deeb, Ali and Zaid’s support for the teachers’ use of technology, Abdullah, Amjed and Deeb indicated that their strong passion for technology was the most significant factor supporting the technological integration they had provided in their schools. They acknowledged that although they sometimes had to deal with some teachers who avoided using technology, due to their own strong beliefs and persistence, they were able to convince these teachers to use technology in the long run. Amjed, Abdullah and Deeb mentioned that if they had been hesitant in expressing their own views, and if some teachers had been reluctant to change their methods, the use of technology would not have succeeded:
I have a strong belief in the importance of using technology, and I have persisted in order to succeed in integrating technology into teaching and learning. I started by supplying all classrooms with Internet cables. This was very expensive, and it was difficult for the majority of teachers and students to adapt to this change. We reorganised the classroom furniture so that the classrooms had long circular tables close to the wall, which would allow
116 students to connect their laptops easily to the Internet cables. The teacher was given enough space to monitor the students’ learning. We have been using this method for the past two years [Abdullah].
When the wireless service came, we replaced the Internet cables and reorganised the tables in the classroom to facilitate collaborative groups. We spent a lot of money and effort on this transfer and to help teachers and students adapt to the change. Then, more recently, we bought smart boards, and we ensured that there was a computer for every teacher connected to the smart boards. Then, we established the Blackboard online learning management system to facilitate student learning inside and outside of the school. The technology has now become part of our school’s regular instructional methods [Deeb].
Deeb further indicated that important support for technology integration has been embedded in the professional development at his school. It is interesting that professional development is based on the needs of both teachers and students. As Deeb explained, in his school, a list of technical competencies was created. This list is compiled at the end of each semester, and online surveys are used to identity teachers’ and students’ levels of technological skills. Deeb also indicated that this list includes closed-ended and open-ended questions about technical competencies. Deeb stated that the school’s list of technical competencies includes the basic skills required to use computers and smart boards, as well as higher-level technological skills, including presentation software, spreadsheets, digital imaging, online Blackboard learning, and Internet tools. He claimed that the surveys helped the staff to prepare the professional training sessions each semester. He also pointed out that professional development is updated based on the results of the survey. The teachers at Deeb’s school started with a very basic level of computer skills. After engaging in professional development and step-by-step learning, their knowledge and skills have increased. Deeb stated that some of the teachers are now professional trainers on the integration of technology in teaching instruction.
Amjed, Abdullah and Deeb indicated that the professional development programs used at their schools were based on technical competency and were conducted by technology-based teaching and learning experts. Deeb explained that his school hired experts on technology-based teaching and learning from the King
117 Abdulaziz University (KAU). These experts conducted professional development programs and helped redesign a new, electronic-based school curriculum to support student learning both inside and outside the school. Interestingly, the cost of this program was not covered by the MOE; instead, the program was funded by the principal himself.
Deeb explained that further support has been used as a strategy for dealing with teachers who have been resistant to the integration of technology into the classroom. He pointed out that at his school, each teacher was supplied with a computer, but if the teacher preferred a specific kind of computer, the school would only pay half the price. Deeb claimed that 99% of the teachers at his school have benefited from professional development programs.
Deeb further explained that teachers’ attendance at technology conferences for sharing the latest research on the use of technology by teachers is important for technological integration. Curiously, the MOE does not financially support the attendance of teachers or principals at educational conferences. Deeb stated that he always tries to attend technology conferences, and that he recently attended one in Cairo regarding the use of e-curricula. When he returned to his school, he sat with a group of teachers to inform them of the conference’s proceedings. Deeb articulated that when he attends conferences, he usually focuses on how modern technology can promote student learning. This also improves his vision of technology and his goals for using technology in a teaching context.
Amjed, Abdullah and Deeb pointed out that further support for technology integration can be given by ICT resources. They indicated that in each of their respective schools, an online library called CD Lab was created. Amjed explained that this library contained material on all school curricula, including Arabic language curriculum, Islamic curriculum, science curriculum, mathematics curriculum, as well as the content of more than 70,000 e-books. These three principals claimed that students could easily access school curricula, related e-books, studies, and software-learning programs. Deeb said that this library in his school was regularly equipped with recent software learning programs. Interestingly, as Deeb noted, this library has been equipped with programs and studies in both Arabic and English. He mentioned that he and some other teachers have used their English knowledge and skills to translate relevant programs and studies into Arabic. The principals said that these libraries also include
118 videos and audio recordings. They noted that students’ use of the libraries has been high, and that all lesson materials are available in these libraries. Both Ali and Zaid stated that even though the MOE did not provide their schools with enough resources for professional development in the use of technology, technicians from outside the schools were brought in to train and help teachers learn how to use programs on both the smart boards and the classroom computers.
Actually, the Ministry of Education supplied the school with smart boards and computers, but these were not enough. The teachers needed professional development programs to learn how to use these resources. We brought a technician from outside the school to help teachers use programs or learn how to use them on both the smart boards and computers [Zaid].
As the school does not have an assigned technician, and the Ministry of Education did not provide enough professional development, we brought a technician from outside the school, or a teacher from another school who knows how to use smart boards with Internet tools. These individuals helped our teachers learn how to use the smart boards, which were still new for most of the teachers in the school [Ali].
Ahmed, Adel and Mutasim acknowledged that having ICT resources available in their schools was the most important factor influencing their support for technological integration. These three principals indicated that they each now have a learning resources room and that some of their classrooms have IWBs, but they all agreed that each class should be supplied with all of the required technologies and should have access to the Internet. Each class should have at least four or five computers to allow the students to perform online searches, and each classroom should also be equipped with a smart board and a data projector. Interestingly, Ahmed mentioned that in his school, not all classrooms had access to the Internet; instead, teachers in these classrooms used the IWB to present their lessons. He mentioned that in other classrooms that had access to the Internet, the teachers still had the option to use the Internet or the IWB. Additionally, Adel stated that he supported the use of technology in his school by rewarding teachers with encouragement certificates. He provided encouragement certificates to teachers who initiated and encouraged the use of technology, such as the use of the IWB and the school website, in their teaching. However, he also acknowledged that he ‘tried not to put too much pressure on the
119 teachers to use technology, as there had been a lack of ICT training provided by the MOE’ for the teachers at his school. Similarly, Ahmed posed the following question: ‘We all hope to see the use of technology in the classroom, but if our teachers do not receive enough training from the MOE to support technology use, how can teachers be expected to use this technology?’ Mutasim expressed a similar belief, stating that ‘the MOE should provide schools with enough ICT training to encourage teachers to use technology in classroom’. Mutasim also stated that this lack of MOE support meant that his school lacked in the area of professional development. He indicated that both the teachers and students in his school needed the support provided by continuous professional development to help them make the best use of technology.
Ahmed and Mutasim further mentioned the teachers at their schools lacked up- to-date information about most of the technologies used in each school. They mentioned that computer programs should be regularly updated. Interestingly, they expressed that in Ahmed’s school, computer programs were sometimes updated outside the school, or a technician was brought in from outside the school to operate the smart boards. Interestingly, Ahmed mentioned that the costs of updating programs or hiring outside technicians were mostly paid by the teachers. Mutasim mentioned that the MOE should supply schools with new technology, such as digital cameras, which teachers could use to record and document their classroom teaching or student learning. These records could then be presented to the students.
Naif and Saeed held different views regarding supporting teachers’ use of technology. They did not seem willing to support the use of technology if they had not been given financial support from the MOE. Saeed mentioned that in the previous year, his school had tried to use an online Blackboard system in which some classroom curricula were converted to e-curricula. His school contacted an American ICT company called Classera about establishing an online Blackboard system. However, because his school did not receive technical support from the MOE, this project was stopped before the end of the school year. Saeed mentioned that this project would have cost the school a great deal of money, and he said that even if it had been possible to obtain financial support from the MOE, acquiring these funds would have been a long process. Saeed was knowledgeable about the skills required to use an online Blackboard system. He was very enthusiastic about the project, and he believed that the teachers would be able to use this program for both administrative tasks and student assessment.
120 He indicated that the layout of the school building was not conducive to using technology, stating that in his school, there was not enough space in the classrooms; additionally, the learning resources room where the teachers most often used technology, was very small. He stated that ‘providing the appropriate classroom infrastructure for using technology is one of the responsibilities of the MOE, and our school should have received support from the MOE to improve the classroom infrastructure’. Similarly, Naif stated that he could support teachers’ use of technology if his school received support from the MOE. He emphasised that ‘every school has limited capabilities, and without the MOE’s support, technology use projects would be unable to successfully continue’.
5.6 Emerging Groups
Four groups (A, B, C and D) of thought regarding technology use in the classroom were identified based on the similarities between different principals’ responses during the interviews. The characteristics of each group are summarised in the sections below according to the response range. It also important to note that the composition of the groups would have been different if the principals’ pedagogical beliefs had been the only factors considered. The principals’ beliefs about teachers’ technology practices and their support (or lack thereof) for technology use helped to identify and confirm consistencies between the principals’ pedagogical beliefs and their beliefs about teachers’ technology practices. It should also be emphasised that most of the factors identified by the principals as obstacles to the teachers' use of technology acted differently across the different groups; that is, the influence of those factors was different for each group.
Group A: Student-centred
Group A comprised two principals: Khalid and Fhaid. In terms of their pedagogical beliefs about technology use, Fhaid and Khalid seemed to have ‘new ways of learning’ pedagogical belief that teaching with technology enabled students to learn independently and cooperatively. Regarding their beliefs about teachers’ technology practices, Fhaid and Khalid appeared to have the student-centred belief that teachers should not restrict themselves to certain pedagogies, but should instead adapt their own pedagogies to promote self-learning, interaction, and collaboration among students. Fhaid and Khalid’s beliefs about teachers’ technological skills revealed their focus on
121 the importance of having the knowledge and skills required to use complex tools, as well as the importance of finding pedagogical uses for technology rather than focusing on the acquisition of isolated skills. Khalid believed that teachers should design subject- related software to help themselves and other teachers create and monitor individual and group student work, analyse students’ individual and group work, and facilitate students’ collaborative work in the classroom. He also believed that teachers should use simulation programs to provide students with opportunities to learn from experiments by simulating real-life scenarios. Fhaid believed that teachers should be able to design software to connect their students to information databases and facilitate communication between students and experts in the subject field. This information and access to these experts would help students solve any given problem.
What differentiated these principals from the others was that their beliefs were more related to pedagogical uses of technology. Also, these two principals were able to articulate the benefits of the teachers’ use of technology and to justify their beliefs. The principals justified their pedagogical beliefs that teaching with technology enabled students to learn independently; they did so by explaining that the independent learning that emerged from teaching with technology enhanced students’ lifelong learning skills. They also justified their pedagogical beliefs in the importance of teaching with technology by stating that it enabled students to learn cooperatively. Cooperative learning could be facilitated by online and ICT resources, which could facilitate group projects among students. Regarding their beliefs about teachers’ technology practices, Fhaid and Khalid were able to justify themselves by referring to how continuous development of technology could create new pedagogies and new ways of learning.
One other factor that differentiated this pair from the other principals was that Fhaid and Khalid tried to address obstacles that teachers may face when using technology in the classroom. For example, each of their schools used to have technical problems, and they did not employ full-time technicians to help the teachers learn how to use technology. In response to this issue, full-time technicians were hired to assist the teachers and to train them to use new software programs and other technological equipment. These principals also shared their experiences and knowledge with the teachers and encouraged the teachers to do the same. Both Fhaid and Khalid aimed to have friendly relationships with the teachers at their schools. They also minimised the number of students in each class, and they each established an IT department in their
122 respective school. These IT departments employed ICT staff who were willing to train teachers or assist them with their use of ICT resources. Although these principals did not receive adequate support from the MOE, this did not affect their decision to support the teachers’ use of technology. With the help of the activity theory model, tension was identified in the activity system of Group A, as presented in Figure 5.1.
Figure 5.1. Group A: Student-centred Activity System The tension was identified as existing between subject and rules. This tension was related to the principals’ willingness to fully encourage teachers to integrate technology into their practices while being restrained by the lack of an ICT policy. Although Fhaid and Khalid claimed that they were trying as much as possible to cooperate with other educational organisations to redesign the school curricula into electronic curricula in order to support student learning both inside and outside of school, this endeavour was difficult due to the low level of funding available from the MOE.
123 Group B: Mixed - primarily student -centred
The mixed, primarily student -centred group was the largest of the four groups and demonstrated the highest heterogeneity. Group B was characterised by the principals’ pedagogical beliefs about technology use, teachers’ practices, and teachers’ skills with technology. This group consisted of five principals: Amjed, Abdullah, Deeb, Ali and Zaid. Their pedagogical beliefs reflected their support for existing curricula. They shared the belief that teaching with technology enhanced students’ understanding of different aspects of, and difficult concepts in the curriculum. They believed that teachers should use multimedia technology. They also believed in giving students the opportunity to think about and learn new concepts rather than provide them too quickly. Therefore, what differentiated this group from the other three was that their beliefs about teachers’ technology practices combined both constructivist and traditional aspects. They were primarily student-centred, as they believed teachers should provide students with opportunities to discuss and explore new and difficult concepts by themselves. Their beliefs about teachers’ technological skills aligned with their pedagogical beliefs. In addition, their beliefs about teachers’ practices focussed on the knowledge and skills of complex tools; they believed that teachers should be competent enough to design and use multimedia technologies, including video, audio, text, and image technology.
As presented in Figure 5.2, a number of tensions were evident in Group B’s activity system.
124
Figure 5.2. Group B: Mixed-primarily student-centred’ activity system The first tension was identified as being between subject and tools. This tension related to beliefs about the value of technology use being undermined by insufficient ICT resources. The second tension, perhaps stronger, was identified as existing between subject and rules. This tension was related to the principals’ tendencies to encourage teachers to use available technologies, which were limited by their lack of ICT training and the absence of an ICT policy. The third tension, even stronger, was identified between subject and community. Here, technology use was viewed as being restricted by a lack of technical support from a full-time technician assigned to the school. Similar to Group A, the tensions were not particularly strong, as the principals in this group overcame insufficient classroom technologies and the lack of ICT training and technical support. Group B was intensive in establishing their own ICT resources and used their strong passion for technology to convince teachers to use what technological resources were already available.
Group C: Mixed - primarily teacher-centred
Group C was comprised of three principals: Ahmed, Adel and Mutasim. Their pedagogical beliefs reflected their focus on supplementing the required curriculum.
125 They believed that teachers should use technology to disseminate information to students and make information accessible and available to students. This aligned with their beliefs about teachers’ practices with technology, which combined both traditional and constructivist aspects. They believed teachers should use technology as tools to present information to teach lessons and provide students with further lesson-related information outside of the classroom. They believed that informing students about lessons before the actual lesson was beneficial to learning. As opposed to Groups A and B, they reported that teachers should have the knowledge and skills needed to use simplistic tools. As indicated in Figure 5.3, several tensions were identified within Group C’s activity system.
Figure 5.3. Group C: Mixed-primarily teacher-centred activity system The first tension was identified as existing between subject and tools. This related to the principals’ beliefs about the teachers’ practices with technology being undermined by limited ICT resources. The second tension was identified as existing between subject and rules. This related to the principals’ beliefs about the teachers’
126 practices with technology being undermined by lack of ICT training. The third tension was identified as existing between subject and community and was related to the principals’ support for teachers’ use of technology being undermined by lack of technical support. The fourth tension was identified as existing between subject and division of labour. The lack of professional development provided by the MOE discouraged these principals from assisting the teachers in their use of technology in the classroom. As opposed to Groups A and B, the mixed-primarily teacher-centred principals, felt extremely limited by the lack of technical support, professional development, and classroom technologies. These principals used these limitations to justify their discouragement of teachers’ use of technology.
Group D: Teacher-centred
Group D included two principals: Naif and Saeed. Their pedagogical beliefs reflected the importance of developing rudimentary computer skills, as they believed that teaching with ICT tools was only effective for teachers’ own administrative benefits. In terms of their beliefs about teachers’ practices with technology, Naif and Saeed were purely traditional and teacher-centred. The main criterion that differentiated these principals from the rest was that their pedagogical beliefs were more related to administrative and facilitating aspects of technology rather than to pedagogical change or value of teaching and students’ learning processes. Another interesting point that differentiated the principals in this group was that they did not see any change or benefit from ICT on teachers’ practices with technology. Despite the researcher’s prompts to help them articulate examples of classroom practices that could be used by teachers with the aid of technology, Naif and Saeed were limited by their pedagogical beliefs, believing that technology could only be beneficial for helping teachers with administrative tasks. According to Group D, students are unable to use technology effectively in their learning. As opposed to Groups A and B, and more similarly to Group C, these principals reported that the knowledge and skills required to use simplistic tools were what teachers needed in terms of technological skills. They believed that teachers should be competent in using Microsoft programs such as Word or Spreadsheet, should be able to connect available classroom IWBs to the teacher’s PC, and should be able to use the MOE program Noor to enter students’ exam results. Several tensions were apparent in the Group D’s activity system, as presented in Figure 5.4.
127
Figure 5.4. Group D: teacher-centred activity system Similar to Group C, the first tension here was identified between subject and tools. This tension was related to the principals’ beliefs about teachers’ practices with technology being undercut by limited ICT resources and a lack of technical support and ICT training. The second tension was identified as existing between subject and rules; this tension was related to the principals’ beliefs about teachers’ practices with technology as being weakened by an overload in curriculum and exam requirements. The third tension, identified as existing between subject and division of labour, was related to the principals’ support of technology use being undermined by school culture, where teachers were resistant to the use of technology and reluctant to support each other. The fourth tension was detected within subject and was related to the principals’ beliefs about teachers’ practices with technology being undermined by a lack of pedagogical knowledge in regards to technology. The fifth tension was perhaps the strongest; it was identified as existing within subject, and it was related to the principals’ beliefs about technology use and teachers’ practices with technology. As the members of this group believed that teaching with technology could only be effective
128 and beneficial for teachers’ administrative benefits, they did not seem amenable to encourage teachers to use technology in the classroom or to support teaching and the student learning process.
5.7 Chapter Summary
In this chapter, the qualitative interview findings of principals’ beliefs about technology use were reported. Twelve principals were selected, as this number of interviews was considered to best reflect the variety of responses. The principals’ interview responses were differentiated in terms of their pedagogical beliefs about technology use, their beliefs about teachers’ classroom practices with technology, their beliefs about teachers’ technological skills, factors influencing teachers’ use of technology, and their support for technology use. Four groups emerged based on the commonalities found in the interview data from the principals’ responses. The qualitative results showed that the principals’ pedagogical beliefs about technology influenced their beliefs about teachers’ practices with technology to a great degree. There was a definitive correspondence between the principals’ pedagogical beliefs (their views on new ways of learning, support of the existing curriculum, supplement the required curriculum and their thoughts about the development of computer and rudimentary skills in regards to administrative tasks) and their beliefs about teachers’ practices using technology (student-centred, mixed-primarily student-centred, mixed-primarily teacher-centred, teacher-centred), and their beliefs about teachers’ technological skills (about basic and isolated tools, basic tools and complex tools) .
With the help of the activity theory model, several contextual factors were identified as impacting Saudi secondary school principals’ influence on teachers’ use of technology in the classroom, including the absence of ICT policy, lack of professional development and resources, and the lack of technological pedagogical knowledge and external support. In addition, exam requirements, school culture, passion for technology, and overloading the curriculum were all factors influencing beliefs on technology use in the classroom.
As mentioned in Chapter 3, the aim of the current study was also to explore secondary school Arabic language teachers’ beliefs and practices with technology. The next chapter, Chapter 6, presents an analysis of the teacher quantitative results.
129 Chapter 6: Teachers’ Quantitative Results
The purpose of this study was to explore Saudi secondary school principals’ beliefs and teachers’ beliefs and practices with respect to technology, as well as the relationship between their beliefs and classroom practices with technology. It also aimed to explore other contextual factors influencing this relationship and technology use in the classroom. This chapter is the second of two chapters that present the quantitative results of the study. The aim of the analysis of the teachers’ quantitative data presented in this chapter was to explore teachers’ pedagogical beliefs about technology use, their perceived classroom practices with technology, and the relationship between their beliefs and classroom practices with technology. This provides an answer to Research Question 1 related to the teachers’ beliefs about technology use in teaching and learning. The results of these analyses were used to answer Research Question 2 in terms of teachers’ perceived classroom practices with technology. The results of these analyses were also used to answer Research Question 3 in terms of the relationship between teachers’ beliefs and practices with technology. Finally, the results of these analyses were used to answer Research Question 4 in terms of identifying other factors affecting teachers’ beliefs and practices with technology, which, in this chapter, were related to the impact of demographic factors on teachers’ beliefs and classroom practices with technology.
The teachers’ quantitative data were analysed using IBM SPSS Statistics V22.0. This chapter presents the quantitative results obtained from teachers’ questionnaires in the following sections. The first section presents a description of the teachers’ demographic characteristics. The second section presents descriptive statistics of the teachers’ pedagogical beliefs about technology use. The third section presents descriptive statistics of the teachers’ technological skills. The fourth section presents descriptive statistics of the teachers’ classroom practices with technology. The fifth section employs correlational analysis to examine both the relationship between the teachers’ pedagogical beliefs about technology use and their classroom practices with technology and the relationship between their pedagogical beliefs about technology use, their classroom practices with technology, and their technological skills. The sixth section presents the results of an inferential statistics analysis that examines the impact of demographic factors on the teachers’ beliefs and practices with technology. Finally, an overall summary is provided at the end of this chapter with some concluding
130 remarks on the main findings.
6.1 Demographic Characteristics
The teachers’ demographic information (see part A of the questionnaire in Appendix A) was obtained regarding their age, level of education, years of teaching experience, and attendance at ICT training. The target population in this study comprised 155 Saudi secondary school Arabic language teachers who worked in 70 technology-equipped public schools for males in the Jeddah administrative area of Saudi Arabia during the 2013–2014 school year (the same schools where the principals worked). After copies of the questionnaire were distributed to 90 teachers, 90 teacher questionnaires were returned. Eight teacher questionnaires were found to be incomplete in that one or more parts were missing. These incomplete questionnaires were excluded from the analysis, leaving a study sample of 82 teachers. Table 6.1 presents a summary of the teachers’ demographic characteristics.
Table 6.1 Summary of Teachers’ Demographic Characteristics
Categories % (n) Age Under 30 years 20.73 (17) 30–39 years 40.24 (33) 40–49 years 29.27 (24) 50 years and over 9.75 (8) Level of education Diploma 0 (0) Bachelor’s degree 91.46 (75) Master’s degree 4.87 (4) PhD 3.65 (3) Years of experience Under 2 years 1.21 (1) 2–5 years 10.97 (9) 6–9 years 25.60 (21) 10 years and over 62.19 (51) Overall technological Very high 15.9 (13) skills High 35.4 (29) Moderate 23.2 (19 Low 20.7 (17)
131 Very low 4.9 (4) ICT training Yes 20.73 (17) No 79.26 (65)
As shown in Table 6.1, over 40% of teachers were between 30 and 39 years old, while the lowest reported age group was 50 years and above (9.75%, n = 8). Most teachers (91.46%, n = 75) had a bachelor’s degree, while only 4.87% (n = 4) had a master’s degree and three teachers (3.65%, n = 3) had a PhD. Over 62% of the sampled teachers had over 10 years of teaching experience. Only 1.21% of the teachers (n = 1) had under 2 years of teaching experience, and the rest were split between the 2–5 years (10.97%) and 6–9 years (25.60%) categories. Just over half (51.3%) reported a high to very high level of overall technological skills and a quarter reported a low to very low level of technological skills (25.6%). This above-average response (M = 3.37) would suggest that teachers generally had significant technological ability to use technology in their teaching and learning process. The majority of the participant teachers stated that they had not undertaken any ICT training (79.26%, n = 65).
Reliability of Teachers’ Beliefs and Practices Questionnaire
The reliability of the Teachers’ Beliefs and Practices Questionnaire (TBPQ) was measured using the Cronbach’s alpha () reliability coefficient to determine the internal consistency of the TBPQ subscales (beliefs, technological skills, and practices) and total items (see Table 6.2).
Table 6.2 Cronbach’s Alpha and Number of Items of the TBPQ Subscales and Total Items, (n = 82)
No. Subscales & total items items Beliefs about technology use 9 0.84 Technological skills 11 0.87 Practices with technology 10 0.89 Total items 30 0.93
According to DeVellis (1991), a degree of reliability between 0.80 and 0.90 is considered highly acceptable, while above 0.90 is strongly reliable in terms of Cronbach’s alpha scores for all of the subscales. As Table 5.2 shows, these fell between 0.84 and 0.89, and for total items, = 0.93, which suggests that the subscales and the
132 total items of the TBPQ in this study achieved a highly acceptable and reliable level of internal consistency.
6.2 Teachers’ Pedagogical Beliefs about Technology Use
This section provides the results of the TBPQ that measured Saudi secondary school teachers’ pedagogical beliefs regarding their use of technology. More specifically, this section consists of nine items examining teachers’ pedagogical beliefs about technology use in teaching and learning. Participants responded using a 5-point Likert-type scale. The range included (5) ‘Strongly agree’, (4) ‘Agree’, (3) ‘Neutral’, (2) ‘Disagree’, (1) and ‘Strongly Disagree’. As mentioned earlier, the data were derived from 82 Arabic language teachers who work at secondary schools with unique technological infrastructures. The descriptive analyses of the means and standard deviations were used in the data analysis of this section, as presented in Table 6.3.
Table 6.3 Teachers’ Pedagogical Beliefs about Technology Use
I believe using technology in teaching and learning: M (SD) 1. accommodates students’ personal learning 4.26 (0.64) preferences. 2. promotes students’ learning both inside and 4.48 (0.63) outside the classroom. 3. promotes student-centred teaching 4.32 (0.80) approaches. 4. maintains high expectations of students. 3.93 (0.83) 5. is more effective than traditional classroom 4.01 (0.98) learning. 6. improves the research skills of students . 4.61 (0.58) 7. enhances collaboration among students. 4.09 (0.96) 8. improves students’ learning achievements. 4.28 (0.74) 9. helps teachers organize student learning. 4.11 (0.74) Total mean 4.23 (0.52) Note. M = Mean; SD = Standard deviation
The teachers were asked to rate their agreement with the nine statements regarding their beliefs about the pedagogical value of technology use in teaching and learning. As previously mentioned, each of the nine statements refers to particular
133 pedagogical values of technology use in teaching and learning. The score of each item was transferred to SPSS to calculate the mean and standard deviation scores for each type of belief.
The descriptive analyses of the means and standard deviations were used to answer Research Question 1. As indicated in Table 5.3, the teachers generally had positive beliefs about technology use in teaching and learning (M = 4.23, SD = 0.52). The mean scores of these items ranged from 3.93 to 4.61. This high average response (M = 4.23) would suggest that teachers were generally aware of the pedagogical value of teaching with technology.
Furthermore, a closer examination of the mean scores indicates that the strongest belief was indicated by the teachers’ agreement with the statement ‘technology improves the research skills of students’ (M = 4.61, SD = 0.583). The second strongest belief demonstrated by teachers was their agreement with the statement ‘technology promotes students’ learning both inside and outside the classroom’ (M = 4.48, SD = 0.633). Furthermore, it was also discovered that the statement teachers agreed with the least was ‘technology maintains high expectations of students’ (M = 3.95, SD = 0.78). The mean score of this statement is generally moderate, but since it was the lowest compared to other statements, this would suggest that there are still some Arabic language secondary school teachers who maintain a low level of expectations for their students when technology is incorporated in the teaching and learning process.
6.3 Teachers’ Technological Skills
Teachers were also asked to rate their technological knowledge and skills via a series of statements (11 sub-items) concerning using different types of technology tools, as presented in Table 5.5. Each of the eleven statements refers to knowledge and skills in using a particular tool. Teachers rated their technological knowledge and skills in using each tool using a 5-point Likert-type scale which ranged from (5) ‘Very high’, (4) ‘High’, (3) ‘Moderate’, (2) ‘Low’, to (1) ‘Very low’. The score of each item was transferred to SPSS to calculate the mean and standard deviation scores for each tool teachers reported having the knowledge and skills required for use, as shown in Table 6.4.
134
Table 6.4
Teachers’ Technological Knowledge and Skills
M (SD) My knowledge and skills in using technology
1. Word processing 3.73 (1.12) 2. Presentation software 3.82 (1.12) 3. Spreadsheets 2.85 (1.23) 4. Multimedia authoring 3.09 (1.39) 5. Graphic creation 1.78 (1.09) 6. Web design 1.45 (0.86) 7. Email 4.13 (1.03) 8. Web searching 4.24 (0.94) 9. Social networking 4.00 (1.13) 10. Learning management system 2.22 (1.47) 11. Databases 2.00 (1.32) Note. M = Mean; SD = Standard deviation
The teachers reported high knowledge and skills in web searching (M = 4.24, SD = 0.94), the use of email (M = 4.13, SD = 1.028), and social networking (M = 4.00, SD = 1.13). Notably, these knowledge and skills are basic and associated with using simplistic tools. On the other hand, the teachers reported very low knowledge and skills in web design (M = 1.45, SD = 0.863) and graphics creation (M = 1.78, SD = 1.089) and a low level of ability in using spreadsheets (M = 2.85, SD = 1.23), learning management systems (M = 2.22, SD = 1.47), and databases (M = 2.00, SD = 1.315). Notably, these weaker reported knowledge and skills (except using spreadsheets) are associated with using complex tools, which suggests that Arabic language secondary school teachers seem to have high knowledge and skills only for using basic tools rather than complex tools.
6.4 Teachers’ Classroom Practices with Technology
The analysis of the teachers’ classroom practices with technology examined teachers’ perceived classroom practices with technology. Teachers reported their practices on ten statements concerning classroom use of technology. Teachers rated their classroom practices with technology on each classroom practice using a 5-point Likert-type scale in which the range included (5) ‘Very high’, (4) ‘High’, (3) ‘Moderate’, (2) ‘Low’, to
135 (1) ‘Very low’. The score of each item was transferred to SPSS to calculate the mean and standard deviation scores for each type of practice, as presented in Table 6.5.
Table 6.5 Teachers’ Classroom Practices with Technology Use
In my class, I use technology: M (SD) 1. as a communication tool. 3.46 (1.17) 2. for multimedia presentations. 3.23 (1.23) 3. to enable cooperative student learning. 3.85 (1.00) 4. to enable student problem-solving 3.68 (1.06) learning. 5. as an information presentation tool. 4.04 (0.88) 6. to enable students’ independent 3.28 (1.24) learning. 7. as a research tool. 3.70 (1.13) 8. to enable student sharing of knowledge. 3.72 (1.15) 9. as a knowledge reinforcement tool. 3.60 (1.20) 10. to enable student self-assessment. 3.17 (1.20) Total mean 3.57 (0.79) Note. M = Mean; SD = Standard deviation
The descriptive analyses of the teachers’ classroom practices with technology scale were used to answer the second research question. As indicated in Table 6.6, the teachers generally reported a moderate level of classroom practices with technology (M = 3.57, SD = 0.79). The mean scores of classroom practices with items ranged from 3.17 to 4.04. Using technology in class as an information presentation tool was the highest classroom practice reported by teachers (M = 4.04, SD = 0.88). Notably, this type of practice is associated with teacher-centred practice. This would suggest that teachers’ current classroom practices are more traditional and provide support for teachers’ role as the information provider rather than for their role as facilitator of students’ learning activities. Furthermore, the descriptive analyses indicated that using technology to enable student self-assessment (M = 3.17, SD = 1.17) was the classroom practice least reported by teachers, which would suggest that this practice is uncommon in some teachers’ current classroom practices with technology.
136 6.5 Relationship between Teachers’ Pedagogical Beliefs about Technology Use and their Classroom Practices with Technology
The relationship between Saudi secondary school teachers’ pedagogical beliefs about technology use and their beliefs about teachers’ classroom practices with technology were examined. Pearson’s correlation coefficient analysis was conducted between the items of those two variables measured by the teachers’ pedagogical beliefs about technology use scale and the teachers’ classroom practices with technology scale, as presented in Table 6.6.
137 Table 6.6.
Pearson Correlation Coefficients of Teachers’ Pedagogical Beliefs about Technology Use and Their Perceived Classroom Practices with Technology Pedagogical Beliefs about Classroom practices with technology Technology CT MP SCL SPSL IPT SIL RT SSK KRT SSA 1. accommodates students’ personal learning 0.349* 0.267 0.271 0.210 0.223 0.295* 0.210 0.149 0.264 0.311* preferences. 2. promotes students’ learning both inside and 0.366* 0.348* 0.386* 0.080 0.345* 0.394* 0.257 0.203 0.126 0.234 outside the classroom 3. promotes student- centred teaching 0.264 0.263 0.199 0.120 0.124 -0.004 0.067 0.031 0.264 0.318* approaches 4. maintains high 0.342* 0.174 0.017 0.113 0.156 0.309* 0.095 0.186 0.207 0.412 expectations of students. 5. is more effective than non-technology-based 0.310* 0.296* 0.231 0.313* 0.244 0.232 0.295* 0.191 0.333* 0.178 classroom learning. 6. improves the research 0.197 0.145 0.241 0.216 0.220 0.153 0.117 0.241 0.286 0.150 skills of students. 7. enhances collaboration 0.097 -0.007 0.156 - 0.082 0.055 0.073 - 0.010 0.022 0.030 0.084 among students. 8. improves students’ 0.361* 0.199 0.190 0.161 0.116 0.330* 0.103 0.123 0.157 0.335* learning achievements. 9. helps teachers organize 0.313* 0.230 0.089 0.155 0.146 0.141 0.219 0.095 0.177 0.231 student learning. Note. CT = communication tool; MP = Multimedia presentations; SCL = Student cooperative learning; SPSL = Student problem-solving learning; IPT = Information presentation tool; SIP = Students’ independent learning; RT = Research tool; SSK = Student sharing of knowledge; KRT = Knowledge reinforcement tool; SSA = Student self-assessment. *p < 0.05 (2-tailed)
138 The analysis indicated that a moderately significant relationship was found between the teachers’ pedagogical belief that teaching with technology accommodates students’ personal learning preferences and their perceived practices that in the classroom they use technology as a communication tool (r = 0.349, p = .001); that it enables student self- assessment (r = 0.311, p = .004); and that it enables students’ independent learning (r = 0.295, p = .007). This suggests that teachers who have the pedagogical belief that teaching with technology accommodates students’ personal learning preferences would tend to use technology to communicate with students, to enable students to assess their own performance, and to encourage students to be independent learners.
The analysis also indicated a moderately significant relationship was found between teachers’ pedagogical belief that technology promotes students’ learning both inside and outside the classroom and their perceived classroom practices that in the classroom they use technology as a communication tool (r = 0.366, p =.001), to enable student cooperative learning (r = 0.386, p =.000), for multimedia presentations (r = 0.348, p =.001), as information presentation tools (r = 0.345, p =.002), and to enable students’ independent learning (r = 0.394, p =.000). This suggests that teachers who have the pedagogical belief that teaching with technology promotes students’ learning both inside and outside the classroom would tend to use technology to facilitate communication with students inside and outside the classroom; incorporate their explanations in multimedia presentations; use technology to present information to students inside and outside the classroom; and encourage students’ cooperative and independent learning activities.
Furthermore, the analysis indicated a moderately significant correlation between teachers’ pedagogical beliefs that teaching with technology promotes student-centred teaching approaches and their perceived practices that they use technology in the classroom to enable student self-assessment (r = 0.318, p = .004). This suggests that teachers who have the pedagogical belief that teaching with technology promotes student-centred teaching approaches would facilitate students’ use of technology tools to assess their own learning.
The analysis indicated a significant moderate correlation between teachers’ pedagogical beliefs that teaching with technology maintains high expectations of students and their perceived practices that they use technology in the classroom as a communication tool (r = 0.342, p = .002) and to enable students’ independent learning (r = 0.309, p = .005). This
139 suggests that teachers who have the pedagogical belief that teaching with technology maintains high expectations of students would use technology to facilitate communication between students and encourage them to learn independently.
In addition, a significant, moderate correlation was found between teachers’ belief that teaching with technology use is more effective than non-technology-based classroom teaching and learning and their perceived practices that they use technology in the classroom as a communication tool (r = 0.310, p = .005), for multimedia presentations (r = 0.296, p = .007), to enable student problem-solving learning (r = 0.313, p = .004), as research tools (r = 0.295, p = .007), and as a knowledge reinforcement tool (r = 0.333, p = .002). This suggests that teachers who have the pedagogical belief in the effectiveness of teaching with technology compared to non-technology-based classroom teaching and learning would tend to use technology to communicate with students, incorporate multimedia presentations in their lessons, enable student problem-solving learning, search for relevant information, and use technology to reinforce student learning. It may also suggest that teachers found that their previous classroom practices were more effective when their teaching incorporated the use of technology.
The analysis also indicated a significant, moderate correlation between teachers’ pedagogical beliefs that teaching with technology improves students’ learning achievements and their perceived classroom practices that they use technology as a communication tool (r = 0.361, p = .001), to enable students’ independent learning (r = .330, p = .002), and to enable student self-assessment (r = 0.335, p = .002). This suggests that teachers who have the pedagogical belief that teaching with technology improves students’ learning achievements would tend to use technology to communicate with students, to enable students’ independent learning, and to enable student self-assessment.
Lastly, a significant, moderate correlation was found between teachers’ pedagogical belief that technology use helps teachers organize student learning and their perceived classroom practices that they use technology in the classroom as a communication tool (r = 0.313, p = .004). This suggests that teachers who have the pedagogical belief that teaching with technology helps teachers organize student learning would employ technology to facilitate communication.
In summary, the correlation between teachers’ beliefs about technology use and their
140 practices with technology revealed, out of 9 items of teachers’ beliefs about technology use, 7 items were significantly related to items of their practices with technology.
141 6.6 Demographic Factors Influencing Teachers’ Beliefs and Practices
An analysis of the data using a one-way ANOVA indicated that teachers’ beliefs and classroom practices with technology were not influenced by demographic factors, including age, level of education, and years of experience. See Appendix H for more statistical details. As mentioned in the demographic characteristics section, the participant teachers were divided into the following four groups: under 30 years, 30– 39 years, 40–49 years, and 50 years and over. The result indicated that there was no significant effect of age between and within the four age groups (F = 896, p = .447) on teachers’ pedagogical beliefs about technology use. There was also no significant effect of age between and within the four age groups (F = .659, p = .580) on teachers’ classroom practices with technology. A possible interpretation of this result is that a little less than half of the teachers were in the same age group; as indicated in the analysis of the demographic information, over 40% of the teachers were aged from 30 to 39 years.
With regard to level of education, the participant teachers were divided into three groups: bachelor’s degree, master’s degree, and PhD. The results of the one-way ANOVA test indicated that there was no significant effect of level of education between and within the three education level groups (F = 1.694, p = .630) on teachers’ pedagogical beliefs about technology use. In addition, there was no significant effect of level of education (F = 1.586, p = .211) on teachers’ classroom practices with technology. This could be because the majority of teachers had the same level of education, as indicated by the analysis of demographic information (91.46 % had a bachelor’s degree).
Since the spread of the participant population in the teacher sample across the four different groups of teaching experiences was notably unbalanced and had relatively small populations—i.e. under 2 years (n = 1) and 2–5 years (n = 9)— changes were made to enhance the quality of the data findings. The under 2 years group and the 2–5 years group were combined into one group (n = 10). The result indicated that there was not a significant effect of years of experience between and within the three groups (F = 1.452, p = 0.240) on the teachers’ pedagogical beliefs about technology use. There was also not a significant effect of years of experience between and within the three groups (F = 0.725, p = 0.488) on teachers’ classroom
142 practices with technology. This could have been due to the fact that over half of the teachers had the same years of experience, as indicated by the analysis of demographic information (62.19% had 10 or more years of experience).
The relationship between Saudi secondary school teachers’ pedagogical beliefs about technology use, their beliefs about teachers’ classroom practices, and their technological skills was also examined in this section. Hence, Pearson’s correlation coefficient analysis was performed between those variables, measured by the teachers’ pedagogical beliefs about technology use, teachers’ classroom practices, and their technological skills scales. There was a significant, moderate correlation between teachers’ pedagogical beliefs about technology use and their overall technological skills (r = 0.299, p = 0.06). Furthermore, there was a positive, strong correlation between teachers’ classroom practices with technology and their overall technological skills (r = 0.62, p = 0.00).
Furthermore, an independent samples t-test showed no significant differences between teachers who attended and did not attend ICT training in terms of their beliefs about technology use (t(80) = -0.014, p = 0.989). Similarly, no significant differences between teachers who attended and did not attend ICT training were seen in terms of their classroom practices with technology (t(80) = -1.377, p = 0.172). This lack of significance likely resulted from the ICT training being more focussed on technical competencies than on emphasising technology-based teaching and learning pedagogies. This was confirmed by an independent t-test that found a significant difference in technological skills (t(80) = 2.76, p = 0.001) between those teachers who attended ICT training (M = 3.55, SD = 0.47) and those who did not attend ICT training (M = 3.10, SD = 0.62). This difference suggested that ICT training may have improved teachers’ technological skills.
6.7 Chapter Summary
This chapter presented an analysis of the quantitative data collected during phase one of this study. In this phase, the data were collected by a self-report questionnaire from 82 Arabic language teachers in technology-equipped public secondary schools in the Jeddah administrative area of Saudi Arabia during the 2013–2014 school year. The analysis of the teachers’ demographic characteristics indicated that over 40% of teachers were aged from 30 to 39 years; most teachers (91.46%, n = 75) had a
143 bachelor’s degree; over 62% of teachers had over 10 years of teaching experience; and 79.26% of teachers had not undertaken any ICT training.
To address Research Question 1, “What are teachers’ beliefs about technology use in teaching and learning?”, the descriptive analysis of the means and standard deviations revealed that Saudi secondary school teachers generally seemed to have positive pedagogical beliefs about technology use. They strongly believed that teaching with technology promotes students’ learning both inside and outside the classroom and improves students’ research skills. The weakest agreement among teachers’ pedagogical beliefs was that using technology maintains high expectations of students.
With regard to Research Question 2, “What are teachers’ perceived practices with technology?”, the descriptive analysis of the means and standard deviations revealed that Saudi secondary school teachers’ overall reported classroom practices with technology were moderate. Closer examination of the mean scores revealed that teachers highly reported using technology in the classroom as an information presentation tool. The Saudi secondary schools teachers reported a moderate overall level of technological skills. The teachers also reported a high level of knowledge and skills in using basic tools, including web searching, the use of email, and social networking; however, they reported a very low level of knowledge and skills in using complex tools, including web design, graphics creation, learning management systems, and databases.
With regard to Research Question 3, “Do teachers’ beliefs relate to their practices with technology use and how?”, correlational analysis examining the relationship between teachers’ pedagogical beliefs about technology use and their classroom practices with technology indicated a positive correlation between the teachers’ pedagogical beliefs about technology use and their classroom practices with technology. Further correlational analysis indicated a significant, moderate correlation between teachers’ pedagogical beliefs about technology use and their overall technological skills. A positive, strong correlation was also found between teachers’ classroom practices with technology and their technological skills.
To address Research Question 4, “What other factors affect teachers’ beliefs and practices with technology?”, analysis of demographic factors indicated
144 that the teachers’ pedagogical beliefs about technology use and their classroom practices with technology were not affected by the demographic factors of age, level of education, years of experience, or attending ICT training. However, closer examination indicated that there was a significant difference in teacher’s technological skills between those teachers who attended ICT training and those who did not attend ICT training.
As mentioned in Chapter 3, teachers’ beliefs and practices with regard to technology were also examined through qualitative data analysis to provide an in- depth exploration of the typology of beliefs and practices and to explore other contextual factors influencing beliefs and practices with regard to technology. Chapter 7 presents an analysis of the teacher multi-case study.
145 Chapter 7: Teachers’ Multi-case Study
This chapter presents the detailed findings from the multi-case study of teachers’ beliefs and practices with respect to technology. The analysis of the quantitative data collected using the teachers’ questionnaire has provided an overview of Saudi secondary school teachers’ beliefs and practices with respect to technology. The multi-case study drills down further into the teachers’ beliefs and practices in order to explore their specific beliefs about technology use (including their epistemic and pedagogical beliefs) and their perceived and actual classroom practice with technology. The study also explores the relationship between teachers’ beliefs and practices and other contextual factors that might influence this relationship.
The researcher selected 12 out of 18 teachers who had provided their consent to participate in the follow-up interviews. They were selected based on their questionnaire responses concerning their beliefs and practices with respect to technology. The questionnaire results indicated that teachers agreed overall with respect to their beliefs concerning technology use, ranging from neutral to strongly agreeing; however, their practices with technology responses were generally moderate, ranging from low to high. Therefore, in selecting the 12 teachers, the researcher specifically sought to obtain a variety of beliefs, including neutral, agreeing, and strongly agreeing. Similarly, in terms of the teachers’ practices, the researcher specifically sought to obtain a variety of responses in terms of levels of reported practices, including low, moderate, and high. Table 7.1 summarises this data and provides biographical sketches of the 12 subjects who participated in the qualitative phase of the study. For reasons of confidentiality, pseudonyms have been used to refer to the participants.
Table 7.1 Teachers’ demographic information Overall Teacher Level of Years of ICT Pedagogical Level of Age technological pseudonym education experience training beliefs Practices skills Maen 45 BA 12 Yes Neutral Low Moderate Aatif 42 BA 11 Yes Agree Low Low
Amro 34 BA 12 No Neutral Low Low Ayman 34 BA 8 Yes Agree Moderate Moderate
146 Samir 42 Ph.D. 13 Yes Agree Moderate Moderate Faaz 39 MA 10 Yes Agree Moderate Moderate Mazin 37 BA 6 No Strongly Low High Agree Gamal 44 BA 11 No Strongly Moderate High agree Fareed 45 MA 14 Yes Strongly High High agree Amaad 47 Ph.D. 20 No Agree Moderate High Saleh 45 BA 13 No Agree Moderate High Naseer 43 BA 13 Yes Agree High High
Note: names in bold are discussed in case narratives.
The rationale for adopting a multi-case study approach for teachers was explained and presented in the methodology chapter. The researcher argued that this approach provides an insight into teachers’ beliefs and practices with respect to technology in Saudi secondary schools. The multi-case study data was collected from 12 participants through quantitative questionnaires, pre-lesson interviews, classroom observations, and post-lesson interviews. The analysis of the multi-case study data began with an initial open coding. The researcher then used second-level coding in order to further reduce the data and narrow down the initial codes into groups of codes or categories and then themes. Activity theory (Engeström, 1987) was used as an analytical framework for exploring and explaining the relationship between teachers’ beliefs and practices with respect to technology. This theory identifies how ‘tensions’ can affect the relationship between belief and practice—and so affect technology use in the classroom. Data analysis of the 12 single cases indicated that teachers’ beliefs and practices with respect to technology could be categorised into four groups (A, B, C and D) in terms of their epistemic beliefs about technology use, their pedagogical beliefs about technology use, technological skills and their classroom practices with technology. These groups will be discussed in detail in this chapter. As summarised in Table 7.2, Group A was composed of only one teacher, Group B was composed of two teachers, Group C was composed of six teachers, and Group D was composed of three teachers.
147
Table 7.2
Typology of teachers’ beliefs and practices with technology Group Technological Epistemic Pedagogical Classroom skills beliefs about beliefs about practices technology technology use with use technology A High Committed New way of Student- 1 teacher relativism learning centred Fareed (Narrative)
B High- Relativism Supporting Mixed- 2 teachers Moderate existing Primarily Saleh and Naseer curriculum Student- (Narrative) centred
C Low- Multiplistic Supplement the Mixed- 6 teachers Moderate required Primarily Mazin, Faaz, Gamal, curriculum teacher- Samir, Ayman and centred Amaad (Narrative)
D Low Dualistic Developing Teacher- 3 teachers computer and centred Maen, Aatif, and rudimentary Amro (Narrative) skills
Four cases that typically reflect each category have been selected and are presented in the within-case analysis next section. The second section of this chapter presents cross-case analysis that combines data from the four cases in the within-case analysis with supplementary data from the eight other teachers and describes the groups that emerged from this case comparison.
7.1 Within-case analysis: Case Narratives
The four cases described were selected to reflect the sample’s diversity of beliefs and practices. Each case narrative addresses the following factors, which were derived from the thematic coding of the data:
Teacher profile Classroom layout
148 Epistemic beliefs Pedagogical beliefs Classroom practice Personal technological skills Curriculum and policy issues related to technology use School support for using technology Ministry support for using technology Case overview: Teachers’ activity systems
149 7.1.1 Fareed: ‘It is very useful …’
‘Fareed’ exemplified Group A (described in detail in Subsection 7.2.2); his general beliefs about technology are reflected in this quote:
It [technology] is very useful for both teaching and student learning. I really have no doubt about the benefits of technology, so we [teachers] should incorporate technology in our teaching. [Pre-lesson interview]
Teacher profile
At the time of this study, Fareed had been an Arabic teacher in secondary schools for fourteen years. He was forty-five years old at the time and is from Egypt. He only speaks Arabic, and completed his bachelor’s and master’s degrees in Arabic language studies from Al-Azhar University. He is considered the head Arabic language teacher at his current school, and other teachers consult him about all manner of subjects and teaching-related issues. He has attended several workshops related to computer skills. He prefers teaching upper grades, and admitted to having little experience with lower grades. During his participation in the study, he was the mainstream Arabic teacher for three grades of secondary school, covering the Arabic language syllabus– including literature, grammar, and rhetoric. As a person, Fareed was kind, cooperative, and optimistic, always looking on the positive side. As a professional, he clearly enjoyed his job and took his role as an educator seriously.
Classroom layout
Figure 7.1. Fareed’s classroom layout The students’ desks in Fareed’s classroom were structured in a group seating arrangement. The teacher’s desk was in the right front corner, but he did not use it during the observed lessons. The classroom was well organised, with the seating
150 arrangement reflecting Fareed’s pedagogical belief in the importance of collaborative learning and group-related activities. He was able to move about easily within the student desk area. In terms of technology equipment, his classroom was equipped with eight student PCs, which were situated at the back of the classroom. There was also a teacher laptop located next to the SMART brand interactive whiteboard (IWB) that was placed at the centre of the main wall; it was connected to the central computer and digital projector. The classroom had access to wireless Internet, and a few students had their own smartphones and other devices, such as iPhones and iPads.
Epistemic beliefs about technology use
As mentioned in the methodology chapter, the teachers’ epistemic beliefs associated with technology use were addressed based on their beliefs about knowledge and student learning with technology. Fareed perceived knowledge as being personally constructed and created by the students themselves; he did not treat knowledge as a matter that was only for authority figures to dispense. To him, knowledge was not exclusively mastered by the teacher or restricted to the textbook. The role of teachers and textbooks in instructional technology settings was, for Fareed, that of helper and facilitator:
Technology has become an important learning tool, so I see it as a really great support for the knowledge that is normally constructed by the learner. [Technology] enables knowledge to be explored and created by the students themselves rather than being simply received from me or from ready-made sources such as classroom textbooks. The school textbook and I are only facilitators for students’ understanding of certain questions that they have tried their best—but are not able—to answer. Another thing I would say is that we [teachers] cannot be knowledgeable about all subject matter, as the state of knowledge itself is always developing. [Pre-lesson interview]
He also mentioned that technology increases the scope of knowledge construction. He stated that:
… with the existence of technology, knowledge is built by students themselves when they communicate and interact with each other inside or outside school, or [when they] discuss the topics or ideas in different
151 contexts. [Pre-lesson interview]
This belief suggests a commitment to relativist epistemic beliefs, in which students are active constructors of knowledge and are able to make judgements and commitments in a relativistic context. Fareed also perceived that knowledge and student learning should be evidenced and accomplished with justification. He mentioned that by using technology, students’ decisions during their participation in classroom learning activities are based on data and evidence that they obtain through technology use, rather than through instantly conveyed knowledge. Fareed noted that technology provides students with learning resource databases that support their decisions:
Technology provides students with a lot of learning resource databases and learning tools, so that they can support their decisions or opinions about any topic by having [access to] several sources of evidence. This is unlike how it was in the past, where students might say they believed something, but when asked why, they could not provide any evidence, examples, or reasons. I would hesitate to accept their beliefs. I really prefer to hear reasons to make sure they have a full understanding of the topic. With technology, they can get more information related to the topic, so their opinions or decisions about any issue are supported by data in electronic libraries, by ideas raised on social networks such as Twitter and Facebook, or in school educational forums. [In this way] they make their own decisions based on a variety of data and ideas. [Pre-lesson interview]
This idea suggests a relativistic epistemic belief in the way that knowledge is accumulated. Fareed described trusted knowledge as that which is justified by evidence. He appeared to distrust any other knowledge that lacked evidence. An analysis of the classroom observations of the two lessons that Fareed taught also revealed his preference for evidence-based knowledge. Students in the first episode of the first lesson provided evidence of their understanding of contemporary Saudi poetry. Their understanding was shown via three sources: audio recording, video, and artefacts that were designed by the students in an attractive multimedia video that represented the meaning of the poem. Students demonstrated their ability to properly pronounce the verses of the poem in the video; this was accompanied by audio recordings of the students’ pronunciation of the poem, with consideration of the
152 rhythm at the end of each verse. Some verses of the poem included descriptions of life in Jeddah in the past. Students also showed their understanding of these verses by including pictures that reflected what life was like in Jeddah in the past. The poem also included a few metaphors. The students demonstrated their understanding by incorporating scenes in the video that compared two situations, such as a sunset on Jeddah’s Red Sea coast and the idea of homesickness. This response suggests a student-centred pedagogy, with epistemic belief in committed relativism. Fareed focussed on students’ learning with technology, which encouraged a full understanding of knowledge constructed by the students themselves that was judged by the weight of accumulated evidence.
Encouraging students’ independent learning, as described by Fareed, is one of the most important benefits of technology use in student learning. The student develops the necessary skills to become an autonomous learner without direct supervision and prompting; the teacher is merely a facilitator, providing help or guidance, rather than being a direct source of information or instruction. Fareed mentioned that technology had expanded classroom learning and guided students towards becoming independent learners. He noted that technology had raised the students’ self-confidence and motivation in relying on themselves in their knowledge construction. He said:
With regard to technology use and learning, I would say it is really helpful in encouraging our students to be independent learners who are able to depend on themselves to use technology to find relevant information, gain experience, and independently learn and complete lesson exercises and other learning activities. It keeps them up-to-date with knowledge and skills in a broad range of fields, and that is actually good preparation for their future learning and practical life. [Pre-lesson interview]
This belief also shows a student-centred pedagogy and relativistic epistemic beliefs, in which the teacher has a positive opinion about the impact of technology use on students’ independent learning. In this type of independent learning, knowledge is actively and personally constructed through self-directed searching and processing of information that prepares students to engage in the continuing acquisition of knowledge and understanding.
153 Pedagogical beliefs about technology use
As mentioned previously in the methodology chapter, teachers’ pedagogical beliefs are addressed based on their beliefs about technology use in teaching and the value of using technology in teaching. Fareed’s questionnaire responses indicated that he strongly agreed with beliefs that technology accommodates students’ personal learning preferences, promotes students’ learning (both inside and outside of school), promotes student-centred teaching approaches, and improves students’ learning achievements. In the pre-lesson interview, Fareed reported that technology use enabled teachers to address students’ different needs. He mentioned that technology doesn’t simply help students to construct knowledge by themselves; it allows each student to learn in a way that is appropriate for his or her cognitive abilities. Fareed stated:
Actually it is more than knowledge construction by the students themselves. Technology is helping each student to learn based on his [most] suitable level of thinking and ability. As you know, if I dealt with all classes as if they were all at the same level of thinking, it would be unfair and would absolutely neglect the reality of students’ different abilities. Teaching with technology gives us [teachers] the opportunity to use different technologies that accommodate the differences between students. [Technology] helps me to solve the problem. Even if I try my best to encourage students to think about a lesson activity or suggest a new idea to share with other students, sometimes they still do not understand; but when I take them to the computer lab or use IWB and they see pictures or videos, or they read more, I can see that they are learning better. [Pre-lesson interview]
Fareed went on to describe the difference between learning that might be directed or instructed and learning that accommodates students’ needs, demonstrating how technology has changed the learning activities that can be orchestrated with diverse technological tools, and that can address students’ individual learning needs. This theme indicates that Fareed was aware of the positive impact of technology on student learning. Fareed also emphasised the diverse nature of technology, and how this variety enables different student-centred teaching and learning approaches. He said:
154 The rapid advance and capability of the technology tools enables teachers to use more than one method in teaching, and the students themselves have become the main centre of these [teaching approaches]. They can, for example, learn in cooperative ways, sharing knowledge through social media. They can also take on my role [i.e. as the teacher] to explain lessons to one another using IWB and so on. [Pre-lesson interview]
Enabling cooperative learning, taking the teacher’s role, and sharing knowledge– all these new types of practices are a result of technology integration in teaching and process. Furthermore, Fareed mentioned that the capability of technology to enable the use of various teaching approaches makes classroom teaching more effective. He said:
I think with technology we have become able to see more than just one method of teaching, and I see that it is actually very effective for my students’ leaning and engagement. I mean some students may not interact with the old method, so when they use the new technology, I see them engage with other students and take [on] their role in the learning process. [Pre-lesson interview]
These beliefs are usually labelled ‘student-centred teaching’; they emphasise the students’ role in actively making sense of their experiences while the teacher creates a meaningful learning experience and supports the students’ sense-making. Fareed mentioned enabling the use of different teaching approaches that would widely support interaction, collaboration, and discussion between students. He mentioned that this variety in teaching approaches, including technology, also enhances student achievement. He also believed in the capability of technology to promote students’ problem-solving skills, as well as learn outside of school. He said:
Technological tools help students communicate and collaborate in solving problems; they can share knowledge about the problem, and they have supportive data for any possible solutions. I would say [technology] is one of the greatest aids in developing problem-solving skills. I have found the availability of Internet resources [and] other technological resources to be helpful for students in searching for related information that will definitely help them to investigate solutions. And then they will be able to judge
155 between them to end up with a better solution; that is actually what we [teachers] hope for our students in the future. [Pre-lesson interview]
This statement suggests a pedagogical belief in promoting the development of students’ higher-order thinking and their use of high-level cognitive abilities— including comparison, evaluation, and decision-making abilities—through the power of technology. Fareed believed that promoting students’ problem-solving skills was highly important for their future success.
Classroom practices with technology
As noted in the methodology chapter, the teachers’ practices were addressed based on the criterion of student-centredness; they provided triangulation data to support any observed alignments between espoused beliefs, reported practices, and actual practices. An analysis of Fareed’s questionnaire, interview transcripts, and classroom observations revealed that, in practice, he tended to use technology to support student- centred pedagogies. The questionnaire indicated that within pedagogic practices with technology, Fareed considered himself to be very high/high in the aspects of constructivist or student-centred orientation. He reported being highly competent in using technology in enabling students’ cooperative and problem-solving learning, and in enabling student self-assessment.
His reported practices in the interview were consistent with his classroom practices, and reflected student-centred pedagogical practices using multimedia technology to enhance student understanding; Internet resources (online dictionaries, e-books, lectures on YouTube, etc.); and social networking (Facebook, email) for interaction with others and for constructing their own knowledge. He reported using e-profiles for posting students’ own work. In addition, of his reported practices during the pre-lesson interviews, Fareed said:
In my teaching with technology, I try to avoid lecturing, and my purpose is to use various teaching methods that encourage students to be more active learners. I tend to create my own teaching method, which mostly includes inquiry learning, cooperative learning, and group projects. [Pre-lesson interview]
Fareed’s observed practices during two lessons were consistent with his reported practices. He used cooperative learning approaches in both lessons, utilising
156 problem-solving and self-assessment skills. In the topics on the contemporary Saudi poetry lesson, he used cooperative learning to help his students construct their knowledge about social issues that have been raised in contemporary Saudi poetry, while in the next activity he moved to problem-solving pedagogy to challenge his students with real-life problems to solve. In this activity, students discussed the social problem of poverty that is often mentioned in modern Saudi poems, identified the problem and its causes, and thought about how to solve the problem and selected the best solution.
In the pre-lesson interview, Fareed also reported that he asked students to work with the discussion board on the school’s LMS and online resources in small groups at least twice a week, as he hoped this would help them construct their own knowledge about the current topic and would encourage collaborative and self- directed learning. This was indeed observed in the contemporary Saudi poetry lesson, where students, in order to determine the most common issues in modern Saudi poetry, cooperatively used desktop computers to access online resources and collect relevant data. Another activity in the homesickness poem lesson asked students to identify the meaning of difficult words using their desktop computers and mobile devices. In the pre-lesson interview, Fareed also reported that his students individually used the school Blackboard to assess their learning by answering multiple-choice quizzes at any time to access the results of their self-assessments and to obtain immediate feedback.
Technological skills within technology use
The questionnaire and interview indicated that Fareed considered himself to be very competent with technology overall—in word processing, presentation software (e.g. PowerPoint), multimedia authoring (e.g. Flash), graphic creation (e.g. Photoshop), email, web searching, and using online learning management systems (e.g. Blackboard). Fareed’s reported and observed practices of technological skills indicated a high level of skills. In practice, he used multimedia technology and encouraged students to use several features of the school’s Blackboard. In the interview, Fareed also highlighted the importance of using multimedia technology. He mentioned that using a combination of film, videos, audio, graphics, and text is important in teaching and learning.
157 Fareed stated that in addition to his use of multimedia authoring (e.g. Flash) and graphic creation (e.g. Photoshop), he also tended to use the LectureMAKER e- learning programme software, which helped him to incorporate many technologies into lesson designs and to share knowledge with his students. He mentioned that students in his current school were well trained in how to use this programme, and benefited from sharing knowledge. In the pre-lesson interview, he also described using features of school learning management systems as an important technological skill in teaching and learning. He said, ‘Knowing how to use online queries and analyses of student responses is extremely important and beneficial in helping students assess themselves’. He added that it also helped him to identify the level of learning of each student. In addition, he believed that online discussions that use learning management systems on computers or mobile devices are also very important.
Curriculum and policy issues related to technology use
Fareed believed that an ICT policy in his school was an important issue, considering the widespread availability of technology. He indicated an awareness of the importance of having an ICT policy for using technology in education, even though his school did not have such a policy. He mentioned that his school’s staff were very interested in using technology, but that such use should be accompanied by a clear ICT policy. He mentioned that his school was equipped with various technologies, such as wireless Internet, a Blackboard online learning management system, student and teacher PCs, IWBs, and a computer laboratory; students were allowed to bring their iPads or other smart devices to the classroom.
When asked how he incorporated technology into the curriculum, Fareed did not express any discomfort in terms of flexibility. He mentioned using technological help to achieve classroom syllabus objectives, and said he did not restrict his teaching to the textbook content. He said:
Yes, some teachers do find it hard to integrate technology with school textbooks, but I actually feel there is not a problem. I focus more on using technology that supports student learning, and learning objectives that can be achieved by learning activities that include the textbook content and content from technology resources. [Pre-lesson interview]
158 Finally, Fareed believed that technology should be integrated, not only as a tool but also as a new way for students to learn the curriculum. He noted that the current MOE’s development of the curricula is just a transfer to an electronic viewing format, which is a replica of the textbook. The development should inform pedagogical purposes, including both learning and teaching activities. He said:
We don’t have to run after the idea of covering all that is said in the textbook. Developing an electronic version of the school textbook is good, but it should be more than that. Personally, I am looking for student learning, so it does not matter if students in my class construct their knowledge from the textbook or from online resources. My focus (and that of my colleagues) should be to facilitate our students’ learning, and that becomes easier and more effective with technology. [Pre-lesson interview]
School support for using technology
Fareed felt that the school environment was supportive of his use of technology in his practice. He focussed on ICT resources in school, saying:
The thing that really inspires me to use technology is the environment of the school. You know, this school is equipped with various technologies; we have access to the Internet, student computers in classrooms, and a computer lab, so that really inspires me [and all teachers] to use technology. [Pre-lesson interview]
Furthermore, Fareed mentioned that the school principal encouraged the teachers to integrate technology into their instruction. He stated that the school principal encouraged the school to be a creative environment in his respect for teachers’ work. He often thanked the teachers and appreciated their use of technology; he had open dialogues with teachers if they had any problems. Fareed also said, ‘In reality, the school principal helps us a lot in using technology. He always sends [teachers] letters of acknowledgement, and he makes the school an inspired place to use technology’ (pre-lesson interview). As a visitor, I also felt that the school environment was friendly, enthusiastic, and supportive of the integration of technology.
159 Ministry support for using technology
Fareed did not appear to be aware of any training programmes for pedagogical practices with technology by the MOE. He mentioned that he had attended a training course that granted him an International Computer Driving Licence (ICDL) certificate, and this training course (which is not an actual driver’s licence) helped him to acquire ICT skills and knowledge. He didn’t think the ICDL was particularly useful to him, however, and thought it should have been more related to pedagogical practice and connected to the participants’ needs. He said:
I attended a training programme to obtain a certificate for the [ICDL], but I found that it focused on presentation software, spreadsheets, [and] using online Blackboard and Internet tools. It was not too interesting for me because I already knew most of the skills and knowledge they taught. What they should do is ask us first what we need, instead of offering something we already know. Also, as a teacher, I want to know how to use technology in the teaching field and in my classroom more than just technical things. [Pre-lesson interview]
Fareed also felt that even though he tried his best to integrate technology into his classroom teaching, he hoped for more support from educational supervisors when they visited the school. He mentioned that most educational supervisors focussed on test results and covering the textbook content. He mentioned that they should focus more on teaching and learning activities, because test results and textbooks are but a small part of the teaching and learning process.
160 Case overview: Fareed’s activity system
Figure 7.2. Fareed’s activity system Fareed was a Grade 11 teacher in his secondary school, with a positive attitude and high, perceived competence and confidence regarding technology use. He was inclined towards student-centred practices and enjoyed using technology while integrating a variety of activities, many of which incorporated ICT use. This made his lessons diverse and enabled students to construct knowledge, as he himself claimed and as my observational notes confirmed. His epistemological beliefs aligned with his choices, and indicated deep relativistic beliefs in the importance of constructed and evidence-based knowledge, in which learning occurs by knowledge being accumulated and is justified by evidence. His pedagogical beliefs and his choices revealed a way of learning and pedagogical beliefs that supported twenty-first-century teaching and learning practices, referring to the application of knowledge and skills in subject areas and to the analysis, communication, and solving of problems. Fareed believed that enabling different student-centred teaching approaches, promoting students’ problem-solving skills, and encouraging students’ independent learning, constituted a highly beneficial pedagogical use of technology. He adapted his own
161 teaching methods by using diversified methods, including cooperative learning combined with problem-solving methods. He was also able to justify his choices, which were directly related to his lesson objectives. His practice was consistent with his reported practices.
Fareed found that the school environment and culture regarding technology infrastructure and school principal / peer teachers’ collaboration was encouraging and supportive in the use of technology. In addition, although he was disappointed that educational supervisors did not encourage his use of technology, this issue did not affect his decision to use the technology. Finally, he felt restricted by the school’s textbook regulations. He was flexible in integrating a variety of learning activities (including technology), as long as they supported student-centred practices and his lessons.
Tension between subject-rules, however, was apparent within Fareed’s activity system. This lay in his willingness to epistemologically and pedagogically exploit the potential of technology use as much as possible, despite being restrained by the lack of pedagogical professional development in using technology and the lack of ICT policy at his school. Although he claimed that he was trying as much as possible to integrate technology into his lessons, he felt that the current development of the curriculum could go further. He believed the development could include the pedagogical use of technology in teaching and learning activities, in addition to the electronic content that would guide him (and other teachers) in using the technology more effectively.
162 7.1.2 Naseer: ‘. . . it could be beneficial . . .’
‘Naseer’ exemplified Group B (described in detail in Subsection 7.2.2). This was shown in his general beliefs about technology: ‘Technology has become a great part of all our everyday lives, so it could be beneficial too if it were integrated properly into our teaching and students’ learning’ (pre-lesson interview).
Teacher profile
At the time of this study, Naseer was a forty-three-year-old Arabic teacher with five years of experience teaching overseas and thirteen years teaching in public secondary schools in Saudi Arabia. He speaks only Arabic, and completed his bachelor’s degree in Arabic language studies. He attended the aforementioned ICDL training courses related to computer skills. He was the mainstream eleventh grade teacher in the school, teaching an Arabic language competency syllabus.9 As a person, Naseer is kind, confident, friendly, and respected by his colleagues. His school principal turned to him for help in training Arabic teachers in teaching with IWB.
Classroom layout
Figure 7.3. Naseer’s classroom layout
9 This syllabus had been developed recently, and was taught in in most Saudi secondary schools. Based on this syllabus, the Arabic language is taught as a set of skills (grammar, spelling, reading, and communication competencies) rather than subjects; thus, in each lesson the teacher should cover several skills.
163 The students’ desks in Naseer’s classroom were laid out in a group seating arrangement, while the teacher’s desk was in the front left corner; he did not use it during the observed lessons. In terms of technology equipment, the classroom was equipped with the teacher’s PC, which was situated next to the IWB; this was placed at the centre of the main wall and was connected to the digital projector. The classroom had access to the Internet. The classroom was well structured; the seating arrangement reflected Naseer’s concern that his students learn through collaborative activities.
Figure 7.4. Examples of grammatical and spelling errors shown by Naseer’s students Epistemic beliefs about technology use
Naseer perceived knowledge to be evolving. His view that ‘we cannot restrict ourselves as teachers or students to old knowledge that might change over time’ suggested that he wanted to be flexible and open-minded as the knowledge itself developed. He stated that ‘knowledge, in its nature, evolves, as we can see now that we have a lot of subjects that did not exist before’. He further mentioned that:
Under the Arabic language subject, for example, we have grammar, and under grammar we have several topics, so in Arabic literature we could have several subjects, the majority of which did not exist before; we can see that in all other subjects, too. Technology is in line with that, as it helps us to explore new knowledge and makes it accessible and puts it in the hands of people; as teachers, we cannot restrict ourselves as teachers or students to old knowledge that might change over time. I really would like to know any new technology that interests my students, and to keep them updated with any new knowledge. [Pre-lesson interview]
164 This belief suggests relativistic epistemic beliefs. Naseer seemed to be well aware that knowledge is evolving and can develop over time. Furthermore, Naseer mentioned that with technology, the knowledge in schools should be updated and flexible. He also mentioned that technology could help in updating schools with new skills and knowledge. He believed the school syllabus should be updated regularly to accommodate the continuous development of knowledge:
I would say that the school syllabus should be updated regularly as the knowledge itself develops. [The syllabus] should keep up with the developments in the nature of knowledge. And that becomes easy with technology use, as we could have technology that keeps anyone updated with any new discovery; we also could have technology that helps us explore new knowledge or use technological tools to interact with others and to discuss new ideas. [Pre-lesson interview]
This statement also suggested a relativistic epistemic belief, in which Naseer asked for the school syllabus to be updated with continuous development in knowledge. Naseer further believed that knowledge is self-constructed. He stated that, as a teacher, he should consider that knowledge comes from inside, and that his role is to guide student learning:
For knowledge, I also believe that it is constructed from inside by the students themselves. I believe that any person is born with the ability to learn how to learn, so the knowledge is generated from the student himself, which will definitely lead him or her to think and to ask others. If we look at every student, we will find him constructing his knowledge differently from others, which means knowledge is self-constructed more than just what others think—it comes from the teacher. Whatever teachers try, they should realise that knowledge is absorbed by students differently, and a good thought is to look at how individual students construct their knowledge differently from other students. [Pre-lesson interview]
Naseer seemed to perceive knowledge as being self-constructed; he appeared to be aware that knowledge is developed by students themselves rather than coming from the outside, either from the individual students or from the teacher or from the textbook. In terms of Naseer’s epistemic beliefs about learning, he mentioned that
165 technology changed learning from a system where students were passive learners to featuring positive and complex learning. He said:
I would say [technology] really changed our students’ learning, from learning where students were shy and preferred to listen to what I said, to a complex learning [system] where students are challenged and depend on themselves to explore, discuss, and express their ideas on a topic, and to discuss what they have found with other students, who [also] benefit from technological resources and tools. [Pre-lesson interview]
This could suggest that Naseer was aware of the benefits of complex learning for students’ thinking and cognitive abilities.
Pedagogical beliefs about technology use
The questionnaire data indicated that Naseer ‘strongly agreed’ and ‘agreed’ with beliefs that technology maintains high expectations of students, improves students’ research skills, enhances collaboration among students, and improves students’ learning achievements. In the pre-lesson interview, Naseer indicated his pedagogical beliefs about technology use; he believed that teaching with the use of technologies promotes students’ higher-order thinking. He mentioned that teaching with technology helps students construct their understanding of the lesson content, and concepts, ability to analyse, and ability to apply knowledge. He stated:
With regard to technology use and teaching, I really would say [technology] enhances students’ understanding. [Technology] gives them more opportunities to learn themselves and to think about how knowledge and skills apply and are used by others in different sources of information, with different perspectives and different contexts. [Pre-lesson interview]
Furthermore, Naseer stated that technology promotes higher-order thinking in students, including analysing, synthesising, and critiquing:
Other benefits from teaching with using technology are that students can talk, participate, and compare what they have studied to what others say in technological contexts, such as Facebook, Twitter, or school forums. Students might analyse different opinions and might express different opinions on the topic under discussion. [Pre-lesson interview]
166 Naseer’s pedagogical beliefs about ICT indicated that he identified technology as a tool to support the existing curriculum. There was consistency between Naseer’s pedagogical beliefs and his epistemic beliefs. In his pedagogical beliefs, he emphasised the benefits of technology for promoting students’ skills in thinking, analysis, synthesis, and application. Furthermore, Naseer mentioned that using technology increases students’ learning and their achievement of curriculum objectives, including knowledge, skills, and values. He stated: ‘As you know, in each curriculum, students should obtain knowledge, skills, and values; so technology makes knowledge, skills, and values available to them to learn or discuss anytime and anywhere in an attractive way’ (pre-lesson interview). Naseer also indicated that technology use increases the students’ motivation to learn, as the learning process is enriched by using several learning resources, including audio-visual, video, movement, and textual functions of technology. Naseer stated:
Technology provides students with multiple learning tools, such as videos, audios, and text; multiple resources, such as e-books, libraries, and forums; and with different contexts or examples of the lesson knowledge and skills. I saw the impact of that during my teaching. My students have become highly motivated to learn. As conventional wisdom says, ‘A picture is worth a thousand words’. What I saw in traditional classes that lacked technology (or had limited use of technology) is that students fell asleep, as if I didn’t care about them. And some of them [now] prefer to come to school. [Pre-lesson interview]
Here, Naseer believed that computers and the Internet were helpful for students’ learning, because these tools increased students’ attention and motivated them to learn. In practice, as I saw, showing the examples of language errors that existed in social networking, forums, and advertisements enhanced the lesson’s effectiveness, as students reacted with enthusiasm and appeared inspired to participate. In the post-lesson interview, Naseer added that changing the students’ role also motivated them to learn, as they felt that they were a part of the lessons: ‘The secondary students are mature students, so with technology they have a different role; [it] encourages them to participate in learning activities, which definitely gives them a sense of being a part of the lesson and motivates them to learn’.
The observations of his classroom activity seemed to prove his claim. In both
167 observed lessons, Nasser gave his students opportunities to take on his role as teacher. In the second activity of the grammar competencies lesson, two students from two groups used the IWB to present their groups’ projects, which were related to using grammar competencies in daily life, such as on social forums, Twitter, and in street advertisements. In the second activity of the spelling competencies lesson, the students also formed two groups, and used the IWB to present their groups’ projects, which were related to common spelling errors used in digital newspapers.
In addition, during both observed lessons, Nasser encouraged his students to come up and use the IWB to explain to the class their understanding of grammar and spelling rules. For example, at the beginning of the first observed lesson, Nasser asked for a volunteer from each group to come forward and use the IWB with a PowerPoint presentation to talk to the class about grammatical rules in the presented sentences. In the classroom practice, students enjoyed participating in the learning activities. His practices revealed a mix of primarily student-centred activities, as there were good student-student interactions and student-teacher interactions. His practice was consistent with his pedagogical beliefs, and reflected his views about student- centredness; most of the activities were done by students themselves, and he guided his class with undirected questions, such as ‘why’ and ‘how’. In a few activities, however—particularly at the beginning and end of the lessons—he did explain and help students to summarise the main points.
Classroom practices with technology
The questionnaire data indicated that Naseer considered himself to be using technology to a high degree to enable students’ cooperative learning. In the pre-lesson interview, Naseer mentioned that in his classroom teaching, he incorporated his students in the lessons by using approaches such as cooperative learning and group projects to encourage students to learn for themselves:
In my teaching with technology, I encourage my students to work cooperatively to learn for themselves. In each class, my students are divided into four or so cooperative groups so that they can work together on their projects, either in the class or outside the classroom. During use of those methods, students who are collecting data as a group recognise relevant information and use existing communication tools (e.g. Twitter,
168 Facebook, and WhatsApp) that facilitate sharing knowledge, experience, interaction, and discussion between them…. [They also] benefit from both printed resources (such as textbooks or other books in the school library) and electronic resources in academic websites, and [they] present their projects in the class through IWB. [Pre-lesson interview]
His reported practices in the interview were consistent with his observed classroom practices, which reflected a mix of primarily student-centred pedagogical practice. His observed practices in two lessons were consistent with his reported practices. He used cooperative learning project approaches during both lessons. In the post-lesson interview, he added that ‘students have their own laptops and they enjoy using them; there are so many resources and learning tools they can learn from’. The observation of his class activity seemed to confirm his claim.
In both observed lessons, Naseer used two group projects. In the second activity of the grammar competencies lesson, students in two groups presented their groups’ projects, which were related to using grammar competencies in daily life. They used the IWB to present different language errors that they had found in social forums, Twitter, and in street advertisements; other group projects were about spelling competencies and examples of spelling rules that had been used in electronic newspapers.
In the post-interview, Naseer also mentioned that he had used this method for several years, and had found it very beneficial; it was better for his students’ understanding than simply receiving information from him. In addition, in the post- lesson interview, Naseer mentioned that he tended to use group assessments. He said that he observed students’ performances in the group, and his students also used the school’s Blackboard to submit their group work. He said that he assessed the students’ work based on the syllabus objectives. This was observed in both lessons, where he requested that students submit their work via Blackboard, or email it to him so that he could assess their work.
In the post-lesson interviews, Naseer added that for the observed lessons he had prepared online, open quizzes to assess students’ learning in both lessons, but he had run out of time to use them. He mentioned that he tended to have students answer online quizzes in groups, and that he assessed each student based on his participation
169 and the role he played within his group. He also mentioned that he tended to use formative assessment that focussed on students’ learning progression during the lessons. In the post-lesson interview, he mentioned that he wanted to use formative assessment to link all Arabic language competencies that had been used during both lessons (grammar and spelling competencies) but, due to lack of time, he could not use the learning resources during either lesson.
Naseer reported that although his students provided their projects to him, he also included his lessons further explanation: particularly any aspects that were not clearly understood by the students. He also mentioned that many students for various reasons, failed to contribute as often as other students in the group did. Thus, further explanation of lesson content by the teacher might meet their needs and enhance their understanding. This was indeed observed in both the grammar and spelling competency lessons, where he tried to conclude each of the lessons with further explanations using PowerPoint presentations. His observed practices in two lessons included teacher talk, using PowerPoint, but this was not done according to strict traditional lines of recalling students’ knowledge, but by reemphasising the information that was not fully understood by the students.
The above analysis indicates that Naseer’s teaching practices with the use of technology were a combination of both constructivist and traditional teaching, and were more likely to be primarily student-centred learning in nature. Examination of the structure of the teaching and learning process reveals that his instruction was primarily student-centred; it included limited teacher talk and students’ group projects. The structure of the teaching and learning practice could be described as reviewing the content of previous observed lessons. In both observed lessons, introductions to the new lessons (the first activity of the first lesson and the first part of the first activity of the second lesson) were practised by the teacher-students’ projections, as well as explanations of new concepts (the second activity of the first lesson and the first activity of the second lesson) that were only practised by students.
Summarising points and reemphasising difficult aspects of the concept (the third activity of both lessons) were practised by the teacher, while answering lesson exercises (the second activity of the second lesson) was shared by both teacher and students. One might argue that the appearance of the third activity (which was only practised by the teacher in the classroom) indicated a teacher-centred practice. In
170 Naseer’s case, however, this third activity was very short, and its aim was to summarise points and to reemphasise the points that had not been fully understood by the students. The second activity of the second lesson enabled interaction between the teacher and the students. Furthermore, primarily student-centred practices were more evident in the second activity of the first lesson and the first activity of the second lesson; these were the core activities of the instruction that enabled students to learn autonomously and cooperatively for more than half of the 45 minutes of instructional time in the first observed lesson, and nearly half of the 45 minutes of instructional time in the second observed lesson. During these activities, Naseer did not interrupt the students’ explanations or group discussions.
Technological skills within technology use
The questionnaire indicated that Naseer considered himself to be very competent with technology overall—in word processing, presentation software (e.g. PowerPoint), multimedia authoring (e.g. Flash), graphic creation (e.g. Photoshop), email, web searching, and using online learning management systems (e.g. Blackboard). In the pre-lesson interview, Naseer also indicated that any teacher should be competent in computer skills, such as running computers and creating links between projects, computers, and the IWB. He also mentioned that it is important to be able to use Microsoft programmes, including Word, Spreadsheet, and PowerPoint; he thought that teachers should also be able to use YouTube and databases on the Internet. Naseer’s reported and observed practices of technological skills indicated a high level of technological skills. In observed practice, he used multimedia technology presentations that he and his students had prepared, and he encouraged his students to submit their work using Blackboard.
Naseer did not appear to be annoyed by the fact that students in his secondary school had more technical knowledge and skills than he did; instead, he considered this to be a positive thing. He said that he found ‘students in secondary school are more advanced than [he was] and familiar with using technology’, and he was ‘pleased to discover this’. In the observed lessons, students did indeed seem to be very competent in using technology, as their presentations revealed a high level of competence in using presentation software and Photoshop, and reflected their familiarity with social media technology.
171 In Naseer’s classroom instruction, different types of ICT were used for different functions through the teaching process. In their project groups, students used several technologies in their presentations, including multimedia (text, pictures, audio, tables, website links, etc.), the IWB, and the teacher’s PC. In the post-lesson interview, Naseer mentioned that he helped his students in the design of the multimedia PowerPoint presentation of their projects; they had sent these to him before the lesson.
Curriculum and policy issues related to technology use
Although Naseer indicated primarily student-centred beliefs and practices with using technology, during the two lessons he sometimes intervened in students’ discussions to emphasise the students’ mastery of grammar and spelling competencies in the Arabic language competencies syllabus. In the pre-lesson interview, he stated that he encouraged his students to use technology, but found that he did not have enough time to cover everything in one lesson. He explained that the current curriculum included several skills that might confuse students. Thus, he mentioned that the curriculum should focus on specific areas and should be supported by the use of technology learning resources:
I have no doubt about the importance of using technology in teaching and learning, but the issue that I am not comfortable with is related to a lot of skills that are included in the new Arabic language curriculum. In each lesson, we [teacher and students] find ourselves confronted by a large number of skills [we must learn], so as a teacher, you saw that I sometimes tried to remind them about these skills to guide their work, but I know it is too much for them and I should be more specific. I was really happy with the previous Arabic curricula, 10 which were specific. I had classes for grammar, literature, and rhetoric, so in each lesson students were guided by specific skills. [Pre-lesson interview]
This statement suggests that Naseer appears not to be adaptable to the current curriculum, which might support traditional teaching where teacher talk is the core of the students’ learning. Thus, the skills in each unit are determined by the time a
10 This new syllabus is used in most Saudi secondary schools; only a few schools use the old syllabus.
172 teacher needs for his or her talk. In the post-lesson interview, when asked how he incorporated technology in this new curriculum, Naseer expressed discomfort in terms of assessing new curriculum skills. He mentioned using technology to achieve classroom syllabus objectives—since it supported student learning inside and outside the school and enhanced the students’ understanding—but he could not measure the students’ level of achievement of the objectives (knowledge and skills) in the new Arabic language curriculum. He said:
I still have not adjusted to the new Arabic curriculum. I am not sure if my students learn all the skills, so in my assessment, I focused on the main skills and encouraged students to read about the other skills, help each other, and ask me if they did not understand; but even with that approach, there will definitely be some students who are too shy to ask me. [Post- lesson interview]
Furthermore, Naseer mentioned that he hoped to have a school-wide ICT policy, and he felt disappointed at not having such a policy. He also mentioned that ‘it [would] be helpful for teachers and students to have an ICT school policy to guide them in technology-based teaching and learning activities’. Naseer did hesitate to judge the MOE’s attempts to rush into equipping schools with technology such as IWBs, projectors, and Internet without establishing an ICT policy. He seemed to disagree with the current tendency to equip schools with technologies, as he thought this was:
… a waste of money if there are no guidelines for using technology; it might lead to the unprofessional use of technology and a bad reputation for technology use in education for both teachers and students. [Pre-lesson interview]
School support for technology use
The school principal in Naseer’s school had a positive attitude towards technology use. This attitude strengthened Naseer’s desire to use technology in his teaching. He mentioned that his strong beliefs in the benefits of technology use were strengthened by the positive attitude of his current school principal. He mentioned that the school principal always encouraged all teachers in the school to use technology in their teaching by sending the teachers letters of acknowledgement, and expressing positive
173 feelings about any project involving the use of technology. He also said that the school principal did not hesitate to help:
Along with my beliefs about the benefits of using technology, one of the great things that also inspired me to use technology is the principal at [name of school redacted]. He provides us [teachers] with great support: both financial support and motivation through teaching recognition certificates. He always asks us about our use of technology and if we need any help as teachers. Along with my beliefs in the importance of technology, when I find such support, I definitely do my best to employ technology in my teaching. [Pre-lesson interview]
As a visitor, I also felt that the school environment was supportive of the integration of technology. The principal had a positive attitude, as he was very happy when I explained to him the aims of this study. Furthermore, Naseer mentioned he was among the teachers whom the school principal rewarded for their application of technology in teaching in 2013. This became a significant motivator for his consistent use of technology thereafter. He also mentioned that his school conducted several training programmes on how to use the school Blackboard tools.
Ministry support for using technology
Naseer said that despite his attempts to use technology in his classroom, he sometimes faced technical problems. He mentioned the limited technical support he received, as the school only had two teachers who taught computer science. They might help teachers who were experiencing technical problems, but it might take a long time for the computer science teachers to fix these problems, as they were also very busy with their own students. He mentioned that since ‘the Ministry of Education supports a school with a specialist in the science lab, schools should also be supported with a technician who could help teachers any time with any technical problem’ (pre-lesson interview). Naseer’s tone and language became sharper when he talked about the technical support provided by the MOE. He did not hesitate to express his disappointment and complaints about the lack of technical support.
Furthermore, he felt that his school should be equipped with classroom technologies beyond the IWB, teacher’s PC, projector, and the Internet. He mentioned that he could use computers in the learning resources room (where there was a
174 computer for each student), but that access times were limited. In order to use the learning resources room, he needed to schedule an appointment for his class; he said this was hard to do, because the sole learning resources room was used by all of the teachers. He also felt that if his classroom was equipped with students’ computers, it would make his classroom a learning resources room. Thus, he would probably be able to introduce students to more technology-based activities, because students would then have an immediate opportunity to access other technology resources and immediately apply what they had studied in class.
Case overview: Naseer’s activity system
Figure 7.5. Naseer’s activity system Naseer was an eleventh grade secondary school teacher with a positive attitude who was highly competent and confident regarding technology use. As he claimed (and as the observational notes confirmed), his primarily student-centred practices enabled students to construct knowledge themselves. His epistemological beliefs aligned with his choices and indicated relativistic beliefs in evolving, self-constructed
175 knowledge and learning that occurred in a context of social interaction. His pedagogical beliefs aligned with his choices, and revealed his support for existing pedagogies that promoted higher-order thinking and increased student achievement of curriculum objectives and their motivation to learn. Naseer used technology in cooperative learning projects and group-formative assessments, with good student- student and student-teacher interaction. Learning activities were mostly conducted by students, with a few activities conducted by the teacher. He was also able to justify his choices, which were directly related to the lesson objectives. His observed practice was consistent with his reported practices.
Several tensions were identified within Naseer’s activity system. The first and perhaps strongest tension was evident between the subject-rules. Naseer believed technology was beneficial for achieving learning objectives, and should be employed in student-centred learning activities; but he also acknowledged that the current curriculum was overloaded by a great deal of knowledge and skills that students should have gained by the end of each unit. In addition, tension existed between subject-rules, as Naseer was undermined by the lack of a school-wide ICT policy; the evaluation system placed pressure on him to adapt technology in teaching and student learning, without providing him with official guidance.
A second tension was identified between subject-tools. Despite his reported and observed use of technology in his lessons, the need for more ICT resources prevented him from doing so student-centred classroom activities. Finally, there was tension between subject-community, when no technician was available in the school to support Naseer and to solve his technical problems; this caused Naseer to wonder about the use of technology.
176 7.1.3 Amaad: ‘ ... it could benefit …’
‘Amaad’ exemplified Group C (described in detail in Subsection 7.2.2); his general beliefs about technology use are reflected in his belief that ‘I am not technically very competent with technology, but definitely [technology] could be of benefit in students’ teaching and learning. I am trying to adapt myself to it’ (pre-lesson interview).
Teacher profile
Amaad’s class was relatively small, with only fifteen students. At the time of this study, he had been an Arabic teacher in secondary school for twenty years. He was forty-seven years old and was from Egypt. He spoke both Arabic and English (although not fluently), and had completed his bachelor’s and master’s degrees in the Arabic language. In his current school, he was considered the head Arabic language teacher; other teachers consulted him in all subjects and teaching-related issues. He had obtained the ICDL from attending the ICDL training course related to computer skills. As a person, Amaad was confident and respected by his colleagues. He seemed to have strong opinions, as he tended to dominate discussions and did not hesitate to defend his viewpoints.
Classroom layout
Figure 7.6. Amaad’s classroom layout The students’ desks in Amaad’s classroom were structured in a group seating arrangement. The teacher’s desk was in the left front corner, but he did not use it during the observed lessons. The classroom was well structured; the seating
177 arrangement reflected Amaad’s desire that his students should be involved in collaborative learning activities. In terms of technology equipment, the classroom was equipped with a teacher’s PC, which was placed next to the SMART brand IWB at the centre of the main wall; it was connected to the digital projector. The classroom had access to the Internet.
Epistemic beliefs about technology use
Amaad seemed to consider knowledge as being comprised of personal opinions and ultimate truths. This belief suggests a multiplistic epistemic belief. Amaad acknowledged the possibility of multiple views, but in his opinion knowledge is still certain and should be related to the school syllabus. He mentioned that technology— in particular useful social networks (e.g. Facebook, Twitter, and WhatsApp) and forums—have become a new resource for knowledge and learning for most students in secondary schools. He mentioned that social networks have become a part of students’ everyday lives. He believed that the textbook and the teacher are no longer the only resources for knowledge. Amaad mentioned, however, that as a teacher he should help students to select appropriate information. Thus, he encouraged them to learn from other sources, but he put more trust in the textbook:
Actually, with regard to knowledge and with the existence of technology, especially handy social network technologies (e.g. Twitter, Facebook, and WhatsApp), students can have different personal opinions about the topic; so in the lesson I respected their opinion and we enhanced it by including their opinions in the lesson with the textbook content to enrich classroom discussion … [this allowed us] to get new ideas from the combination of both personal opinion and facts in the textbook; but if [a student’s] personal opinion differs from the textbook content or is superficial, I would prefer to encourage him to abide by the textbook knowledge and skills, as they are certain and more focused. [Pre-lesson interview]
Amaad also expressed his allowance for the existence of different viewpoints, considering this to be the result of the availability of technological resources; he thought this would ‘enrich the lesson and make it more interesting and motivating for both teacher and students’. He relied more on authorities such as the textbook for absolute truths, however:
178 I would say with the use of technology resources, my students might have different opinions on the same topic, or read different opinions from what is written in the textbook … so we [accept] the information if it is interesting and reliable, even though it might be opposite to what is stated in the textbook; we could benefit from it, and I would not hesitate to encourage my students to discuss it with the class… but for the facts, I would really direct my students to the clear and correct information that is mentioned in textbooks. [Pre-lesson interview]
This belief also suggests a multiplistic epistemic belief. Amaad acknowledged the possibilities of multiple views, but in his opinion truth is still considered to be ‘right’ or ‘wrong’. His practice reflected his multiplistic epistemic beliefs; he showed his class different opinions, but he directed them more to textbook content than to content found elsewhere.
Pedagogical beliefs about technology use
Amaad’s pedagogical beliefs about ICT indicate that he viewed technologies as tools to supplement the required curriculum. In the pre-lesson interview, he mentioned that using technology in teaching provides students with supplementary materials, including videos, audios, and e-books, that would enhance their ‘understanding of the lesson content’. He stated, ‘Before technology, we [teachers] only had textbooks to teach from, but now we can give our students additional materials to complement what they have studied in the textbook or in the classroom’. Furthermore, in his pedagogical beliefs, Amaad mentioned that using technology as a supplementary tool to his existing pedagogy assisted him in managing classroom activities. He stated that:
Before technology [arrived in the classroom], I remember that I always came to the classroom early before the lesson to use chalk to draw and summarise the ideas from other resources on the blackboard, or to draw a map and pictures as additional explanations to help students better understand the lesson content. With technology, now this can be conducted in a few minutes with better quality; you just search online for any topic or learning-related videos, and you will find heaps of [high-quality content]. Also, before technology, I’d have to stop students’ discussions during some activities. Now, with technology, that becomes very easy: I just use time
179 management software to time the students’ discussions and to remind us when time is up so that we can move on to another activity. [Pre-lesson interview]
In the observed classroom practices, it was noted that using management software helped Amaad control the class; he set this programme before most of the classroom activities. He had established the rules and had successfully trained students to follow the programme, with no apparent problematic behaviour on their part. In general, the way that Amaad used this programme and controlled the class signified that he was the central actor.
In the questionnaire data, Amaad reported strong agreement that using technology in teaching and learning enhances collaboration among students. In pre- lesson interviews, he also mentioned that teaching with technology encourages students’ independence and cooperative learning. However, these pedagogical beliefs were inconsistent with his observed classroom practices, where he conducted and controlled most of the classroom activities and did not provide students with enough opportunity to use technology in a variety of activities or in way that promoted the students’ independence and cooperative learning.
Classroom practices with technology
In the questionnaire data, in his classroom practices with technology Amaad reported high-level practices in using technology to enable student cooperative learning and students’ independent learning. In the pre-lesson interview, Amaad also reported his use of cooperative learning pedagogy and independent learning; in the observed lessons (writing reports and oral communication competency), however, he only used short activities to portray cooperative learning, so that each student had a task to perform in a group of three.
In the report writing lesson, he selected two students, naming them numbers 1 and 2. Student 1 spoke first; the other student listened quietly, without interrupting the speaker. After the allotted time had elapsed, Student 2 spoke for the same time on the same topic, while Student 1 listened. After both students had spoken, Amaad then randomly selected a few students (called Number 1) to summarise what their partners had said. He did the same with Number 2 students. During this pedagogy, his students’ discussions and interactions were controlled by time management software
180 (Figure 7.8), so that no student exceeded three minutes. In the observed classroom practices, the teacher controlled the students’ group activity, which suggests that his reported practices were inconsistent with his observed classroom practices: he did not use students’ cooperative and independent learning approaches.
Figure 7.7. Time management software and website technologies used by Amaad Furthermore, Amaad reported using technology as information presentation tools, including video, audio, and pictures. He stated that, ‘In my use of technology, I use PowerPoint for presentation including some video, audio, and pictures. I also use IWB to present lessons from other perspectives that might differ in content and perspectives from the textbooks’. This proved to be the case when he showed students pictures as aids to promote different communication skills in the oral communication competency lesson, which also confirmed his reported practice of employing technology as information presentation tools. Amaad was surprised to observe that the ‘students figured out the main persuasion and influencing communication skills by themselves’. In my view, using presentations that included pictures helped Amaad in explaining the lesson, and enhanced student understanding. Other observed examples of Amaad’s reported practices with technology included an information search during the second activity of the writing report lesson. As he indicated in the post-lesson interview, his aim was to make a link between the textbook and relevant information on the Internet.
The above analysis indicates that Amaad’s teaching practices, which combined both traditional and constructivist teaching, was more likely to be primarily teacher-centred learning. The structure of his classroom teaching revealed that his instruction was teacher-dominated, with teacher-directed interaction between students. The second activity, which discussed the lesson content, was presented by the students. The teacher presented the third and fourth activities (explaining new concepts and answering questions at the end of the lesson), while the fifth activity was
181 presented by the students. The structure of the second lesson was conducted in the same pattern. In Amaad’s case, although some activities were conducted by the students, all were controlled by the teacher. Only the fifth activity allowed the students to learn cooperatively in an open-ended learning activity. In other activities, the classroom was dominated by Amaad, and the students’ participation and discussion were highly structured and pre-designed.
Technological skills within technology use
The questionnaire indicated that Amaad considered himself to have a moderate level of technological skills. He considered himself competent in using word processing, presentation software, multimedia authoring, email, and web searching. In the pre- lesson interview, Amaad reported that he considered himself to have a moderate level of competence in using technology. He acknowledged he was unable to design such things as multimedia PowerPoint presentations; thus, he tended to get help from his colleagues. He mentioned that, ‘I might try, but it will not be a professional design’. Amaad’s reported and observed practices of technological skills indicated a basic level of technological skills. In his classroom instruction, simple technologies were used in the teaching and learning process. He used the IWB with PowerPoint for presenting information, the Internet for searching, and time management software for managing classroom activities. His students used their own laptops to search for relevant information, and the IWB and word processing to present their work.
Curriculum and policy issues related to technology use
Amaad’s school, like other schools, did not have an ICT policy on education, which he blamed on the MOE and his school: ‘no one from MOE or [his] school explained to us how we could use these technologies, and supplying the class with technology without telling me how I can use it in my teaching is really worthless’. Amaad appeared not to take responsibility for his lack of awareness of the pedagogical use of technology, and underlined the weak communication between his school and MOE. Furthermore, when discussing the teaching of the current curriculum through technology, Amaad was not comfortable with the content of the current curriculum:
The new syllabus has become wordy and is not as concise as the one before, so sometimes I have to hurry through the lesson to complete each unit. Sometimes my students ask me why they are studying this, since it is
182 not related to the lesson. I prompt students to focus on more related information and to read it at home because it is not possible to cover everything. I do not see the need for several items of information in the current new curriculum, and I had to discuss with the supervisors the need for a concise curriculum; but no change has happened as of yet. [Pre- lesson interview]
School support for technology use
Insufficient classroom technologies was one of the problems for Amaad in including classroom computers for students. Amaad mentioned that one computer in the class was not enough to fully integrate technology in his teaching. He mentioned that he used to teach in a school where there were four computers in the classroom; thus, students could use any one of them. On the topic of using other school technology resources, Amaad mentioned:
If I take my students to the learning resources room, they will make a lot of noise and waste time, and the lesson time will be over quickly. Therefore I encourage them to use the IWB and to share their laptops in certain activities. They could learn with available technology. [Pre-lesson interview]
Amaad did not appear to be comfortable with using other school resources, such as learning resources or the computer lab.
Ministry support for technology use
Amaad was disappointed in having technology without being told how his students might use it. He mentioned that he could give his students more opportunities to use technology but acknowledged a lack of technological pedagogical knowledge:
The MOE supports the school with IWBs in approximately every class, but it has not told us how our students might use them or which tools they could benefit from. No one came to me to explain [the IWB’s] usage or application in teaching. If I had been shown its usage, I would have been far ahead in using technology. [Pre-lesson interview]
Again, Amaad did not seem to take any responsibility for himself to build his technological pedagogical knowledge; he stressed that this was the responsibility of
183 the MOE.
Case overview: Amaad’s activity system
Figure 7.8. Amaad’s activity system Amaad is a Grade 11 teacher in his secondary school who has a positive attitude and moderate perceived competence and confidence regarding technology use. His lessons were mainly teacher-centred. He used the IWB and PowerPoint presentations to explain lessons, and searched online for relevant and supplementary information and to obtain other views on the topic by giving students limited opportunities to use their own laptops and to complete certain tasks. His epistemological beliefs aligned with his multiplistic beliefs that knowledge is comprised of personal opinions and ultimate facts as well as allowing for the existence of different viewpoints, in which learning occurs in a context of comparing between these sources of information.
In his pedagogical beliefs, Amaad reported benefitting from technology by encouraging cooperative and independent learning among the students, but none of these practices were really embraced in the classroom teaching, which reflected an
184 inconsistency between his pedagogical beliefs and observed practice. His pedagogical benefits embraced ‘supplement the required curriculum’: using technology to provide students with supplementary materials and using technology as supplementary tools to existing pedagogy for better management of classroom activities.
A number of tensions were evident in Amaad’s activity system. The first one was identified between subject-tools, and was related to insufficient classroom technology, which limited his students’ use of and interaction with technology. In addition, due to a lengthy syllabus, another tension was identified between subject- rules. Amaad’s intention to integrate more technology did not succeed because of the lengthy syllabus. A stronger tension was identified between subject-division of labour. Despite Amaad’s attempts to encourage student interaction with technology, he seemed to be reluctant to devote time and effort to take on the responsibility from the MOE, which he believed should provide him with professional development and instruction about the students’ use of technology. Amaad found the lack of professional development from MOE to be annoying; this discouraged him from building his awareness and technological and pedagogical knowledge about the use of technology.
185 7.1.4 Amro: ‘ . . . I do not like using some technologies . . .’
‘Amro’ exemplified Group D (described in detail in Subsection 7.2.2), characterised by his general beliefs about technology: ‘I don’t like to use some technologies such as Internet tools. Using them will affect my role and control of the class’ (pre-lesson interview).
Teacher profile
At the time of this study, Amro had been an Arabic teacher in a public secondary school for twelve years. He was thirty-four years old and was from Saudi Arabia. He spoke only Arabic, and had completed his bachelor’s degree in Arabic language studies in Saudi Arabia. He had attended workshops related to computer skills. Amro appeared to be a serious and busy person who controlled his class.
Classroom layout
Figure 7.9. Amro’s classroom layout The students’ desks in Amro’s classroom were laid out in rows, and the teacher’s desk was in the front left corner; he used it many times during the observed lessons. The classroom structure and the students’ seating in the rows reflected Amro’s concern for controlling his classroom teaching and learning activities. The classroom was equipped with the teacher’s PC located next to the IWB, which was placed at the centre of the main wall and was connected to a digital projector. The classroom also had Internet access.
186 Epistemic beliefs about technology use
Amro perceived knowledge as being certain. Textbook knowledge, as he described it, was the most trustworthy content to be taught and learnt using technology. Rather than supporting teaching and student learning of content through other technology resources, knowledge should be taken directly from the textbook. He stated:
In terms of knowledge and student learning, I believe knowledge and skills provided by the textbook are more reliable than other resources on the Internet and more suitable for students’ thinking at the secondary level, as the materials were selected by experts in curricular matters. So, for me, I think it is better for students’ learning to provide them with reliable material focused on the textbook’s target knowledge and skills, and to employ technology in the process of transmitting these areas of knowledge and skills to students. [Pre-lesson interview]
This statement suggests a dualistic epistemic belief, in that knowledge is certain for Amro in the way that he prioritised skills and information guided by the textbook. Amro described the textbook as the main and trusted learning resource for student learning and knowledge acquisition. He appeared to distrust other material that came from technology resources, and believed the students’ levels of thinking and learning were insufficient to enable them to learn from technology-based resources. An analysis of the two observed classroom lessons taught by Amro also revealed his distrust of Internet resources. Although there was a wireless Internet connection for his PC, and the classroom smart board was available in the classroom, Amro did not try to use Internet tools or resources to search for further information. Furthermore, the content of his displayed PowerPoint slides in both observed classroom practices was an exact copy of the textbook content.
In addition, teacher authority was also clear in Amro’ epistemic beliefs. His description of the value he found in technology use typically focussed on the benefits to him rather than on any benefits to the students’ learning processes:
Technology provides me with the opportunity to present the lesson content. I have found that using the PowerPoint presentations provides me with much support in explaining the lesson content, making my classroom teaching easier. [Pre-lesson interview]
187 In discussing his perception of classroom practices using technology, Amro also applied epistemic teacher authority when he clarified that, ‘I benefit from Twitter in communicating with students to inform them about the topic of the next lesson’. This type of belief and use of Twitter also suggested dualistic epistemic beliefs of content that were not focussed on the student learning process. This suggested teacher-centred pedagogical practices, in which the teacher has the authority and his or her role is that of knowledge provider. Teacher-provided knowledge may or may not match particular students’ learning needs.
Pedagogical beliefs about technology use
Amro’s questionnaire responses indicated that he strongly agreed with beliefs that technology helps teachers organize student learning. An analysis of Amro’s interviews revealed that he held pedagogical beliefs about technology use in teaching that identified technologies as tools for developing computer and other rudimentary technological skills. Amro indicated that teaching with technology improved his presentation efficiency. He mentioned that using technology saved him time while preparing lesson materials and facilitated lesson presentation. He mentioned such tools as IWB, projectors, and PowerPoint presentations, which made presenting content to students much easier and more efficient, as compared to the traditional chalk blackboard. He stated that:
Technology is very useful. I remember before technology [arrived in the classroom that] I used to write an idea on the traditional blackboard using coloured chalk and erase it and write another idea, and this cost me much effort and time. With my technology use in teaching, I can just press a button on the keyboard for any PowerPoint slide, and we move on to another slide in a second. [Pre-lesson interview]
Furthermore, in Amro’ classroom, there was a computer on the teacher’s desk. It was connected to the IWB and was used for teaching and storing lesson materials, such as lessons’ PowerPoint presentations. Amro mentioned:
The use of technology has helped me a lot to store lesson materials. I only put my PowerPoint on a USB and save it in the folder on the classroom computer to use on the IWB. Also, when one of my colleagues wants the same file I can easily send it to him by email. Another Arabic teacher and I
188 share the lesson materials via email. [Pre-lesson interview]
He also mentioned that technology helped him to retrieve information and lesson content to use on different occasions and allowed him to present material in different classrooms at various times. He said, ‘I can just use what I have done in the previous lesson and have stored on my computer to use in different classrooms’. Thus, he no longer needs to create each lesson separately. He affirmed that, ‘I no longer need to prepare for each lesson’.
Clearly, Amro focussed more on efficiency, irrespective of the pedagogical use of the technology and its impact on his students’ achievement. Further analysis of classroom observations of his lessons provided additional evidence of this perspective. His classroom technology use in teaching and student learning was for an extremely limited purpose—for saving time. For example, instead of designing assessment of learning through activities on different PowerPoint slides, or using other instructional technologies, he presented both learning and assessment activities on the same PowerPoint slide to save time.
In addition, in his classroom teaching practices, Amro only focussed on using classroom technologies (such as the smart board) as a presentation tool, rather than using available Internet tools on his PC and smart board, which may have required more time and effort for finding the relevant information. Overall, Amro avoided using technologies such as Internet tools during instruction. He had negative conceptions about the use of these tools, believing that they might distract his students’ attention and waste his time. He reported:
I do not use Internet tools in my classrooms because they take my students’ attention away from the lesson. If I let students operate their computers or smart devices, and, if I don’t monitor them, they will definitely search websites where they chat with each other. I really prefer to present material on the IWB, to capture all the students’ attention. [Post-lesson interview]
Interestingly, Amro failed to focus on achieving learning outcomes or improving students’ thinking skills and learning abilities, or furthering these by increasing their motivation to learn by using technology. He only mentioned that he benefited from the improved PowerPoint presentation efficiency and that he was
189 familiar with technology in conveying lesson content.
Classroom practices with technology
An analysis of Amro’s questionnaire data, interview transcripts and classroom observations revealed that, in practice, he tended to use technology to support teacher- centred pedagogies. Amro’s questionnaire responses indicated that he reported a high level of practice with using technology as an information presentation tool. In pre- lesson interviews, Amro reported that technology allowed him to repeat the target knowledge to his students until they were able to understand the target concept. He stated, ‘With technology’s capacity for repetition, students can watch and listen to the content many times’. He believed this repetition ‘helps students understand what they have studied in the classroom’. Indeed, this was observed in the academic critique skills lesson; Amro tended to return to the previous PowerPoint slides and repeat their explanations.
In addition, during the academic writing lesson, Amro selected a few students from each group to come forward and use the IWB to explain the lesson content to the rest of the classroom. It was a kind of repetition, however, as they only read from the PowerPoint slides. This suggests that teachers with dualistic beliefs about using technology tend to use fact-oriented standards that students have achieved when they are able to recall knowledge. Amro’s classroom teaching approach was also an indicator of dualistic beliefs that represent the Arabic language as a body of certain knowledge. Thus, student learning comes from applying a method of drill and practice: repeating knowledge rather than understanding syllabus materials and using higher-order thinking.
Amro also clearly focussed more on memorising lesson content as a collection of facts and concepts, irrespective of the skills and ideas that might also be included in the material, or the use of technology and its potential impact on students’ achievement and understanding. During Amro’s explanation of the lesson, he failed to verify whether the students understood the lesson content during class. The lesson objectives were to improve students’ higher-order thinking skills, as the class was learning to apply evidence to support ideas and evaluate or criticise other ideas or opinions when producing academic writing. Nonetheless, Amro only focussed on basic thinking skills, using the smart board with a PowerPoint presentation to transfer
190 rote knowledge to his students. He sometimes stopped the PowerPoint presentation and selected a few students to answer questions, mainly to be sure that they were still following him. He asked them questions such as ‘Which point are we on now?’ as a way of keeping their attention focussed on him.
Amro focussed only on using technology for presenting lesson content. He reported that in his teaching practices he tended to use PowerPoint to present lesson content; he mentioned that technology mainly benefited him in presenting information through a different medium other than using the textbook. This indeed was observed in both lessons, as mentioned above. His reported practices in the interview were consistent with his observed classroom practices, which reflected teacher-centred pedagogical practices. He used PowerPoint presentations in both lessons. This was a simple projection of PowerPoint, however, with which the students had no interaction.
According to Amro, ‘teaching strategies are built through teaching experience, whether teachers use technology or not’. He believed that his teaching strategies depended on his skills as a teacher, and that technology was just a tool that presented knowledge to students. He reported that he tended to use the IWB and data projectors to present information to students. The analysis of Amro’s observed pedagogical practice in both lessons also revealed that students in the first lesson did not use any technology: they only used their textbooks and followed the teacher’s explanation while he used the IWB to display the PowerPoint presentation.
Technology, interestingly, had not affected Amro’s pedagogical style, which appeared to centre on his direct instruction. He mentioned that, even with the presence of technology, he used his normal teaching strategy, in which he explained the content at the beginning of each lesson and then asked his students questions to make sure they had paid attention. Both observed lessons revealed his use of a lecture approach; even in the second observation, he tried to divide students into groups to do the work. The teacher failed in his objective, however, because the students listened to him and worked individually rather than collaboratively, showing this teacher’s discouragement of group work. The second observation overall showed practices consistent with his first observed lesson. An analysis of this second lesson again showed teacher-centred pedagogical practice while using technology. Amro used the technology for its presentation tools, but with a lecture approach. He directed the
191 classroom teaching and learning activities and spoke continuously during the class, restricting the students’ role to one of listening to him. They were quiet; their roles were to observe and listen.
In reality, Amro did not draw any of the benefits from student group work that normally come with using such student-centred pedagogical approaches. Similarly to the first lesson, Amro used technology (e.g. IWB and the teacher’s PC) to present the lesson content to students, whereby he directed all the classroom teaching and learning activities and again spoke for most of the class. In the second lesson, he selected a few students from each group to come to the front of the classroom to use the smart board to explain the lesson content to the rest of the class. When these students came to the front, however, they only read from the PowerPoint slides and held their textbooks; meanwhile, the teacher directed their reading and helped them to move from one PowerPoint slide to the next.
Amro’s observed teaching practices in the second lesson displayed his lack of pedagogical knowledge. Even though his classroom was organised for group work, he did not organise tasks among the students. Thus, while the students appeared to be doing group work, the individuals in each group worked alone, without any collaboration or interaction within groups.
Technological skills within technology use
Amro’s beliefs about technological skills indicated quite simplistic and basic technological skills in his use of technology, including using presentation software (e.g. PowerPoint), email, and web searching. Amro reported that using email and presentation software like PowerPoint to deliver information to students is an important technological skill and an effective use of technology in instruction. He asserted, ‘I believe using the PowerPoint programme in presenting information to students is very important: how to move from one PowerPoint slide to another, when you should present slides, and for how long’. This belief is consistent with his classroom practices, since the PowerPoint presentation of lesson content displayed on the IWB was the only technology used during both observed classes.
Amro also said he found that ‘knowing how to copy parts of video or audio files and to add them to PowerPoint presentations is important too’. Inconsistencies were noted, however, in terms of the importance he gave to using multimedia
192 PowerPoint presentations and classroom technology in his teaching practices. For example, he used PowerPoint presentations to deliver the lessons, but in traditional patterns of information delivery, using texts without sound tracks, images, or videos. Amro also described web searching as an important technological skill in teaching and learning. He stated, ‘Knowing how to search and download audio and video files from educational websites is an extremely important technological skill when using technology in teaching and learning’. In line with his pedagogical belief of technology saving time, he thought that teachers should download audio and video files before starting class lessons to save classroom time and to avoid technical problems.
Amro also did not appear to have extensive technological knowledge, since he depended on already formatted PowerPoint presentations on CDs that are available in libraries or shops outside of school, rather than designing the presentations himself. He stated:
I found that lesson content has already been designed into PowerPoint presentations by a few library shops outside school, so I just buy one of those presentations and present it in the classroom. It is well designed and covers all of the textbook’s content, so there is no need for me to design a new one; no pressure for me to design a new one or to look for help from a technician. [Pre-lesson interview]
The analysis of Amro’s observed practices in both lessons revealed his lack of technological competencies that could have helped him to design his own PowerPoint presentations. The content of his displayed PowerPoint slides was an exact copy of the textbook content.
Curriculum and policy issues related to technology use
Amro was compliant about the lack of time. He failed to integrate more technologies into his teaching methods. He reported that the new textbook for the Arabic language, which focusses on language skills rather than specific subjects, means that he does not have enough time to use technology. As a result, in each lesson, he focusses on several language skills and tends to use PowerPoint presentations only to deliver several skills and areas of knowledge in each lesson.
In the post-lesson interview, Amro’s attitude was different. After the lessons, he did not acknowledge any difficulty with time, and he claimed that the lessons were
193 successful, and his objectives had been achieved. An analysis of Amro’s observed pedagogical practice in both lessons also revealed his distrust of Internet resources. His PC and the classroom smart board both had a wireless Internet connection, yet Amro did not try to use Internet resources or tools to search for further information.
School support for technology use
Amro reported that the positive attitude of his school principal towards the use of technology had encouraged him to use it. He asserted:
Unlike my previous school, when I moved to [name of school redacted], I found the school principal was very interested in using technology in all school activities; and that actually encouraged me and other teachers in the school to use technology, and also actually strengthened my feelings about the importance of using technology in classroom teaching and learning. [Pre-lesson interview]
Amro mentioned that his school had provided him with professional development workshops that focussed on technical competencies. He affirmed that ‘actually, the school helps me use technology by providing some professional development workshops on how to use smart boards and operate computer software in classroom teaching and learning presentations’. Notably, this professional development that he mentioned was conducted by technicians from outside the school, which cost the system so much money that, as Amro reported, the funds had to be donated by the teachers.
Furthermore, Amro mentioned that in his school he had received technical support for using technology, such as updating new software, setting up smart boards, and fixing technical problems. Nonetheless, Amro said his school had only one technician, and he was extremely busy; thus, fixing any technical problem took a long time. Interestingly, he mentioned that in some cases he had cooperated with the school principal to bring a technician from outside the school, and had paid him with his own money to solve technical problems in his classroom more quickly.
Ministry support for technology use
Amro was disappointed by the lack of professional development provided by the MOE. He mentioned that since he had become a teacher, he had attended only one training course related to computer skills. In addition, he mentioned that before his
194 use of the IWB, he thought this would waste classroom time, so he hesitated for a long time before using it. He admitted that he had limited technological skills and knowledge about how to use the IWB in instruction. After he attended professional development workshops in his school about using this technology, he changed his beliefs and now feels confident in using the IWB in the classroom. The analysis of his classroom observations revealed a lack of information and communication technology resources in the classroom, as the students had no computers. He also appeared to ban any student use of smartphones.
Case overview: Amro’s activity system
Figure 7.10. Amro’s activity system Amro was a Grade 11 secondary school teacher with low competence and confidence in technology use. His teacher-centred practices enabled him to transmit knowledge to his students, as he claimed and as the observational notes confirmed. His epistemological beliefs aligned with his choices, and indicated dualistic beliefs in certain knowledge, teacher authority, and simple learning that was obtained through memorisation and knowledge recall. His pedagogical beliefs that aligned with his
195 choices were developing computer and rudimentary skills: beliefs that using technology in teaching improved presentation efficiency and helped store and share information. Amro used technology in presenting information along with a lecture approach, and repetitive learning where he acted as the primary knowledge provider, standing in front of the students and using PowerPoint presentations; the students’ role was to listen to him. His observed practice was consistent with his reported practices.
Several tensions were identified within Amro’s activity system. The first and perhaps strongest tension was between subject-object, and was related to his dualistic epistemic beliefs in the certain knowledge of textbooks and his belief in teacher authority; this undermined him from using technology in ways that would support student-centred learning. In addition, there was tension between subject-rules, as Amro was undermined by the lack of pedagogical professional development; the available professional development focussed on the technical rather than pedagogical use of technology. Additional tension was identified within subject, which was related to his technology use being undermined by his low competence with it.
196 7.2 Cross-case Analysis: Comparing Responses
This section presents the findings of the cross-case analysis. Using the four case narratives described above as the main reference points, and including data from the other eight teachers, it reports the range of responses in the sample and describes the groups that emerged from the case comparison.
7.2.1 Response Range
Relating to the research questions, teachers’ responses were examined with regard to the following aspects:
Beliefs about technology use Classroom practices with technology Level of (in)consistency between reported and observed practices Level of (in)consistency between beliefs and practices Factors influencing technology use
Beliefs about technology use
Following the data coding, two themes were identified regarding the teachers’ beliefs about technology use: epistemic beliefs about knowledge and learning regarding technology use and pedagogical beliefs regarding technology use in teaching. The most prevalent points with regard to these beliefs are identified in this subsection through quotes from the teachers’ responses.
Epistemic beliefs about technology use
Teachers’ epistemic beliefs about the nature of knowledge and learning with technology differed substantially, ranging from dualistic to relativistic. Fareed, whose case was described in Section 7.1.1, demonstrated a clearer commitment to relativistic epistemic beliefs than the other participant teachers in that he epistemologically believed knowledge is perceived as evidence-based and personally constructed. He stated, “I believe that everyone constructs knowledge by oneself. Knowledge is enhanced with the help of technology. Technology is used as a learning tool during the process of knowledge construction" [Fareed: pre-lesson interview]. Fareed’s epistemic beliefs also demonstrated an accumulative view of knowledge. For instance, when reflecting on his teaching practices he stated, “I always encourage my students to cooperatively work with their peers to find out more knowledge” [Fareed:
197 post-lesson interview]. Moreover, for him, knowledge should be supported by evidence.
I really prefer to hear reasons to make sure students have a full of understanding of the topic. With technology, they can get more information related to the topic, so their opinions or decisions regarding any issue are supported by data in electronic libraries, by ideas raised on social networks such as Twitter and Facebook, or in school educational forums so that they make their own decisions based on the variety of data and ideas. [Fareed: pre-lesson interview]
Two teachers, Saleh and Naseer (whose case was described in Section 7.1.2), also seemed to have relativistic beliefs, meaning that for them knowledge is evolving and self-constructed. Both appeared to be aware that knowledge could change over time, especially with technology use and development. Saleh stated, “Yes, we could now say something is the truth, but we do not know in the future whether this truth will still be the truth, practically, with this rapid development in technology use” [Saleh: pre-lesson interview]. Furthermore, Saleh and Naseer did not treat knowledge or learning as a matter of receiving knowledge from authority figures such as a teacher or textbook. For them, the role of teachers is to act as knowledge facilitators. However, they also acknowledged that teachers could not master everything.
I believe knowledge is built by students themselves rather than received from us [teachers]. My role is to facilitate their learning. They should know that, and they should also know that in this life there are some things we might not have any idea about, so they should do their level best to learn themselves. [Naseer: pre-lesson interview]
Like Saleh, Naseer also believed that using technology changed students’ learning from simple to complex.
I do not consider students’ simple recollection of knowledge to be deep enough learning. If, at the end of the day, technology use simply helps students remember facts without understanding and appreciating the information they have acquired, effective learning with technology hasn’t taken place [Saleh: pre-lesson interview].
Half of the teachers (n = 6), including Gamal, Mazin, Faaz, Samir, Ayman and
198 Amaad (whose case was described in Section 7.1.3), tended to be multiplistic in their epistemic beliefs, considering knowledge to be comprised of personal opinions and objective facts, allowing for the existence of different viewpoints. As Faaz stated in the pre-lesson interview:
I don’t think knowledge is restricted by textbooks. Yes, many reviewers have reviewed books, but even then, they couldn’t cover or discuss all opinions, so students might have different opinions and ideas so I think the combination of both textbook information and personal opinions would enhance knowledge and student learning. [Faaz: pre-lesson interview]
Gamal emphasised that "in the past, the teacher was considered the only one who could interpret issues, but now with technology, others can discuss and provide different views about issues of all kinds” [Gamal: pre-lesson interview]. Samir mentioned, “I think some knowledge is certain but not all of it is certain. We could have different opinions on one issue and we might accept all of them” [Samir: pre- lesson interview]. Ayman stated:
I don’t think curriculum makers can cover everything. I personally think that curriculum makers could select from available knowledge and perspectives. They use criteria to select some knowledge that might fit the requirements, but there is definitely other knowledge that could fit too [Ayman: pre-lesson interview]
The other three teachers, Aatif, Maen and Amro (whose case was described in Section 7.1.4), tended to have dualistic beliefs: that knowledge is certain in the textbook, and that learning is obtained through memorisation. They held belief in the teacher’s authority. As Aatif stated, “No matter how advanced technology is, technology cannot replace the human; the teacher is the centre and is more knowledgeable than any other resource” [Aatif: pre-lesson interview]. This is similar to what Maen articulated: “As teacher, I know the best for my students” [Maen: pre- lesson interview]. In the post-lesson interview Maen also stated, “Students in the school will not learn anything unless they have a textbook to learn from and unless their teacher tells them how they can learn from it”. Furthermore, he believed that, “How much a student gets from learning depends on the teacher’s effort and instruction in a classroom teaching” [Maen: post-lesson interview]. He also expressed
199 his speculation about how students learn with technology: “I really wonder how students really could learn with technology without a teacher’s direction” [Maen: post-lesson interview]. Similarly, in the post-lesson interview, Aatif mentioned, “I think we should encourage students to be able to memorise the lesson content as our generation did. Yes, we are all now talking about using technology in classrooms, but that is actually not the right way to learn”. He explained that, “You could see how weak some students in the class are. They have technology either in school or at home, but their learning weak because we [teachers] absolve ourselves from responsibility for teaching them this technology”.
Pedagogical beliefs about technology use
Teachers’ pedagogical beliefs about technology varied substantially, ranging from ‘computer and rudimentary skills’ to a ‘new way of learning’. Fareed was the only teacher who expressed a “new way of learning” type of pedagogical belief, saying that technology use changed his teaching methods and enabled different student- centred teaching approaches. He stated that “with technology I could see dynamic change in my teaching. Students have to depend on themselves, and no one in the class is a passive listener or waiting for the teacher to give them knowledge or ideas” [Fareed: pre-lesson interview]. Furthermore, he mentioned that technology use helped him address students’ different needs.
Technology provides students with opportunities to learn based on their needs and cognitive abilities, and this is true for both strong and weak students. It transforms classroom teaching and helps accommodate students’ different needs. For example, I found technology supports students’ group projects, which are better for those who prefer cooperative work. It is also helpful with autonomous learning, which would be better for those who prefer individual learning. [Fareed: pre-lesson interview]
Fareed also highlighted the change in student learning from traditional to constructivist learning and the development of new ways of learning that promote students’ problem-solving skills.
I believe using technology in teaching is changing the way that students learn: from learning that is restricted to textbooks and the traditional use of the blackboard, to the meaningful learning that includes exploration and
200 self-discovery to find out more facts and ideas about the topic or problem, and suggest better solutions. [Fareed: pre-lesson interview]
Fareed also highlighted the benefit of using technology for encouraging students’ independent learning: “Learning with technology could also give students autonomous learning opportunities as they can make decisions about their learning activities” [Fareed: pre-lesson interview]. Most of the teachers believed that technology promoted independent learning, demonstrating that with technology, students have not become passive receivers of information. However, for the majority, independent learning only referred to searching for information on the Internet. Only Fareed made reference to attractive uses: “Technology has become a great support and encouragement for students in constructing the knowledge themselves rather than being information receivers, and I often use this learning process by encouraging them [students] to use the Internet tools and school ICT resources to support their group work such as projects.” [Fareed: pre-lesson interview].
Naseer and Saleh shared similar pedagogical views, demonstrating that teaching with technology supported the existing curriculum because technology promotes students' high-order thinking and increases students’ learning and achievement of the curriculum objectives. Saleh stated that, “Technology use in teaching provides my students with more opportunities to compare the grammar skills they studied, to the content in technology resources; and it also allows them to practice grammar skills while they are writing and communicating with others” [Saleh: pre-lesson interview]. Naseer and Saleh also shared the belief that using technology in teaching increased students’ attention and motivation to learn. Saleh mentioned that, “Technology motivates my students to learn because with technology, they think independently and do things by themselves rather than my pushing them to learn as I see some teachers do in some classes” [Saleh: pre-lesson interview].
Amaad, Gamal, Mazin, Faaz, Samir and Ayman shared a ‘supplement the required curriculum’ pedagogical belief that technology use helps teachers provide students with supplementary materials. They also shared the belief that using technology as a supplementary tool to existing pedagogy helps manage lesson activities. Gamal remarked that ‘technology enabled him to transcend the limitations of textbooks by supporting textbook content through the use of diversified materials
201 that facilitate student understanding’ [pre-lesson interview]. Mazin stated that ‘technology has become part of my classroom teaching and helps me provide my students with additional materials, either in the classroom or on the school website’ [pre-lesson interview]. Furthermore, Faaz remarked, ‘Nowadays, there are many Arabic grammar websites that have additional materials and resources, so it would be helpful to use them as additional resources to complement the classroom textbook’ [pre-lesson interview]. Similarly, Samir mentioned, ‘The teacher could benefit from technologies, such as the school website, to provide students with specific e-textbooks as supplementary materials to improve their understanding of a topic’ [pre-lesson interview]. Samir also emphasised, ‘A textbook, like any other resource, has strengths and weaknesses, so why should we not use this huge amount of online information and number of databases to overcome the textbook weaknesses?’ [post-lesson interview]. Ayman, in the post-lesson interview, commented:
As you saw in my classroom, I used an online essay about the life of Ibn Khaldun, as he was one of the great scholars in the field of history and sociology, and I asked students to search on YouTube about Ibn Khaldun. The essay’s content was similar to what the textbook has, but I wanted to show my students that there are further resources they could learn from if they wished.
Furthermore, Amaad, Gamal, Mazin, Faaz, Samir and Ayman believed that using technology in their teaching encouraged cooperative and independent learning, where a student becomes an active and independent learner. However, for them, independent learning meant that students were searching for information online. Furthermore, all of them believed that using technology in their teaching encouraged cooperative learning, but their explanations of this practice were simplistic and indicated a lack of pedagogical knowledge, as they believed students sitting in groups at the same computer was a form of cooperative learning.
On the other hand, Aatif, Amro and Maen reported the development of computer and rudimentary skills. Their pedagogical beliefs suggest that the use of technology in teaching assisted teachers in storing and sharing information. All three teachers agreed that the use of technology proved to be efficient in presenting class material. Maen claimed that using PowerPoint for presentations posed a “great technological benefit” to his teaching [Maen: pre-lesson interview]. The reason Aatif
202 used technology in his teaching was because it “saved lesson time” and “you don’t need to write on the traditional blackboard” [Aatif: pre-lesson interview]. For Amro, “It saved teachers’ energy and effort in classroom teaching” [Amro: pre-lesson interview].
Classroom practices with technology
The teachers’ technological skills ranged from basic (Aatif, Amro and Maen) to moderate (Amaad, Gamal, Mazin, Faaz, Samir and Ayman) and moderately high (Naseer and Saleh) to highly competent (Fareed). The frequency and extent of technology use was associated with the teachers’ practices of teaching with technology, which ranged from exclusively teacher-centred (Aatif, Amro and Maen) and primarily teacher-centred (Amaad, Gamal, Mazin, Faaz, Samir and Ayman) to primarily student-centred (Naseer and Saleh) and exclusively student-centred (Fareed).
Fareed integrated technology into his classroom teaching to support student learning. He adapted his own teaching method by combining cooperative learning and problem solving. For example, he incorporated the use of classroom computers to help students cooperatively construct knowledge about social topics in a lesson on contemporary Saudi poetry. In the same lesson, he challenged his students to think about how to solve real-life problems, one of which was poverty, a social problem often mentioned in modern Saudi poems. Fareed asked his students to work collaboratively to define the poverty problem, determine its causes, and suggest solutions using classroom computers. This would ensure that the students could benefit from technological resources during each of these phases. In addition, during the lessons on contemporary Saudi poetry and the homesickness poem, he asked his students to answer multiple-choice quizzes on an online school blackboard and used their answers to assess their individual learning. He justified this practice by saying that “Students are central to the teaching and learning process” [Fareed: post-lesson interview]. As such, Fareed’s teaching practice with technology could be characterised as student-centred.
Naseer and Saleh seemed to be using technology in a combined way, but it was more likely to be mostly student-centred, where students conducted the majority of the learning activities and teachers only conducted limited learning activities. For
203 example, they both integrated technology with group project learning, including identifying language errors in social networking, developing grammar and spelling competencies (Naseer’s observed lessons), and completing an analysis of documentary videos published on YouTube based on learned description skills (Saleh’s observed lesson). However, during both of their teaching practices, Naseer and Saleh tended to provide more explanation and reemphasised information that was not fully understood by students. For example, in the third activity of the grammar competencies lesson, Naseer used IWB with a PowerPoint slide, explained further adjectives and substituted grammar rules, reemphasizing how to differentiate between them. Saleh intervened in students’ projects with a seven-minute lesson, reemphasising the difference between describing human and science documentary videos, as it was confusing for some students. Naseer and Saleh justified their practices, saying “Students should conduct the classroom activities, but in urgent cases, where students do not fully understand, the teacher could provide further explanation” [Naseer and Saleh: post-lesson interview]. In these terms, classroom use of technology by Naseer and Saleh could be characterized as primarily student- centred.
On the other hand, Amaad, Gamal, Mazin, Faaz, Samir and Ayman’s classroom uses of technology in the observed lessons seemed to be primarily teacher- centred. Their instruction represented a combination of the teacher conducting the majority of the learning activities, with students having limited roles in the learning activities. These consisted of a combination of the teachers’ PowerPoint presentations, teachers’ online searches for relevant information, and a limited number of cooperative group activities. For example, the teachers used PowerPoint presentations and e-textbooks to explain new concepts and skills to their students, including the communication skills of persuasion and influence (Amaad’s observed lesson), Arabic language listening competencies (Mazin’s lesson), types of prose in Arabic literature (Gamal’s observed lesson), spelling competencies (Faaz’s observed lesson), and reading competencies (Ayman’s observed lesson). These teachers also included cooperative group activities for students in their lessons, but these were limited and under the control of the teacher. The teachers used time management software during the students’ small group (two students) discussions on the characteristics of a well-written report. Students used their own laptops and wrote a
204 report in Word about any topic they chose under the management of time- programmed software (Amaad’s writing report lesson). One teacher allowed five minutes for students to cooperatively discuss elements of the essay presented in the e- textbook on the IWB that could be improved (Gamal’s lesson). To accomplish these tasks, students searched on the Internet for relevant information. They discussed the characteristics of good report writing (Amaad’s writing report lesson). Students also searched on YouTube for relevant documentaries that highlighted the life of Ibn Khaldun before reading part of his book called “Al Muqaddimah: Prolegomena”. (Ayman’s reading competencies lesson).
The fact that technology use has not yet become a primarily student-centred practice, as some teachers indicated in their post-interviews, and that most teachers continue a primarily teacher-centred technology practice in classrooms was attributed to the teachers' understanding of their epistemic authority of knowing what is best for their students. For teachers that do not use student-centred technology practices, technology was seen as a supportive tool, which a teacher should employ during the lesson’s explanation using technology appropriate to the lesson objective. Thus, students could only use technology when the lesson was intellectually challenging.
Our [teachers’] use and selection of technology that supports the lesson is much better than asking the students to use technology. I did not see any need for students to use technology if it is already incorporated in their teaching. Technology could be used by students only when the lesson is complicated and requires high-level thinking to understand it. [Gamal: post-lesson interview]
Aatif, Amro and Maen appeared to present teacher-centred lessons, where a teacher using traditional PowerPoint or e-textbook presents information on IWB. The teacher then uses a lecture approach, where he act as the primary knowledge provider. He stands in front of the students and uses PowerPoint presentations, directs the classroom teaching and learning activities, and speaks continuously during the class. The student’s role is to listen to him. For example, Amro used a PowerPoint presentation of the lesson content that was displayed on the IWB. He first presented examples of four opinions that discussed how people should deal with books that run counter to their society’s values. He presented these opinions by reading from the PowerPoint slides and highlighting the evidence that supported each opinion. All
205 learning activities were dependent on the PowerPoint presentation, as the lesson and reinforcement of skills and knowledge were only delivered through Amro’s discussion of each opinion, relayed by moving from one slide to another. The students merely listened to him without any participation. Amro did not give them any opportunities to ask questions, and no student tried to raise a question. Similarly, Aatif and Maen used PowerPoint presentations to present the content of the persuasive communication lesson on the IWB. They first presented the definition of persuasion communication. Then, they asked students if they knew the definition, but even when asking for student responses, they seemed to seek certain knowledge from the students, as they were looking for a certain definition that was mentioned in the textbook. They also moved quickly from one student to another and did not give students enough time to think. They then moved on to another slide that discussed the skills of persuasive communication. The teachers spoke throughout the whole period and did not give students the opportunity to use technology. Students only listened to the teachers and tried to answer their questions when asked. Overall, these teachers believed that it is better for students to follow the teacher’s instructions and felt that the class would get “upset” if students used technology and that they would lose control of the classroom.
Level of consistency between reported and observed practices
The level of consistency between the teachers’ reported and observed practices varied, but, overall, there were identifiable tendencies with regard to the frequency, types of practices, and the level of student interaction with technology. Fareed, Naseer and Saleh were quite consistent with using technology to support student-centred learning, and Naseer and Saleh were primarily student-centred in their use of technology. Aatif, Amro and Maen were also quite consistent, being teacher-centred in their use of technology because of their acknowledged reservations regarding student use of technology in the classroom.
Amaad, Gamal, Mazin, Faaz, Samir and Ayman were, in general, consistent when it came to their beliefs but rather inconsistent when it came to student use and interaction with technology. They all believed technology was beneficial for student learning, and they reported that students’ use of technology supporting their independence and cooperative learning, but no such practices were noted in the observed lessons.
206 Level of consistency between beliefs and practices
The level of consistency between epistemic and pedagogical beliefs and practices varied among the teachers, but, overall, the teachers’ beliefs seemed to be consistent with their classroom practices. Fareed used technology to support student-centred approaches to collaboration and problem solving. This was due to his relativistic, epistemic belief that knowledge is self-constructed and evidence-based. This was also mediated by his “new way of learning” pedagogical beliefs, which suggested that teaching with technology enables student-centred teaching approaches, addresses students’ different needs, promotes students’ problem-solving skills, and encourages students’ independent learning.
Naseer and Saleh used technology to support student-centred approaches that included both cooperative group tasks and multimedia PowerPoint presentations. Both teachers hold relativistic, epistemic beliefs that knowledge is evolving and self- constructed. They also supported existing curricular pedagogical beliefs that technology can be used to promote students’ higher-order thinking, increase students’ learning and achievement of curriculum objectives, and increase students’ motivation to learn.
Aatif, Amro and Maen used technology to support teacher-centred learning through a lecture approach. This was because these teachers hold a dualistic epistemic belief that knowledge is certain and should be focussed on textbook content. These teachers emphasised learning through memorisation, and teacher’s classroom authority. This also aligned with their development of computer and rudimentary skills pedagogical beliefs that technology use in teaching is helpful for information storage and sharing, improved their presentation efficiency but could distract students’ attention, particularly when students were searching online.
Amaad, Gamal, Mazin, Faaz, Samir and Ayman used technology in a primarily teacher-centred way in teacher controlled classroom activities, presented information, and searched online for supplementary information. Their classroom practices were generally consistent with their multiplistic epistemic beliefs that knowledge is comprised of both personal opinions and objective facts that allowed for the existence of different viewpoints. However, these were rather inconsistent with their pedagogical beliefs. Although they believed using technology in teaching could
207 be helpful for students’ collaborative and independent learning, they did not apply these possible benefits and pedagogical beliefs in their teaching.
Factors influencing technology use
As explained in the previous section, the relationship between beliefs and practices varied. Thus, it was necessary to find out what factors other than the teachers’ epistemic and pedagogical beliefs were related to their practice with technology. The purpose of this section is to present other factors that may have influenced teachers’ technology use.
Technology problems and technical support
All teachers indicated that their school lacked technical support services and that they had to depend substantially on themselves to manage the technology they used. Schools either did not have a technician or had only one technician who was available when teachers had any technical problems. All teachers highlighted the need for ongoing technical support and requested access to a full-time technician who was assigned for this purpose.
The absence of technical support services and insufficient technical support seemed to waste and disrupt lesson time and activities for some teachers, especially in cases where teachers had low ICT competency. Even when some schools were equipped with ICT resources, the unavailability and insufficiency of technicians made some teachers avoid fully integrating technology in their teaching.
You have seen the technical issues that happened with the IWB in the class. It stopped working suddenly before I restarted it. I could let my students use it, but this problem might get worse and no one could come immediately to solve it. [Ayman: post-lesson interview]
Technology access
Limited ICT accessibility was another factor that negatively influenced some teachers’ use of technology, as in the cases of Amro, Aatif, Maen, Amaad, Gamal, Mazin, Faaz, Samir and Ayman. The availability of ICT resources was also discussed during the qualitative analysis. This determined the technology that was available to the teachers.
208 Table 7.3 ICT Availability in the Teachers' Schools Name ICT resources Inside classrooms Outside classrooms Maen IWBs, teacher’s PCs, and data show Learning resources room: projector, Internet access in all one computer for teacher classrooms and IWB Aatif IWBs, teacher’s PCs, and data show Learning resources room projector, Internet access in all classrooms Amro IWBs, Internet access in some None classrooms Ayman Teacher’s PCs, IWBs, Internet access Learning resources room: in some classrooms teacher computer, projector, and smart board. Samir Teacher’s PCs, IWBs, Internet access None in some classrooms Faaz Teacher’s PC, IWBs, Internet access Learning resources room: in some classrooms teacher computer and IWB Mazin Teacher’s PCs, IWBs, Internet access None in all classrooms Gamal Teacher PC, IWBs, allowed students Learning resources room: to use smart devices such as iPhones teacher computer, and iPads, Internet access in some projector, and IWB classrooms Fareed Teacher’s PC, computers for Learning resources room: students, Internet access, projectors computers for students IWBs, allowed students to use smart devices, such as iPhones and iPads Amaad IWBs, projectors, teacher’s PC, Learning resources room: Internet access in all classrooms. computers for students and Internet Saleh IWBs, teacher’s PC, internet access Learning resources room: in all classrooms computers for students
209 Name ICT resources Inside classrooms Outside classrooms with Internet connection Naseer IWBs, projectors, teacher’s PC, Learning resources room: Internet access in all classrooms computers for students and Internet
Table 7.3 indicates the variations in the availability of ICT resources in the schools of the participating teachers. In fact, all participating teachers mentioned that ICT resources were the most important element in the teachers’ effective use of technology in teaching and student learning. The majority of the participant teachers indicated the need for more classroom technology. Fareed’s students were fortunate because they could learn in a classroom where computers were accessible. However, this did not mean that the availability of classroom computers gave students the freedom to use technology. Naseer and Saleh, whose classrooms included IWB, teachers’ PCs, and internet access, facilitated their students’ interaction with available classroom technology.
Technological pedagogical knowledge
Lack of pedagogical knowledge was a factor that negatively influenced some teachers’ use of technology, as was the case with Amro, Aatif, Maen Amaad, Gamal, Mazin, Faaz, Samir and Ayman, who were still learning to harness technology in their classrooms. Their technology use was not sophisticated, and they considered themselves incompetent in this regard. They struggled to provide specific examples of advanced technological tools that teachers could use to enhance student learning. In contrast, Fareed, Naseer and Saleh, who held student-centred or primarily student- centred beliefs and practices with regard to technology, were able to provide examples of the technological tools that they might use in the classroom. For instance, they mentioned that teachers could use a collaborative learning strategy using students’ laptops, iPads, smartphones, and the school’s Blackboard (the online platform). Students could search online, listen to audio material, watch YouTube videos, communicate through social networks, read and write texts, as well as explore and investigate topics using videos and PowerPoint to create their own learning experience. All of these tools could support their collaborative learning.
210 Furthermore, some teachers, including Fareed, Naseer (whose case narratives was reviewed), Salah and Mazin, mentioned that the current textbook was transferred to e-book technology and that this platform should be integrated in the textbook learning activities, where indications and suggestions about how to teach specific concepts and skills should be accomplished through appropriate technology tools, websites, and applications or software.
Pedagogical knowledge
Some teachers seemed to have a hazy understanding of pedagogical concepts such as students’ cooperative and independent learning. Amaad, Gamal, Mazin, Faaz, Samir and Ayman either struggled to provide specific examples of teachers’ classroom practices using technology, or provided inappropriate examples of these approaches.
You said you use cooperative learning with technology. Could you please let me know how to use it with technology? [The researcher] I use it by dividing students in groups. Each group has only two students so I give the two students two different questions related to the lesson; they ask each other questions and they search online to find out the answers. [Samir: pre-lesson interview]
This response did not represent the cooperative learning strategy in which a small team of students engages in a variety of activities and group discussion rather than simply using the Internet to answer the teacher’s direct questions.
Professional development
Almost all of the participating teachers found ICT training programs isolated from pedagogy or the use of technology in the classroom. Table 7.4 shows all training courses that were provided by the schools of the participating teachers.
211 Table 7.4 Ministry of Education, School and Self-Funded Training Courses Provided in Participating Teachers' Schools
Name Training Details Program Ministry of School Self-funded Education Maen Yes None General computer None skills Aatif Yes None PowerPoint None Amro No None General computer None skills Ayman Yes None Very basic skills None (Operating IWB) Samir Yes None Operating IWB None
Faaz Yes Operating IWB None None
Mazin No None General Computer None skills Gamal No Operating IWB None None
Fareed Yes None Operating IWB International Computer Driving Licence- ICDL (Presentation software, spreadsheets, online Blackboard and Internet tools) Amaad NO None General computer None skills, Operating IWB Saleh No None Using IWB None Naseer Yes None Using school None Blackboard tools
As Table 7.2 shows, few training courses were provided by the MOE. Ten teachers indicated that the MOE had never conducted professional development
212 programs to improve the teachers’ use of technology. Furthermore, the training programs that were provided focussed on simple and basic technological skills instead of high-tech pedagogy skills or technology use in the classroom. The majority of the training programs focussed on operating computers, IWBs, using Microsoft Word programs, and using school Blackboard tools. Furthermore, Table 7.2 also shows that the most of teachers (11 out 12, Fareed was the exception) depend on MOE and their schools to provide them with professional development programs.
ICT school policy
The absence of ICT policy was another factor influencing the teachers’ use of technology. None of the teachers was aware of the policy objectives for integrating technology in education. This analysis showed that none of their schools had an established policy to guide classroom instruction using technology. The absence of ICT policies seemed to create a misconception, especially in the cases of Maen, Aatif and Amro. They perceived technology as a threat and held a rather negative attitude towards it. In addition, Amaad, Gamal, Mazin, Faaz, Samir and Ayman felt that they might expand their use of technology if they had a guiding ICT policy.
Lack of time
A lack of time was reported as a constraint in the use of technology by five teachers in the pre-lesson interviews. Their main issue was not the lack of time itself but what they perceived to be an overloaded syllabus that did not fit with the amount of lesson time. The other three teachers (Fareed, Naseer and Saleh) did not feel any pressure from the curriculum. The lack of time was reported as an obstacle to technology integration by these teachers in the post-interviews, with the exception of Fareed, Naseer and Saleh. They indicated that they normally used more technologies than those available in the classrooms to support student learning inside and outside the school.
Principals’ attitudes toward technology
A negative attitude from many school principals toward technology seemed to create a negative impact on the teachers’ use of technology. These attitudes seemed to create misconceptions, especially in the case of Amro. Some principals held the perception that technology did not benefit teaching and student learning.
When I was in my previous school, I saw that the school principal did not
213 ask me about using technology, and sometimes he avoided talking about it, and that actually led me to doubt its benefits. But, when I came to this school, I found that the principal displayed deep interest in the use of technology. He always asked if I used technology to assist in student learning. [Amro: pre-lesson interview]
Also, all the teachers gave positive statements about their current school principal, indicating that the principals encouraged and supported them in using technology. However, the teachers did not elaborate further.
7.2.2 Emerging Groups
Individual experiences with technology varied among the sample, as highlighted above. Four groups emerged from the commonalities in the teachers’ responses in the pre- and post-lesson data collected. It is significant to mention that the composition of these groups would have been different if only the pre-lesson data had been analysed. Inconsistencies were identified from the mismatch of beliefs and observed practices and by the mismatch of reported and observed practices. The following descriptions highlight the response range of each group regarding their epistemic beliefs, pedagogical beliefs, reported practices, technological skills, and observed teaching practices. It should be also emphasised that most of the factors identified as influencing the teachers’ beliefs and practices of technology use had different impacts across the different groups.
Group A: Student-centred
Group A was composed only of Fareed, whose case narrative was reviewed in Section 7.2.1. He demonstrated a commitment to a relativistic epistemic belief that knowledge is self-constructed and evidence-based and students are active constructors of knowledge, able to make judgments and commitments in a relativist context. For him, learning occurs from the accumulation of knowledge that is justified by evidence. In terms of his pedagogical beliefs, he indicated a “new way of learning” pedagogical belief that teaching with technology changed his teaching methods, enabled student- centred teaching approaches, addressed students’ different needs, promoted students’ problem-solving skills and encouraged students’ independent learning. In practice, Fareed’s approach was student-centred. He adopted challenge-based learning as a method, combined with a collaborative learning approach to problem-solving to
214 encourage students to “construct their own knowledge and justify their opinion”. Fareed considered himself to be highly competent with regard to the use of technological tools and applications. He reported using them to help students' exploration, interaction, collaboration, engagement, and implementation. However, the main criterion that differentiated this teacher from the rest was that he articulated his use of technology and was able to justify his choices. He explained why he did or did not use technological tools based on pedagogical reasoning because “You cannot use traditional methods in teaching the 21st century student”. Moreover, he encouraged students’ interaction with technology using classroom computers, YouTube, blogs, mobile devices, and IWB. There was consistency between his reported and observed lessons regarding the types and uses of technology used, which involved applications such as relevant online academic websites and learning apps on mobile devices to develop students’ knowledge about a particular topic or task or during a phase of learning. YouTube videos and multimedia PowerPoint presentations were used to enhance student understanding of a topic. E-textbooks and PowerPoint slides were used to introduce topics to students in a group. The teacher also indicated that the school principal’s positive attitude toward technology encouraged the integration of technology into his lessons.
Another parameter that differentiated this group from the rest was the low impact of external factors such as a lack of technical support on decisions to use technology. Fareed acknowledged that sometimes he faced technical problems and his school did not have a full-time technician to help him, but he noted that these difficulties did not discourage him from using technology in his teaching. With regard to school textbook regulations, he mentioned that he did not perceive any restrictions as he always tried to find time to integrate a variety of learning activities, including technology, as long as they supported student-centred practices and his lessons. Finally, although he did not receive any encouragement from educational supervisors who sometimes visited the school, this did not affect his decision to use the technology.
With the help of activity theory (AT), tensions were identified between subject-rules of Group A’s activity system. These were related to the teacher’s willingness to epistemologically and pedagogically exploit full technology integration in his practices despite the lack of pedagogical professional development in the use of
215 technology and the lack of an ICT policy. Although Fareed claimed he was trying as much as possible to integrate technology in his lessons, he felt that the current development of curriculum could go further by including the pedagogical use of technology in teaching and learning activities in addition to the development of electronic content that would guide him in using technology more effectively. The tensions were not detrimental to his teaching practice because the teacher himself explored possibilities of technology use in supporting student learning.
Group B: Mixed - primarily student-centred
Group B was composed of two teachers, Naseer (whose narrative was included in Subsection 7.2.2) and Saleh, who taught Grades 10 and 12 respectively. These teachers were of about the same age and shared similar relativistic epistemic beliefs that knowledge is considered uncertain and self-constructed. For them, learning occurs in a context of social interaction, which leads to understanding. In terms of pedagogical beliefs, they indicated support for the existing curricular beliefs that technology promotes higher-order thinking and increases students’ achievement of curriculum objectives and motivation to learn. Naseer considered himself to be moderately competent in technology use, while Saleh rated himself as highly competent. Both Naseer and Saleh reported using technology to help students explore and collaborate and to prepare their lessons and enhance students’ understanding. Moreover, they justified their choices, which were directly related to lesson objectives. They believed in the effectiveness of using student groups and encouraged students before each lesson to explore the lesson concepts and design their own learning in PowerPoint. Then students emailed their work to the teacher. Thus, the teacher could then guide them to explain any issue that required clarification before they presented their own work to the whole classroom. As in Group A, a positive attitude towards technology from the school principal encouraged teachers to integrate technology into their lessons.
This group was differentiated from the other three because their practices combined both constructivist and traditional aspects and were primarily student- centred. These teachers encouraged their students to use computers and other available resources to collaboratively explore the lesson’s key concepts before the class. They also encouraged their students to use IWB to present their group work and discuss it with the other groups. However, their practices included some activities that
216 were teacher-dominated. For example, the teachers used PowerPoint presentations to provide further explanation on some points that were not fully understood. Their observed practice was consistent, to a great extent, within their reported practices, which included prepared group work on PowerPoint presentations using shapes on the IWB, such as a circle for visualisation, and enhanced explanations of their work. Their practice also included teacher-prepared presentations to further explain unclear points. Student interaction with technology inside the class was observed significantly less than in Group A. The teachers here were trying to encourage students to voluntarily use IWB to present their prepared group work but appeared not to be able to aid students in this process. They both shared the belief that students were more competent than they were in using technology.
The impact of the contextual factors was higher in this group than in Group A. The teachers expressed their complaints about insufficient classroom ICT resources and the lack of technical support. They voiced their need for more classroom technologies and a full-time technician to be assigned to the school. The insufficient classroom technologies prevented their students from constructing their knowledge immediately in the class rather than using outside classroom technology. As opposed to Group A, this was a reason admitted by both teachers for using other resources from outside the classroom to support student learning, as there were no computers for students to use in the classroom. The lack of technical support left them fearful that “something might disrupt their students’ learning and their teaching”.
Following the application of the AT model, the stronger tension within the activity system of Group B was perhaps the one identified between subject-rule. Despite the teachers’ beliefs in students as being central to the learning process, school culture, insufficient classroom ICT resources, the overloaded syllabus, and a lack of a school ICT policy placed pressure on the teachers and limited their professional instruction, leading to the combination of constructivist and traditional approaches. As in Group A, these tensions were not particularly strong, as both teachers overcame the insufficient classroom technologies by using other technology resources in the school.
217 Group C: Mixed - primarily teacher-centred
Group C was the largest group in the sample. It demonstrated the highest heterogeneity and although characterised by shared epistemic and pedagogical beliefs, significant inconsistencies were noted between these teachers’ beliefs and practices and between their reported and observed practices. This group was composed of Amaad (Grade 10), Mazin (Grade 10), Faaz (Grade 11), Gamal (Grade 12), Samir (Grade 11) and Ayman (Grade 10). Each member of the group indicated a multiplistic epistemic belief that knowledge is comprised of personal opinions and objective facts, as well as allowing for the existence of different viewpoints. For this group, learning occurs in a context of comparing information. In terms of pedagogical beliefs, they indicated a ‘supplements the required curriculum’ pedagogical belief, that using technology helps teachers provide students with supplementary materials. They shared beliefs that using technology as supplementary tools to existing pedagogy helps teachers manage lesson activities.
Despite the variety of responses from these teachers, they all agreed on the potential of technology use in encouraging students’ cooperative and independent learning, but these activities were not really embraced in their classroom teaching. There were clear inconsistencies in terms of the frequency, types of use, and level of student interaction between reported and observed practices. Observations indicated that these teachers overstated the level of technology use in their teaching, and it often seemed that they reported what they thought they should be doing rather than what they were actually doing in the classroom. As opposed to Group B, their practices combined both traditional and constructivist aspects but were primarily teacher- centred. They encouraged their students to use their own laptops and complete some tasks using technology, but such activities were limited and under the teacher's control through the use of time software. The teachers dominated the majority of the classroom activities using IWB and PowerPoint presentations and searching online for relevant information.
In addition, the contextual factors seemed to have a significant impact on this group, who defended their primarily teacher-centred technology practices by drawing on a lack of time and an overloaded syllabus. For them, the lack of professional development provided by the MOE was annoying and discouraged them from building their awareness and pedagogical knowledge of technology use. Finally, as
218 opposed to Group A and Group B, the teachers in Group C believed they were extremely limited by the lack of time, an overloaded syllabus, and a lack of classroom technologies. They used these issues to justify their primarily teacher-centred technology practices.
Numerous tensions were identified in Group C. The strongest one was identified between the subject-division of labour, and despite the teachers’ attempts to encourage student interaction with technology, they seemed unwilling to devote the necessary effort and time to this, instead assigning responsibility to the MOE to provide them with professional development and instruction on the students' use of technology.
Group D: Teacher-centred
This group was composed of Maen, Aatif and Amro (whose narrative was reviewed in Section 7.2.4), teachers of Grades 10, 11 and 12, respectively. These three teachers shared the same dualistic epistemic belief that knowledge is considered certain in the textbook's content. They also shared dualistic epistemic beliefs in the teacher's authority. For them, also, learning was simple and obtained through memorisation and knowledge recall. In terms of their pedagogical beliefs, they indicated a focus on the development of computer and rudimentary skills and noted that using technology helped them store and share information and improve presentation efficiency. They perceived technology only as a presentation tool for their teaching. They also shared negative beliefs that using further online technology resources threatened their knowledge, authority, and control. They considered themselves to have low competence in the use of technological tools and applications and reported a simple and personal use of technology (limited to PowerPoint, email, and Internet browsing). Their observed technology practice reflected their self- reported teacher-centred approach, though these observations called into question the quality of their teaching. They used IWB with prepared PowerPoint presentations in a lecture approach, where the teacher was the knowledge-giver and the students were passive recipients. In terms of student interaction with technology, they did not give their students any opportunity to use technology in the classroom.
Addressing the impact of contextual factors on their decision to integrate technology, teachers in Group D expressed distrust of online resources. Moreover, as
219 opposed to Group A and Group B, and similar to Group C, the teachers here felt extremely limited by the lack of time to integrate more technologies. Insufficient classroom technologies were not issues for them. However, in their post-interviews, they noted a lack of time as an excuse for their limited use of technology.
The tensions with Group A’s activity system were identified. The strongest tension was, perhaps, the one characterising the relationship between subject-object. Due to their dualistic epistemic beliefs in certain knowledge of the textbook and their belief in teacher authority, they did not seem amenable to using technology in ways that could support student-centred learning.
7.3 Chapter Summary
This chapter presented the qualitative findings of the teachers’ multi-case study. Section 7.1 presented the findings of the within-case analysis of four case narratives that were selected because these teachers reflected varied responses in their beliefs and practices with regard to technology use in the classroom. The cases were differentiated in terms of epistemic and pedagogical beliefs and practices with technology, as well as technical competency. Moreover, the impact of contextual factors relating to policy, curriculum, the school and MOE support for technology integration were also analysed and were found to vary among the cases.
Section 7.2 further explored the differences between the teachers’ responses by presenting the findings of the cross-case analysis of the four case narratives and including data from the other eight teachers to support the findings. The synthesis showed that the teachers’ beliefs were related to their teaching practice to a great degree and indicated a correlation between types of practice (exclusively student- centred, primarily student-centred, primarily teacher-centred, and exclusively teacher- centred), epistemic beliefs (commitment to relativism, relativistic, multiplistic, and dualistic) and pedagogical beliefs (new way of learning, supporting existing curriculum, supplement the required curriculum and developing computer and rudimentary skills).
However, inconsistencies were identified between some teachers' reported beliefs/practices and their observed teaching practices. These inconsistencies were explained by the impact of contextual factors, which were identified within teachers’ activity systems. One teacher in Group A and two in Group B were able to integrate
220 technology. Their pedagogical decisions supporting student learning and distinguishing themselves from the rest of teachers, despite being confronted by the same issues, indicated the impact of teacher-related factors on their choices and practices.
The discussion and conclusions in the following chapter provide an overarching view of the study’s findings and explain relevant recommendations for improved teaching practice and implications for change.
221 Chapter 8: Discussion and Conclusion
The previous chapters have presented in detail how this study explored principals’ and teachers’ beliefs and practices in the context of technology integration in education, with reference to Saudi principals and Arabic-language teachers in secondary schools. This chapter outlines the main findings and discusses the study conclusion, framed in terms of the research questions and the literature review; it then discusses the implications for change and recommendations for practice. The chapter concludes with the limitations of the study and future research opportunities.
8.1 Conclusions from the Main Findings
In recent years the integration of technology in support of curriculum subjects has been of central interest in educational reform in Saudi Arabia’s Ministry of Education. Principals and teachers are responsible for actually implementing the educational technology in the teaching and learning process. A need to explore the professional responses to such an initiative has emerged; as such, this study has employed a mixed-method approach to analyse the data in order to answer the following research questions:
1. What are principals’ and teachers’ beliefs about technology use in teaching and learning? 2. What are teachers’ perceived and actual practices with technology? 3. Do principals’ and teachers’ beliefs relate to teachers’ practices with technology use, and if so, how and to what degree? 4. What other factors affect principals’ and teachers’ beliefs and practices with technology?
The study sample of 67 principals and 82 Arabic-language teachers in the quantitative section and 12 principals in the qualitative section and 12 Arabic-language teachers in the multi-case study was based on Saudi state secondary schools that use technological infrastructure and equipment. The significance of the study being conducted in these particular schools is highlighted by the Ministry’s plan to expand the infrastructure to the remainder of the country’s schools within the next few years.
This chapter offers concluding remarks on the main quantitative and qualitative findings by revisiting the research questions and connecting the results to
222 the relevant literature. It also includes distinctions that are made in terms of contextual factors between teacher/classroom-related, principal/school-related, and ministry/system-related factors.
The integrated findings, derived from both quantitative and qualitative data, are divided into five main parts. The first part (Section 8.1.1) focuses on principals’ beliefs; it mainly refers to the four groups that emerged from the qualitative data, based on their beliefs about technology use, their beliefs about teachers’ practices with technology, and the relationship between principals’ beliefs about technology use and their beliefs about teachers’ technology practices. The second part (Section 8.1.2) and third part (Section 8.1.3) focus on teachers. They mainly refer to the four groups that emerged from the qualitative data cross-case analysis based on their beliefs about technology use, practices with technology, levels of consistency between beliefs and practices, and levels of consistency between reported and observed practices. It should be remembered, however, that each group is not distinguished on the basis of a unique response that is completely different from those of the rest; because several beliefs and types of practice were identified across the whole teacher sample, the participants were classified according to their most strongly and clearly indicated beliefs and practices. The fourth part (Section 8.1.4) focuses on the relationship between beliefs and practices with technology, including the relationship between teachers’ beliefs and practices with technology and the relationship between principals’ beliefs and teachers’ beliefs and practices with technology. The fifth part (Section 8.1.5) focuses on the impact of external factors on beliefs and practices with technology.
8.1.1 Principals’ Beliefs about Technology Use
To answer the first sub-question of Research Question 1, principals’ beliefs about technology use were explored in terms of their pedagogical beliefs about technology use and their beliefs about what classroom practices teachers should undertake in their use of technology.
Pedagogical beliefs about technology use
A quantitative analysis of the principals’ questionnaires regarding their beliefs about technology use revealed that the overall beliefs of Saudi secondary school principals are positive and largely similar to those reported in the literature (Ghamrawi, 2013;
223 Plomp & Pelgrum, 1991). Principals strongly believe that using technology in teaching and learning promotes students’ learning, both inside and outside of the classroom, as echoed elsewhere (Huffaker, 2003). This implies that the participating principals were aware that Internet tools and other ICT resources that are available to students as part of the learning resources in school or at home could promote student learning in both places. They also strongly believe that using technology in teaching and learning improves students’ research skills, which is in accordance with the literature (Hopson, Simms, & Knezek, 2002; Kirschner & Erkens, 2006). This suggests that Saudi secondary school principals are aware that the use of technology applications could allow students to access a wider range of resources and to practise research skills, including analysing, interpreting, and evaluating others’ work. The quantitative analysis of the principals’ questionnaires revealed that the least agreed- upon aspect of principals’ beliefs about technology use was that using technology in teaching and learning maintains students’ high expectations. This finding suggests that some Saudi secondary school principals remain doubtful about the effectiveness of using technology in student learning. In reference to the literature (Rogers, 2003), these principals seem to fall within the ‘laggards’ group of individuals who are resistant to change, who remain attached to the past, and who are doubtful of the impact of technology.
The quantitative results were supported by the findings of the qualitative interviews. All but two of the principals reported positivity and enthusiasm about teaching with technology; most of them felt ‘lucky and grateful’ to manage a school equipped with advanced technology. Although they all acknowledged many pedagogical values and beliefs regarding teaching with technology, the differences were found in the types of their beliefs. Principals’ pedagogical beliefs about technology use are summarised in Figure 8.1.
Group A Group B Group C Group D 2 principals 5 principals 3 principals 2 principals
New way Supporting Supplement the Developing computer of learning existing required and rudimentary skills curriculum curriculum Figure 8.1. Principals’ pedagogical beliefs about technology use The pedagogical beliefs of groups A, B, and C were positive and largely
224 related to the pedagogical use of technology in both teaching and learning. Two principals classified as Group A, emphasised the change that could occur in teachers’ pedagogy from a traditional to a constructivist approach. They believed that teaching with technology enables students’ cooperative and independent learning, and they believed that teaching with technology could help students to ‘be independent learners’ throughout the learning process and increase collaboration and knowledge co-construction among students. In reviewing the literature on the typology of pedagogical beliefs about technology use, the pedagogical beliefs reported by Group A principals correspond with the ideas of Ertmer et al. (2012) regarding the ‘new way of learning’ type of pedagogical beliefs. These principals realise how the tools can contribute to the establishment of new learning environments where teachers’ use of technology creates new kind of pedagogies.
The five principals who comprised Group B highlighted that teaching with technology could enhance students’ understanding. They believed that teachers could benefit from technology use by enhancing students’ understanding of lesson content and concepts. They believed that classroom comprehension is enhanced when teaching and student learning are supported by digital multi-material texts. They believed that teaching with technology could encourage teachers to incorporate lesson explanations through images, sound, and video, which in general could enhance students’ understanding of lesson concepts, especially for those students who could not understand lesson concepts through teachers’ verbal explanations. The pedagogical beliefs reported by Group B principals tended to correspond to the ‘supporting existing curriculum’ type of pedagogical beliefs identified by Ertmer et al. (2012), where the principal realises that tools can augment classroom comprehension of different aspects of the curriculum.
Three other principals, classified as Group C, believed that teaching with technology could help teachers to disseminate further information to students. They indicated that teaching with technology helps teachers disseminate and convey lesson- related knowledge to students through email, websites, and social networks (e.g. Twitter and Facebook) or IWB in the classroom. Their pedagogical beliefs seemed to correspond with Ertmer’s (2005, 2006, 2012) first type of pedagogical beliefs ‘supplement the required curriculum’’– that teaching with technology could provide access to a large data set to supplement the required curriculum. Their pedagogical
225 beliefs resembled the first type of pedagogical beliefs described in Tondeur, Van Braak, and Valcke’s (2007) ‘computer as an information tool’.
The final two principals of the qualitative sample, classified as Group D, were distinguished from the rest, as they were the only two to report no change in pedagogical values regarding teaching with technology; they focussed instead on the administrative functions of technology. They believed that with technology, teachers could save time and effort using a word processing programme to write questions for exams, using a spreadsheet to report students’ results, or using an official electronic system to record students’ results. Their pedagogical beliefs also resembled the ‘functional’ type of pedagogical beliefs described by Prestridge (2012). Their pedagogical beliefs also resembled the ‘convenient’ type of pedagogical beliefs described by Mama and Hennessy (2013), where pedagogical beliefs only focus on the convenient administrative facilities of using technology, rather than on student learning.
Beliefs about teachers’ practices with technology
The quantitative analysis of the principals’ questionnaires indicated there was no appreciable difference among the principals’ beliefs about teachers’ practices with technology, as the principals generally endorsed all of the practices in the questionnaire. This indicates that they strongly believed that teachers should integrate and employ all types of technology in classroom teaching and learning pedagogies. This result provides evidence to support concerns in the literature about measuring beliefs and practices with technology through self-reported data. The current study agrees with the argument in the literature that the dichotomous distinction of beliefs and practices is too complicated to gauge self-reported data alone (Levin & Wadmany, 2006). Similarly to other studies (Nespor, 1987; Pajares, 1992; Palak & Walls, 2009), the current study found that principals’ beliefs about teachers’ practices are difficult to strictly categorise as being ‘student-centred’ or ‘teacher-centred’ with self-reported data alone. A closer examination of the strongest mean scores, however, indicated that principals strongly believed that teachers should use technology as a ‘communication tool’, as a ‘knowledge reinforcement tool’, and as an ‘information presentation tool’ and to enable cooperative learning.
According to the literature of pedagogical practices with technology (Ertmer
226 et al., 2012; Palak & Walls, 2009), the first three stronger beliefs support teacher- centred practices. The frequency of the three stronger teacher-centred beliefs suggests that Saudi secondary school principals are more likely to prefer teacher-centred practices with technology; this idea was supported by the results of the qualitative analysis of the interview data (see Chapter 5). The qualitative results suggest that the majority of principals (ten out of twelve) preferred teacher-centred practices or a combination of both student-centred and teacher-centred as in Group B. Although they seemed to prefer teacher-centred practices, the differences were found in the types of practices underlying their preferences. Principals’ beliefs about teachers’ practices with technology are summarised in Figure 8.2.
Group A Group B Group C Group D 2 principals 5 principals 3 principals 2 principals
Student- Mixed-primarily Mixed-primarily Teacher- centred student-centred teacher-centred centred Figure 8.2. Principals’ beliefs about teachers’ practices with technology The results of the qualitative analysis indicated that only the two principals classified as Group A believed that technology in the classroom should be in the hands of students rather than teachers, and that it should promote interaction and collaboration among students. These two principals had high expectations for the positive impact that technology use could have on student cooperative learning and group interaction, which corroborates other evidence from the literature (Cole, 2009). Their beliefs seem to constitute ‘student-centred’ pedagogical practices, where students have an active role in classroom teaching and where technology enables activities to be conducted that support students’ cooperative learning (Ertmer, 2005, 2006, 2012).
The five principals in Group B believed that in their classroom practices, teachers should use technology for multimedia presentations to incorporate multimedia representations (audio-visual, video, and text) into their teaching. They also shared the belief that even by using technology for multimedia presentations, teachers should provide students with opportunities to discuss and explore new and difficult concepts, rather than simply provide explanations for these concepts. Their beliefs about classroom practices with technology seem to be ‘primarily student- centred’ pedagogical practices, where classroom teaching combines both
227 constructivist and traditional constructivist activities, but is mostly student-centred.
The three principals of Group C were distinguished from the rest, as they believed that teachers should primarily use technology outside the classroom to present information to inform students about upcoming lessons and course-related information. The beliefs of the principals in this group support the quantitative analysis of the principals’ questionnaires, where using technology as information presentation tools was one of the stronger preferred practices to be reported by the principals. Their beliefs about classroom practices with technology seem to be primarily teacher-centred practices, where the use of technology and most of the classroom activities are dominated by the teacher. Their beliefs about teachers’ practices resembled Ainley, Banks, and Fleming’s (2002) first type of pedagogical practices, where technology is used as an ‘information resource tool’.
The principals in Group D believed in a teacher-centred approach to teaching, but they were distinguished from the others in the qualitative sample as to their pedagogical beliefs. Although they acknowledged that some administrative facilities of technology could save teachers effort and time, they believed that there is no need for teachers to use technology in classroom teaching and learning. They appear to have developed the conception that technology has nothing to offer to the pedagogy of a competent teacher. They believed that teachers’ use of technology in the classroom would distract students’ attention away from their lessons. Their beliefs about teachers’ practices with technology correspond with Mama and Hennessy’s (2013) ‘subversive’ stage of pedagogical practices, where participants believe it is unnecessary to use technology in classroom teaching, and believe that technology could threaten teachers’ authority.
Relationship between principals’ beliefs about technology use and their beliefs about teachers’ practices with technology
The quantitative results of the principals’ questionnaires indicated significant relationships between principals’ pedagogical beliefs about technology use and their beliefs about teachers’ practices with technology. These results are consistent with the results of a number of studies (Chai, 2010; Chai et al., 2013), where pedagogical practices with technology tend to be associated with pedagogical beliefs. The quantitative results indicated a moderate relationship between principals’ belief that
228 using technology accommodates students’ personal learning preferences and their belief that teachers should use technology to enable the sharing of knowledge among students, as was also acknowledged by Hijzen, Boekaerts, and Vedder (2007).
The quantitative results also indicated a moderate relationship between principals’ belief that using technology accommodates students’ personal learning preferences and their belief that teachers should use technology as a knowledge reinforcement tool. This result implies that some Saudi secondary school principals are likely to continue believing in teacher authority, and that teachers are more knowledgeable and know what is best for students. A study by Ertmer (2005) indicated that using technology as a knowledge reinforcement tool normally promotes drill and practice activities and repetitious practices, rather than meeting students’ personal preferences. This study also found a significant moderate correlation between the principals’ belief that using technology promotes student-centred teaching approaches and their belief that teachers should use technology to enable student cooperative learning, which is in accordance with the work of Heirdsfield et al. (2011).
This study also found significant, moderate correlations between the principals’ belief that the use of technology improves students’ research skills and their belief that teachers should use technology to enable student problem solving, both as an information presentation tool and as a communication tool. This could be because using technology in a way that enables problem solving, facilitates communication between students, and provides information resources that could facilitate students’ practices regarding research skills, as echoed by the work of Laus, Ivanitskaya, and Casey (2004).
Furthermore, the study also found a significant, moderate correlation between the principals’ belief that technology use improves students’ learning achievements and their belief that teachers should use technology to enable knowledge sharing among students and as a communication tool. This is in agreement with findings from other studies (Altun, 2015) that have argued that classroom activities that facilitate communication and knowledge sharing improve students’ learning achievements.
The study also found a significant, moderate correlation between the principals’ belief that technology use helps teachers to organise student learning and
229 their belief that teachers should use technology as a knowledge reinforcement tool. This could be because using technology as a knowledge reinforcement tool might engage students in step-by-step drill and practice learning activities, as acknowledged by Dunleavy, Dexter, and Heinecke (2007).
The quantitative results are supported by the results of the qualitative analysis of the interview data, which indicated a relationship between principals’ pedagogical beliefs about technology and their beliefs about teachers’ practices with technology. Their beliefs about teachers’ practices with technology generally matched their pedagogical beliefs about technology use. This study identified four types of principals’ beliefs to characterise the four groups discussed above. Table 8.1 (below) summarises the elements that constitute each group, and addresses the correspondence among the principals’ pedagogical beliefs, their beliefs about teachers’ practices with technology, and their beliefs about teachers’ technological skills.
230 Table 8.1 Typology of principals’ beliefs about technology use
Pedagogical beliefs about Beliefs about Beliefs about teachers’ practices technology use teachers’ with technology Group technological skills New way of learning that: Complex tools Student-centred:
Enables students’ cooperative Technology should be in the
learning hands of students rather than
Increases collaboration and teachers A:
principals knowledge co-construction Classroom practices should
2 2 among students promote interaction and collaboration among students Support existing curriculum Complex tools Mixed-primarily student-centred.
to enhance students’ Teachers should:
understanding Use technology for
multimedia presentations B: B: Give students opportunities to 5 principals explore new and difficult concepts by themselves
Supplement the required Basic tools Mixed-primarily teacher-centred.
curriculum: Technology should be used
Disseminating information outside the classroom to present C: Conveying information to information and to inform 3 principals students students about upcoming lessons.
Developing computer and Basic tools Teacher-centred. Technology:
rudimentary skills; technology Is unnecessary
has administrative value for Distracts students from their D: saving teachers time and effort lessons
2 principals Administrative function
231
Group A described a change in pedagogy, and a new kind of pedagogy that could emerge from teaching with technology that could enable students to learn independently and cooperatively. This belief aligned such pedagogical beliefs with their student-centred beliefs about teachers’ practices, in that teachers’ classroom use of technology should promote self- learning, interaction, and collaboration among students, in accordance with other evidence in the literature that link the ‘new ways of learning’ type of pedagogical beliefs to student- centred practices with technology (Ertmer et al., 2012). This situation suggests that these school principals have new pedagogical beliefs: they are aware of how technology can change students’ ways of learning, and they would encourage student-centred practices with technology. Their beliefs about teachers’ technological skills are related to a high level of skills and knowledge about complex tools (such as design subject–related software, simulation programmes, and design software to connect students to information databases and to facilitate communication between students and experts); these beliefs were aligned with their pedagogical beliefs and their student-centred beliefs about teachers’ practices. This is similar to the results of Chai’s study (2010), which reported a significant relationship between ICT competences and pedagogical beliefs. The current study, however, explored this relationship with secondary school principals’ beliefs, and extended it to involve both pedagogical beliefs and beliefs about teachers’ classroom practices with technology.
The Group A principals were very supportive of technology use in school, and they used different strategies to support technology use. They used professional development based on the teachers’ need to support the use of technology, which has been acknowledged in the literature (Pellegrino, 2007; Prestridge & Tondeur, 2015) as an effective support that is required to change technology use in teaching and learning. These principals also used a strategy of sharing technological knowledge to support teachers’ use of technology, which, according to Lin, Lin, and Huang’s study (2008), would help transfer knowledge within the school community. The Group A principals also supported technology use by having technical support and developing friendly relationships with teachers, which could facilitate immediate assistance in the teachers’ use of technology.
The schools in Group A also seemed to have adequate technological resources, which has been described in the literature (Ertmer et al., 2012; Liu, 2011) as being the most influential factor to affect teachers’ use of technology in the classroom. The Group A
232
principals also seemed to benefit from their classroom evaluations of teachers’ use of technology to guide technology use in student learning and to improve teachers’ technological skills; Yee (2000) described these characteristics as being important for school principals to have throughout the process of integrating technology into teaching and learning at school.
The Group B principals had mixed, primarily student-centred beliefs. They seemed to be impressed with the power of multimedia technology, which for them translated to teachers’ appropriate use of technology in classroom teaching. Their existing curriculum and pedagogical beliefs were aligned with their primarily student-centred beliefs about teachers’ practices. They believed that using technology—especially multimedia technology—could enhance students’ understanding of curriculum concepts, as acknowledged by Osman and Lee (2014). Group B’s pedagogical beliefs were aligned with their beliefs about teachers’ classroom practices with technology and their beliefs about teachers’ technological skills, which were focussed on complex tools for using multimedia technologies, including video creation, audio, text, and images; these characteristics are similar to what Markauskaite (2007) described as the ‘cognitive capabilities’ type of technical competencies, which facilitate the knowledge that is obtained from various media. The Group B principals’ support for technology use was aligned with their beliefs, as they supported technology use by establishing the school’s own multimedia resources.
Principals from Group C had mixed, primarily teacher-centred beliefs that technology should be used to inform students about lessons, to provide further information to students outside of school, and to present further information in the classroom, which were in alignment with their ‘supplement the required curriculum’ pedagogical beliefs that teaching with technology could help teachers disseminate further information to students as supplementary materials and to reinforce lesson content, in accordance with other evidence in the literature that has linked such beliefs with teacher-centred practices (Hu & McGrath, 2011) where teachers determine which supplementary information will be provided to students. The Group C principals’ beliefs about teachers’ technological skills were related to basic tools; they believed that teachers should use word processing programmes, spreadsheets, presentation programmes, email, web searching, IWBs, and data projectors in their teaching. Principals in Group C supported technology by encouraging teachers to use
233
available ICT resources; they were in the ‘management’ phase of the adoption process, as described in the literature (Fullan, 2014; Leithwood, 1994), where school principals are not particularly creative in their support of technology use. They focus only on the resources that are available, rather than creating new systems that would advance teachers’ use of technology in a way that would support student learning.
The Group D principals did not express any concerns about teachers’ use of technology in the teaching and learning process, since they believed it was unnecessary for teachers to use technology in the classroom. Although they believed in developing computer and rudimentary skills-related pedagogical beliefs (with a focus on administrative activities), they did not see the need for teachers to use technology in the classroom. They believed that technology use in the classroom would distract students’ attention from their lessons. Their beliefs about teachers’ practices with technology resembled those found elsewhere in the education world, where schools do not feel the need to change to use technology and they perceive technology as a threat (Mumtaz, 2000). This situation suggests that principals who hold pedagogical beliefs that are only focussed on the administrative functions of technology would not see any importance in teachers using technology in their classroom practices.
In terms of their beliefs about teachers’ technological skills, the Group D principals believed that teachers should use word processing programmes, spreadsheets, and the MOE’s official website to record students’ results, which Lee et al. (2008) identify as being basic tools. The Group D principals’ support for technology use was also aligned with their beliefs about teachers’ practices, as they acknowledged that they were unwilling to support technology use unless they were to receive support from the MOE. This suggests that principals who only focus on administration are likely to be unsupportive of technology use, as acknowledged by McGarr and Kearney (2009), in that effective pedagogical leadership is impossible when the school principal is unfamiliar with (or unaware of) the potential values and methods of using technology in the teaching and learning process.
8.1.2 Teachers’ Beliefs about Technology Use
With respect to the second sub-question of Research Question 1, the Saudi secondary school teachers who participated in the current study held positive beliefs about technology use. The results of the statistical analysis of the teachers’ beliefs and practices questionnaire data from the quantitative phase (see Chapter 5) indicated that teachers’ overall belief about technology
234
use is positive, at a high mean score of 4.23, which is consistent with the findings of a number of studies (Albirini, 2006; Ertmer et al., 2012; Mama & Hennessy, 2013). The quantitative results indicated that teachers strongly believe that using technology in teaching and learning improves students’ research skills, which is consistent with the results of a survey study conducted by Oyaid (2009), which found that 94 percent of Saudi teachers reported strong agreement with this statement. This suggests that Saudi secondary school teachers are aware that the use of technology could facilitate students’ access to a variety of resources, and could develop their practical research skills. The quantitative results of the current study also indicated that teachers strongly believe that using technology in teaching and learning promotes students’ learning, both inside and outside the classroom, which aligns with Bebell, Russell, and O’Dwyer’s (2004) findings.
The quantitative results of the current study were supported and expanded by the results of the teachers’ qualitative analysis multi-case study data (see Chapter 6). As presented in that chapter, teachers’ beliefs about technology use were deeply tied up with their epistemic beliefs about technology use for knowledge and student learning, and their pedagogical beliefs about technology use in teaching.
Epistemic beliefs about technology use
Teachers’ epistemic beliefs about the nature of knowledge and learning with technology differed substantially. They had a range of epistemic beliefs, spanning from dualistic to committed relativism, which is similar to what previous studies have reported (Azevedo, Torney-Purta, & Greene, 2008; Brownlee, 2001; Lee et al., 2013), where teachers express a range of epistemic beliefs that categorise them from the ‘dualist’ to ‘relativist’ stages. The current study, however, indicated that most Arabic-language secondary teachers in Saudi Arabia were more likely to be in the multiplistic and dualistic stages, which is inconsistent with the findings of a number of studies (Brownlee, 2004; Chai, 2010; Deng, Chai, Tsai, & Lee, 2014; Schraw & Olafson, 2003), where most teachers have been found to be in the relativist stage.
These findings imply that most of the Saudi Arabic-language secondary school teachers in this study were aware of the possibilities of multiple views, but that they still believed that most knowledge is certain and is held by authorities such as teachers and textbooks. The Saudi Arabic-language secondary teachers’ epistemic beliefs about
235
technology use are summarised in Figure 8, along with the aliases that were used for representative teachers from each group.
Group A Group B Group C Group D 1 teacher 2 teachers 6 teachers 3 teachers (‘Fareed’) (‘Naseer’) (‘Amaad’) (‘Amro’)
Committed relativism Relativistic Multiplistic Dualistic Figure 8.3. Teachers’ epistemic beliefs about technology use One of the teachers classified as Group A (epitomised in Fareed’s case narrative) emphasised the importance of self-constructed and evidenced knowledge, where students are active constructors of knowledge and are able to make judgments and commitments; thus, for him, learning occurs in the way that knowledge is accumulated, and is justified by evidence. This outlook corresponds with committed relativism epistemic beliefs (Perry, 1968; Schommer, 1990), where teachers view knowledge as being uncertain, self-constructed, and based on accumulated evidence. Fareed’s epistemic beliefs also resembled the ‘evaluativist’ stage of epistemic beliefs, described by Bendixen and Feucht (2010); such people see knowledge as being constructed by the self, and they assess knowledge claims based on evidence.
Two other teachers, classified as Group B (epitomised in Naseer’s case narrative), saw knowledge as evolutionary and self-constructed in nature: learning occurs in the context of social interactions that lead to understanding, which corresponds with relativistic epistemic beliefs (Perry, 1968; Schommer, 1990); such people are characterised by the belief that knowledge is tentative and contextual in nature, and it is self-generated. It appears that few Saudi Arabic-language secondary school teachers have highly developed epistemic beliefs.
Six teachers, comprising Group C (epitomised in Amaad’s case narrative), indicated multiplistic epistemic beliefs, in which knowledge is comprised of personal opinions and ultimate facts, while at the same time allowing for the existence of different viewpoints. For these people, learning occurs in a context of comparisons between information. In their epistemic beliefs, while they do acknowledge the possibilities of multiple views, they still believe that most knowledge is certain (Perry, 1968; Schommer, 1990). The final three teachers of the qualitative sample who were classified as Group D (epitomised in Amro’s
236
case narrative) shared epistemic beliefs that knowledge is certain, both in the form of textbook content and beliefs in teacher authority. For this group, learning is simple and is obtained via memorisation and recalling knowledge; this corresponds with dualistic epistemic beliefs (Perry, 1968; Schommer, 1990), where knowledge is seen as being either true or false, and it is mainly obtained from authorities such as teachers or textbooks.
Pedagogical beliefs about technology use
In broad terms, teachers’ beliefs about teaching with technology were generally positive, which was consistent with their beliefs in the questionnaire. The teachers’ pedagogical beliefs spanned from developing computer and rudimentary skills to finding new ways of learning pedagogical beliefs, which is similar to the findings of other studies (Ertmer et al., 2012; Tondeur et al., 2007). These studies found that teachers’ pedagogical beliefs span from viewing technology as a tool for knowledge transmission, to viewing it as a tool that facilitates students’ learning. In the current study, the majority of teachers tended to hold pedagogical beliefs in supplement the required curriculum and of developing computer and rudimentary skills. The teachers’ pedagogical beliefs with technology use are summarised in Figure 8.4.
Group A Group B Group C Group D 1 teacher 2 teachers 6 teachers 3 teachers (‘Fareed’) (‘Naseer’) (‘Amaad’) (‘Amro’)
New ways of Support the Supplement the Developing computer learning existing required curriculum rudimentary skills curriculum Figure 8.4. Teachers’ pedagogical beliefs about technology use The teacher in Group A seemed to have the ‘new way of learning’ type of pedagogical beliefs. Fareed believed that teaching with technology changed his teaching methods to student-centred teaching approaches, which enabled students’ problem-solving skills and encouraged students’ independent learning; this corroborates other evidence (Heirdsfield et al., 2011; Smeets, 2005). He also believed teaching with technology addresses students’ different needs, which is consistent with previous studies (Judson, 2006; Ottenbreit- Leftwich et al., 2010) that have found that using technology enables teachers to meet students’ needs.
237
Teachers in Group B seemed to have ‘support the existing curriculum’ pedagogical beliefs that focus on technology as promoting high-order thinking, which is consistent with Jonassen’s (2003) study that using technology as a ‘mindtool’ to visualise and represent problems or that lesson concepts enable students to achieve higher levels of thinking. The Group B teachers also shared the beliefs echoed in other studies (Hennessy & Mama, 2010; Ruthven, Hennessy, & Deaney, 2005) that technology increases students’ achievement of curriculum objectives and their motivation to learn. This implies that there are not many Saudi Arabic-language secondary school teachers with highly developed pedagogical beliefs.
In terms of pedagogical beliefs, Group C seemed to have ‘supplement the required curriculum’ pedagogical beliefs. They believed that using technology supports their lessons by using complementary materials, similarly to what has been reported in other studies (Thomas & Milligan, 2004): that technology allows teachers to use other materials and resources that can help teachers explain further specific knowledge that is addressed in the required curriculum. Teachers in Group C also shared the belief that using technology as a supplementary tool to existing pedagogy, helps manage lesson activities. They also shared the belief that teaching with technology could encourage students’ collaborative and independent learning, as reflected in other studies (Kershner & Warwick, 2008; Smeets, 2005). Their explanation was rather superficial, however, since they said that collaborative student learning simply occurred when students sat together in groups using desktop computers, while students’ independent learning occurred when students searched online and found relevant information.
The pedagogical beliefs of the three teachers from Group D, on the other hand, involved developing computer and rudimentary skills; technology helped them store and share information, and improved their presentation efficiency. They perceived technology only as a presentation tool to help their teaching; they also shared negative beliefs that using further online technological resources threatens their knowledge, authority and control.
8.1.3 Teachers’ Classroom Practices with Technology
To answer research Question 2, the results of this study indicate that the Saudi secondary school teachers who participated in this study did not implement technology within their classroom practices very effectively. Although the results of the statistical analysis of the teachers’ reported practices in the questionnaire data from the quantitative phase indicated
238
that the overall mean score of the total reported practices with technology was 3.573 (at a moderate level), closer examination of the high-level practices reported by the teachers was that they often used technology as an information presentation tool. These types of practices support teacher-centred practice, and mainly focus on technology to deliver information to students. This finding is consistent with those of previous studies that have been conducted in different cities in Saudi Arabia (Al Harbi, 2014; Almaghlouth, 2008; Oyaid, 2009). For example, the results of Al Harbi’s (2014) study (which was conducted recently in Al- Madinah City to explore Saudi high school teachers’ ICT implementation in the classroom) concluded that Saudi teachers have a low level of ICT implementation. Furthermore, the finding in the current study is supported by a number of international studies that have indicated that many teachers still use technology in ways that support their teacher-centred practices, such as presenting information (Palak & Walls, 2009; Wozney et al., 2006). The majority of studies in the literature document using technology to present information to students as the dominant classroom use of technology.
In terms of technological skills, the quantitative analysis showed that the overall mean score of the total technological skills scale was 3.37 (with a standard deviation of 1.128). This was an average score, indicating that Saudi Arabic-language secondary school teachers in the Jeddah administrative area had a moderate level of technological skills. The teachers reported high levels of knowledge and skills in using simple technologies, including web searching, email and social networking. This finding was confirmed by the qualitative multi- case study analysis, which indicated that the majority of teachers consider themselves to be competent with using simple technologies, including word processing, presentation software (e.g. PowerPoint), multimedia authoring (e.g. Flash), email, web searching and IWB. In classrooms, the majority of teachers also use IWB with traditional PowerPoint, web-based searching and time management programme software. This finding is consistent with Oyaid’s (2009) study, which found that most Saudi teachers use PowerPoint presentation software.
The results from the quantitative phase indicate that changes to student-centred approaches in teachers’ practice did not occur; even though the teachers who participated in the current study had access to technology in their schools, they reported a moderate level of both classroom practices and technological skills. The qualitative multi-case study’s results suggest that teachers’ technological skills levels ranged from low through moderate and
239
moderate-high to very high competency. Teachers’ technological skills are summarised in Figure 8.5.
Group A Group B Group C Group D 1 teacher 2 teachers 6 teachers 3 teachers (‘Fareed’) (‘Naseer’) (‘Amaad’) (‘Amro’)
High High–moderate Low–moderate Low Figure 8.5. Teachers’ technological skills A teacher in Group A, when responding to the questionnaire, considered himself to be ‘highly’ competent with technology usage. Technology usage in this teacher’s class was mostly limited to visiting online academic websites, learning apps on mobile devices, YouTube videos and multimedia power presentations for demonstrating students’ understanding of a topic. The Group B teachers’ reports on technological skills, on the other hand, ranged from ‘moderate’ to ‘high’ competency. In the questionnaire, they reported ‘moderate’ and ‘high’ technology use; in their classrooms, they encouraged students to present group work through multimedia presentations (text, images, audio, tables, and website links), IWB, and the teachers’ PCs.
Teachers in Group C reported that their technological skills ranged from a ‘low’ to a ‘moderate’ level. The questionnaire and pre-lesson interviews indicated that they considered themselves to be ‘low’ and ‘moderate’ with technology overall. They only considered themselves to be competent with using simple technologies that included word processing, presentation software (e.g. PowerPoint), multimedia authoring (e.g. Flash), email and web searching. In their classrooms, they mostly used simple technologies, including IWB with traditional PowerPoint for presenting information, web-based searching, and time management programme software to manage classroom activities. Their students normally used their own laptops for searching for relevant information. The teachers acknowledged that because they were unable to design multimedia PowerPoint presentations, they tended to obtain help from their colleagues.
Similarly, teachers in Group D also considered themselves to be in the ‘low’ competency category in terms of technological tools and applications. Although they reported simple uses of technology in the classroom, teachers in Group D did report personal use of technology (PowerPoint, email and Internet browsing). They mostly used IWB with
240
traditional PowerPoint for presenting information in their classrooms.
In terms of professional practice with technology, the mismatch identified between the sample’s reports and the classroom observations called for a separation between reported and observed practices. The level of consistency (or inconsistency) was different among the four groups. Groups A, B, and D showed consistency between their practice and their reports. As such, student use of technologies—such as classroom computers for exploration, and group collaboration or PowerPoint on the IWB for presenting student groups’ own understanding of a topic—were some of the examples that were both reported and observed in Group A. The exploitation of technology in a pedagogical way to support students’ exploration, interaction, collaboration, engagement and implementation defined Group A’s practice as being student-centred. Their pedagogical practices resembled Donnelly et al.’s (2011) ‘creative adapter’ fourth stage of pedagogical practices with technology, where teachers have a strong focus on student-centred pedagogies.
Group B was consistent when referring to students’ use of technologies in resource learning rooms to help students’ exploration, collaboration, and students’ lesson preparation. The teachers were consistent regarding the students’ use of technology in the classroom: student-prepared presentations, forums, web-based social networking, and images on the IWB. In addition, the teachers’ use of technology in the classroom (self-prepared presentations on the IWB) was consistent with their report that they normally invited students to explore the lesson concepts before the lesson began; they organised students into groups (e.g. by using PowerPoint) so that further discussion could take place among students from another group. The students would then send their own work to the teacher before the lesson started; teachers could thus identify and elaborate on any misunderstood points. The teachers mostly gave students the opportunity to use technology to construct their own understanding, although their practice also included allowing the use of technology for further explanation; this characterises their practice as being primarily student-centred.
Group C showed inconsistency, because in their reports they exaggerated both in terms of frequency, types of uses, and levels of integration. They reported the use of technology such as YouTube videos and academic websites to encourage students’ cooperative and independent learning. Their practices combined both traditional and constructivist aspects. The teachers encouraged their students to use technology (such as
241
laptops) to complete certain tasks, but such activities were limited and under teacher control through their use of time management software. The teachers also dominated the majority of classroom activities, using technology such as PowerPoint presentations and relevant websites on the IWB to present information to students; they used time management software to control students’ activities. The teachers’ exploitation of technology in a way that supported their practice and controlled students’ practices defined their practice as being primarily teacher-centred.
Group D showed consistency between teachers’ practice and their reports. The teachers used the IWB with prepared PowerPoint presentations to present information to students. Their practices resembled Beauchamp’s (2004) ‘Apprentice user’ first stage of pedagogical practices with technology, where teachers start exploring new software applications such as PowerPoint. The role that Group D assigned to technology was to support the lecture approach and repetitive learning, where the teacher is the knowledge giver and the students are passive receivers. The students had no opportunities to use technology. This was expected, as the teachers acknowledged that they did not trust in the student use of online technology, which characterises their practice as being teacher-centred.
The four groups of teachers’ practice with technology are summarised in Figure 8.6.
Group A Group B Group C Group D 1 teacher 2 teachers 6 teachers 3 teachers (‘Fareed’) (‘Naseer’) (‘Amaad’) (‘Amro’)
Student- Mixed-primarily Mixed-primarily Teacher- centred student-centred teacher-centred centred Figure 8.6. Teachers’ classroom practice with technology
8.1.4 Relationship between Beliefs and Practices with Technology
To answer Research Question 3, the relationship between beliefs and practices with technology was explored in terms of the relationship between teachers’ beliefs and practices with technology, as well as the relationship between principals’ beliefs and teachers’ beliefs and practices with technology.
242
Relationship between teachers’ beliefs and practices with technology
The quantitative questionnaire results of the correlational analysis revealed a significant correlation between Saudi secondary school teachers’ beliefs and their reported practices with technology (p < 0.05), which is consistent with a number of studies for other regions of the world (Ertmer et al., 2012; Pajares, 1992; Prestridge, 2012; Tondeur et al., 2008). The analysis indicated a moderately strong, significant relationship between the teachers’ beliefs (teaching with technology accommodates students’ personal learning preferences) and their perceived practices (using technology in the classroom as a communication tool), which is in accordance with the findings of Ottenbreit-Leftwich et al. (2010). This finding implies that teachers who have the pedagogical belief that teaching with technology accommodates students’ personal learning preferences will tend to use technology to communicate with students and to facilitate communication among students.
The analysis also indicated a moderate, significant relationship between teachers’ beliefs (technology accommodates students’ personal learning preferences) and their practices in the classroom (technology use enables student self-assessment). One possible explanation for this result is that using technology to support self-assessment would provide students with the opportunity to reflect on information they had obtained using different tools and methods to meet their goals (Juniu, 2006). This result confirms the importance of examining the use of educational technology in student assessment, and the likelihood that it will meet students’ learning preferences and needs.
The analysis also indicated a moderate, significant relationship between teachers’ beliefs (technology accommodates students’ personal learning preferences) and their practices in the classroom (technology is used to enable students’ independent learning). This finding agrees with earlier research (Dewhurst, Macleod, & Norris, 2000) on the impact of independent student learning aided by technology; the authors found that students were able to organise their own learning effectively.
The present analysis also indicated a moderate significant relationship between teachers’ beliefs (technology promotes students’ learning, both inside and outside the classroom) and their reported classroom practices in the classroom (technology is used as a communication tool). This finding is also supported by the results of previous studies (Al- shehri, 2012; Ciekanski & Chanier, 2008) that have found that using technology as a
243
communication tool facilitates connections between classroom activities and the surrounding environment, which will support student learning. This result could also suggest that communication tools allow students to think, read, and respond better (and more quickly) than in traditional classrooms.
The analysis further indicated a moderate, significant relationship between teachers’ pedagogical beliefs (technology promotes students’ learning, both inside and outside the classroom) and their classroom use of technology (technology enables student cooperative learning), which is consistent with previous studies (Cole, 2009; Lipponen, 2002). As stated in these previous studies, technology can support peer interaction and student cooperative group work in classroom learning, and it can provide students with rich opportunities to extend their learning activities beyond the classroom.
The analysis indicated a moderate, significant relationship between teachers’ beliefs (technology promotes students’ learning, both inside and outside the classroom) and their practice (technology is used for multimedia presentations). This result is supported by the findings of previous studies (Brenton et al., 2007; Kekkonen–Moneta & Moneta, 2002), which indicate the positive impact of using multimedia technology on student classroom learning, as well as multimedia technology’s capability of promoting student learning outside the classroom or at home, using online multimedia.
The analysis indicated a moderate, significant relationship between teachers’ beliefs (technology promotes students’ learning, both inside and outside the classroom) and their practice (technology is used as information presentation tools). This type of practice, however, supports a teacher-centred outlook, which focusses on presenting lesson content rather than on improving and supporting student learning. This result is consistent with a number of studies (Fang, 1996; Keys, 2005; Mama & Hennessy, 2013) that have found inconsistency between teachers’ beliefs and their practices; these studies attribute this situation to the contextual factors that interfere with teachers’ abilities to apply their beliefs in practice. It would appear that some of the Saudi secondary teachers in the current study still did not recognise effective practices with technology that could improve and support student learning.
The analysis indicated a moderate, significant relationship between teachers’ beliefs (technology promotes students’ learning, both inside and outside the classroom) and their
244
practice of using technology (technology enables students’ independent learning), which is consistent with Palak and Walls’s (2009) study; they found that participants reported using technology to enable independent learning to be among the most effective ways to support student learning, as the students could learn independently in classroom groups and they could learn independently, at their own place.
Furthermore, the analysis indicated a moderate, significant correlation between the teachers’ beliefs (teaching with technology promotes student-centred teaching approaches) and their perceived practices (technology was used in the classroom to enable student self- assessment). This result is supported by the findings of Dahl and Smimou (2012); they found a relationship between student-centred teaching approaches and the use of student self- assessment. Teaching with technology also enables the use of a range of teaching styles that can promote student learning, develop students’ evaluation skills, and engage them in peer- and self-assessment activities.
The analysis indicated a significant, moderate correlation between teachers’ pedagogical beliefs (teaching with technology maintains students’ high expectations) and their perceived practices (technology is used in the classroom as a communication tool and to enable students’ independent learning). This suggests that teachers who have the pedagogical belief that teaching with technology maintains students’ high expectations will use technology to facilitate communication between students and to encourage them to learn independently.
In addition, the study found a significant, moderate correlation between teachers’ beliefs (teaching with technology use is more effective than non-technology-based classroom teaching and learning) and their perceived practices (technology is used in the classroom as communication and research tools, for multimedia presentations, to enable student problem- solving learning, and as a knowledge reinforcement tool). This finding suggests that teachers in the current study were aware of the effectiveness of using technology to support their previous classroom practices.
The analysis indicated a significant, moderate correlation between teachers’ beliefs that teaching with technology improves students’ learning achievements and their perceived classroom practices with technology, including using technology as a communication tool to enable student self-assessment. This result is supported by Lei and Zhao’s longitudinal study
245
(2007), which found that technology usage had a positive impact on students’ achievement.
Lastly, the quantitative analysis indicated a significant, moderate correlation between teachers’ belief that technology use helps teachers organise student learning and their perceived practices (in which they used technology as a communication tool), which is supported by Wishart (2008), who found that using communication technologies can help teachers organise student learning by using features such as calendars, notes, and to-do-lists. In the current study, using technology to organise student learning seemed to be teacher- centred and for administrative use. The effective use of technology promotes a constructivist learning environment where students learn through purposeful learning activities and have an active role, rather than being directed by the teacher.
The relationship between teachers’ beliefs and practices with technology also emerged from synthesising the qualitative findings about the teachers’ beliefs and practices. Table 8.2 summarises the elements that constitute this relationship, drawn from the qualitative analysis; it depicts a framework that addresses their correspondence. The whole range of data was exploited. It should be noted that the following table might have been different if the pre-lesson data alone had been considered, based on the teachers’ overstated reports (both in the questionnaires and in the pre-interview) and their tendency to match their statements with what they believed ‘should be used’. Generally, the typology of the teachers’ beliefs and practices that was developed in the current study does not conflict with other literature review findings and frameworks on the levels and types of technology uses that currently exist.
246
Table 8.2 Typology of teachers’ beliefs and classroom practices with technology
Techno- Group logical Epistemic beliefs about technology use Pedagogical beliefs about technology use Classroom practices with technology skills Committed relativism: New way of learning: Student-centred:
Knowledge is self-constructed and Enabling different student-centred teaching Adapted method included: based on evidence approaches Cooperative learning High Learning occurs in the way that Promoting students’ problem-solving skills Problem-solving learning
knowledge is accumulated and Encouraging students’ independent learning (‘Fareed’) A: A: 1 teacher justified Addressing students’ different needs
Relativism: Support existing curriculum: Mixed-primarily student-centred: Knowledge is evolving and self- Promoting student higher-order thinking Cooperative group project learning High– Mod- constructed Increasing students’ learning and achievement Teachers’ limited talk, using
B: 2 B: erate
teachers Learning occurs in the context of of curriculum objectives presentation software (‘Naseer’) social interaction Increasing students’ motivation to learn
Multiplistic: Supplement the required curriculum: Mixed-primarily teacher-centred:
Knowledge is comprised of personal Reported teaching benefits included Perceived practices that using technology opinions and objective facts encouraging students’ independent and to enable students’ independent learning Allow for the existence of different cooperative learning and cooperative learning Low–Mod- viewpoints Inconsistency with observed practice Inconsistency with their observed practice, erate Learning occurs in a context of using technology as supplementary tool to where classroom practices involved: comparing between information existing pedagogy helped managed lesson Teachers using presentation software activities and provided supplementary and searching for information
information. Limited student group activities, C:6 C:6 teachers (‘Amaad’) controlled by time software Dualistic: Developing computer and rudimentary skills: Teacher-centred:
Knowledge is certain, and in the Storage and sharing of information Use of presentation software textbook Improved presentation efficiency Repetitive learning Low Teacher’s authority asserted Searching online distracts students’ attention Lecture approach
(‘Amro’) Sample learning occurs through D: D: 2 teachers memorisation
247
As indicated in the previous subsection, four types or levels of technology use in the classroom were identified to characterise the four groups; they were defined on the bases of the links between their beliefs and practices with technology. Group A (one teacher; Fareed) explained, presented, and confirmed his student-centred practice regarding technology use, thus maintaining consistency with his beliefs. He extended his epistemic and pedagogical beliefs to his practice. He appeared to perceive knowledge as being personally constructed and evidenced, and believed that learning occurs in the way in which knowledge is accumulated and justified, as suggested by the frameworks for relativistic epistemic beliefs (Perry, 1968).
Teacher in Group A, who engaged in student-centred practice, tried to adapt his own teaching methods, which combined cooperative learning and problem-solving learning. This aligned such student-centred strategies with his pedagogical beliefs about teaching with technology, and the ways in which technology could help enable different student-centred teaching approaches, address students’ different needs, promote students’ problem-solving skills, and encourage students’ independent learning; this agrees with other evidence that has related constructivist beliefs and technology use (Gilakjani, Leong, & Ismail, 2013). Reviewing the discussion on the levels of technology use, the pedagogical beliefs and practice with technology that Group A demonstrated tended to correspond with Ertmer et al.’s (2012) ‘new way of learning’ pedagogical beliefs at the student-centred level, where the teacher realises how the tools can contribute to the establishment of new learning environments, thus encouraging teachers to use a new kind of pedagogy.
Group B primarily indicated student-centred practice; their classroom practices combined students’ cooperative learning activities and teachers’ limited explanation. These teachers’ use of technology resembled that of Ainley et al.’s (2002) ‘knowledge construction’ tool. They perceived knowledge as evolving and self-constructed, as suggested by the frameworks for relativistic epistemic beliefs (Perry, 1968); learning occurs in a context of social interaction, which leads to understanding. The Group B teachers’ epistemic beliefs about technology were aligned with their pedagogical beliefs, which were likely to support the existing curriculum. For them, technology promotes students’ higher-order thinking, which increases students’ learning, their achievement of curriculum objectives, and their motivation to learn. The levels of technology use and the pedagogical beliefs and practice
248
with technology that Group A demonstrated tends to correspond with the Ertmer et al.’s (2012) framework, in which such teachers support existing curricula, and their pedagogical beliefs are primarily at the student-centred level. For these teachers, technology use is linked to lesson goals, and it provides students with the ability to demonstrate their learning. It also gives teachers the opportunity to realise their students’ needs and to provide them with further explanation when necessary.
The Group C teachers’ pedagogical beliefs seemed to fit with the ‘optimists’ group that Mumtaz (2000) identified. Although the teachers believed that teaching with technology encouraged students’ cooperative and independent learning, and they reported their use of cooperative learning with technology, their observed practices and post-lesson reports demonstrated inconsistency with their pre-lesson beliefs and reported practices. They perceived knowledge to be comprised of personal opinions and objective facts, and they allowed for the existence of different viewpoints. For these teachers, learning occurs in the context of comparing between different information sources, as suggested by the framework for multiplistic epistemic beliefs (Perry, 1968). They supported teaching practice, and remained at what Ertmer et al. (2012) described as the ‘primarily teacher-centred’ level. Their use of technology in teaching only benefitted them in supplementing required curriculum, providing students with complementary information. The technology used by the students, meanwhile, was often ‘limited’ and ‘teacher-controlled’.
Group D presented consistencies between their beliefs and practices; their use was informed by transmissive and unchanged pedagogy that technology should be used as a presentation tool to support traditional teaching, including lecture approach and repetitive learning, which corresponds to what Ertmer et al. (2012) described as a ‘teacher-centred’ level of practice. In their epistemic beliefs, the teachers believed in knowledge that is certain and focussed on textbook knowledge; they believed in the teacher’s knowledge authority, and learning through memorisation, which refers to what Perry (1968) called ‘dualistic belief’ and what Schommer (1990) called ‘sample learning’.
In their pedagogical beliefs, the Group D teachers focussed on the convenient facilities and functions that technological tools offered them; in addressing the benefit of teaching with technology for students, they emphasised the storage and sharing of information and improved presentation efficiency, which corresponds to what Ertmer et al.
249
(2012) called ‘developing computer and rudimentary skills’ and what Tondeur et al. (2007) called ‘basic computers skills’. These teachers also perceived using online technology as a threat to their authority; they felt that it undermined their relationship with their students and distracted students’ attention from their lessons; in the literature, this puts them in the ‘laggards’ group of teachers who are resistant to change (Rogers, 2003). They felt that online technology did not have any impact on student learning; their beliefs resembled those found in the literature, where teachers fear that students’ full access to online teaching sources might undermine their role as the knowledge authority (Mumtaz, 2000).
Relationship between principals’ beliefs and teachers’ beliefs and practices with technology
The quantitative results indicated a relationship between principals’ beliefs and teachers’ beliefs about technology use: both principals and teachers were positive about technology use in teaching and learning, and strongly believed that using technology improves students’ research skills and promotes student learning, both inside and outside the classroom. This result was confirmed by using independent sample t-tests, which indicated that there were not statistically significant differences between the principals’ and teachers’ beliefs about technology use (t [147] = 1.492; p = 0.138; p > 0.05). This result is similar to what has been found in the literature: that principals and teachers from schools that use technology maintain a more positive attitude towards the impact of technology use in education (Plomp & Pelgrum, 1991).
In terms of classroom practice, the quantitative results indicated that principals and teachers generally focussed on the same type of practices with technology. The principals’ three strongest statements of beliefs about teachers’ practices with technology and the teachers’ highest reported classroom practices were more likely related to teacher-centred practices. The principals strongly believed that ‘teachers should use technology as a communication tool’, as a ‘knowledge reinforcement tool’, and as an ‘information presentation tool’, the latter of which was the highest reported practice of the teachers. Both the principals’ stronger beliefs about the teachers’ practices with technology and the teachers’ highest reported practices were more likely related to teacher-centred practices. This finding suggests that teachers will likely not use technology in ways that support student-centred practices, and that principals will not encourage the student-centred classroom use of
250
technology simply by equipping schools with technology. These findings corroborate the results from previous studies, which have found that teachers’ use of technology in schools with unique technological infrastructure does not automatically transform their teaching into student-centred practice (Judson, 2006; Windschitl & Sahl, 2002).
In terms of the level and frequency of classroom technology use, however, principals’ beliefs about teachers’ practices and teachers’ reported practices were quite different. The principals’ beliefs in the current study were always stronger than the teachers’ reported practices. Overall, the principals strongly believed that teachers should integrate and employ technology in classroom teaching; their learning pedagogies were at the ‘strongly agree’ level (M = 4.52, SD = 0.39); the teachers’ overall reported practices with technology, meanwhile, were at a moderate level (M = 3.57, SD = 0.79). Furthermore, differences were evident upon examining the level between the principals’ beliefs and the teachers’ reported practices for each statement. For example, the principals strongly believed that teachers should use technology as a communication tool (M = 4.64, SD = 0.483), while teachers reported a moderate level of practice regarding this statement (M = 3.46, SD = 1.167).
In addition, the principals strongly believed that teachers should use technology in the classroom to enable student self-assessment (M = 4.54, SD = 0.559), while this statement was the lowest among the teachers’ reported practices (M = 3.17, SD = 1.195). This result was also confirmed by using independent sample t-tests, which indicated significant differences between the level and frequency of the principals’ beliefs about the teachers’ practices with technology and the teachers’ beliefs about technology use in terms of level and frequency of practices (t [147] = 8.990; p = 0.000; p < 0.05). This result could be attributed to the contextual factors that interfered with teachers in implementing their school principals’ expectations.
This subsection has discussed the relationship between principals’ beliefs and teachers’ beliefs and practice, as emerged from synthesising the findings on principals’ beliefs and teachers’ beliefs and practices. Table 8.3 summarises the elements that constitute this relationship. The overall beliefs expressed by the principals were similar to the teachers’ beliefs and practices. Both the principals and the teachers felt positively about technology use in both teaching and learning. Similarly to what is found in the literature, the principals from schools that use technology maintained a more positive attitude towards the impact of
251
technology use in education than those from schools that do not use such technology(Plomp & Voogt, 2009).
252
Table 8.3. A model-differentiated typology of principals’ beliefs and teachers’ beliefs and practices with technology.
Principals’ beliefs about Principals’ pedagogical Teachers’ pedagogical beliefs about Group teachers’ practices with Teachers’ practices with technology beliefs about technology use technology use technology New way of learning: Student-centred: New way of learning: Student-centred:
Enables students’ Technology should be in the Enables different student-centred Adapted methods include:
cooperative and independent hands of students rather than teaching approaches Cooperative learning learning teachers Promotes students’ problem-solving Problem-solving learning Increases collaboration Classroom practices should skills
among students promote interaction and Encourages students’ independent 2 principals A: A: 1 teacher; collaboration among students learning Addresses students’ different needs Support existing curriculum; Mixed-primarily student- Support existing curriculum: Mixed-primarily student-centred:
Enhance students’ centred: Promoting student higher-order Cooperative group project learning
understanding Teachers should use thinking Teachers’ limited talk using presentation technology for multimedia Increasing students’ learning and software presentations achievement of curriculum
Teachers should give students objectives 5 principals B: 2 B: teachers; opportunities to explore new Increasing students’ motivation to studies by themselves learn Supplement the required Mixed-primarily teacher- Supplement the required curriculum: Mixed-primarily teacher-centred: curriculum: centred: Reported teaching benefits include Perceived practices that using technology to
Technology should be used enable students’ independent learning and Disseminating information encouraging students’ independent Conveying information to outside the classroom to present and cooperative learning; cooperative learning is inconsistent with their students information and to inform inconsistency with observed observed practice, where classroom practices students about upcoming lessons practice; they only benefitted from involved:
using technology as supplementary Teachers using presentation software 3 principals C: 6 C: teachers; tool to existing pedagogy to Teachers searching for information manage lesson activities and provide Limited student group activities, controlled supplementary information. by time-management software
Developing computer and Teacher-centred: technology is Developing computer and rudimentary Teacher-centred:
rudimentary skills/ unnecessary, it distracts skills: Use of presentation software administrative values; save students’ attention, and for Storing and sharing information Repetitive learning teachers time and effort administrative function Improving presentation efficiency Lecture approach
2 principals Searching online distracts students’ D: D: 2 teachers; attention
253
The pedagogical beliefs of the principals in Group A were similar to the teachers’ pedagogical beliefs in Group A: both had a ‘new way of learning’ type of pedagogical belief. The principals in Group A believed that teaching with technology could enable students’ independence, which was quite consistent with teachers’ pedagogical beliefs in Group A, where teachers believed that teaching with technology encouraged students’ independent learning. In addition, the Group A principals’ beliefs about teachers’ practices with technology—that teachers should facilitate student use of technology and promote interaction and collaboration between students—were similar to the teachers’ practices in groups A and B, where the teachers’ observed practices included students’ use of technology with a cooperative learning approach.
The pedagogical beliefs of the principals in Group B were similar to the pedagogical beliefs of the teachers in Group B: both indicated support for existing curriculum beliefs. The principals believed that teaching with technology enhances students’ understanding of lesson content, which was similar to the shared pedagogical beliefs of the teachers in Group B: technology promotes students’ higher-order thinking. In addition, the primarily student- centred beliefs of the Group B principals about the teachers’ practices with technology were also similar to primarily student-centred classroom practices of teachers. The principals in Group B shared the belief that teachers in classrooms should use technology for multimedia presentations, but at the same time they should encourage students themselves to discuss and explore new and difficult concepts; this outlook is similar to the teachers’ classroom practices in Group B, where teachers only used PowerPoint presentations on the IWB to provide further explanation for lesson objectives that were difficult for students to comprehend.
In addition, the ‘supplement the required curriculum’ pedagogical beliefs of the Group C principals were also similar to the same pedagogical beliefs of the teachers in Group C. The Group C principals believed that teaching with technology could help teachers to disseminate further information, which was similar to the pedagogical beliefs of the teachers in Group C: that technology use helps them to provide students with supplementary materials. Using technology as a supplementary tool to existing pedagogy also helped them manage lesson activities. In addition, the Group C principals’ primarily teacher-centred beliefs about teachers’ practices were similar to the primarily student-centred classroom practices of the teachers in Groups C and D. The Group C principals believed that teachers
254
should use technology to present information and to inform students about upcoming lessons, which is similar to the teachers’ classroom practices in Groups C and D, where the teachers’ classroom practices in the two groups involved using the IWB as a tool with presentation software to present information to students.
The Group D principals who had the ‘developing computer and rudimentary skills’ type of pedagogical beliefs—that technology facilitates administrative tasks for the teacher’s own benefit, and that using technology will save teachers both time and effort—were aligned with the teachers’ pedagogical beliefs in Group D, that using technology helps teachers store and share information and improves their presentation efficiency. Furthermore, the Group D principals’ beliefs about teachers’ practices with technology—that teachers should not use it, because it will distract students’ attention—were similar to the pedagogical beliefs of the teachers in Group D: that searching online would distract students’ attention. This suggests that principals’ beliefs about teachers’ practices could also affect teachers’ pedagogical beliefs about technology use. In addition, the Group D principals’ teacher-centred beliefs about teachers’ practices with technology—that using technology in the classroom is unnecessary and will distract students’ attention—seemed to be similar to the Group D teachers’ classroom practices, where the teachers used technology to present information via the repetitive learning and lecture approach, which typically allows teachers to dominate classroom activities and does not allow students to use or interact with technology (Liu, 2011).
The qualitative results of this study identified inconsistencies, however, in terms of the frequency and level of beliefs. Over half of the principals (seven principals) tended to have ‘student-centred’ and ‘primarily student-centred’ beliefs, while only three teachers tended to have ‘student-centred’ practice. Furthermore, five principals (nearly half) held ‘support existing curriculum’ pedagogical beliefs and ‘primarily student-centred’ beliefs: that teachers should use multimedia technology to enhance students’ understanding of lesson content, while half of the teachers (six of twelve) seemed to engage in a ‘supplement the required curriculum’ belief and ‘teacher-centred’ practice. This result supports the quantitative results that indicate quite a difference between principals’ beliefs and teachers’ beliefs and practices, in terms of level and frequency of technology use in the classroom.
255
8.1.5 Factors that Influence Technology Beliefs and Practices
The relationship between beliefs and practices with technology (as it emerged from the data analysis) suggests the necessity of a more thorough examination of the factors that are involved. As discussed at the beginning of this thesis, the last research question was proposed to investigate the factors that influence beliefs and practices with technology. The factors that were identified seem to be associated not only with school environment, where teachers are directly involved, but also included the broader structure of the educational system. Thus, the factors act at three levels, in accordance with ecological perspectives (Davis, 2010): the teacher/classroom micro-level, the school/principal meso-level, and the ministry/system macro-level. As indicated in the methodology chapter, Engeström’s expansion of the activity theory (AT) model (Engeström, 2001) was used in the current study as an analytical lens to facilitate this examination.
The application of the model revealed a number of primary and secondary tensions (Figure 8.7) concerning the factors mentioned above in most of the cases. Distinction is also made here between any tensions that were expressed by the teachers themselves, and other tensions that were beyond the teachers’ perspective; these may have been either identified by the study’s further interpretation or reported by school principals.
256
Figure 8.7. Tensions in principals’ and teachers’ activity systems Factors at the teacher/classroom level
Technical competency
With reference to AT, a problem was within-subject and influenced teachers’ use of technology. Limited technical competency was a factor that negatively influenced some teachers’ use of technology, as happened with Group C. They were still learning to harness technology; their use was not sophisticated, and they considered themselves to have low- moderate competence. They struggled to provide specific examples of advanced technological tools that teachers could use in teaching and learning. Teachers in Groups A and B, on the other hand, who reported high competence with technology use, were able to provide examples of the technological tools that they might use in the classroom. For instance, they mentioned that teachers could use a collaborative learning strategy using
257
students’ laptops, iPads, smartphones, and the school’s Blackboard (the online platform). Students could search online, listen to audios, watch YouTube videos, communicate through social networks, and read and write texts; they could also explore and investigate, using videos and PowerPoints to create the own learning, all of which would support their collaborative learning. This finding concurs with other study findings (Albirini, 2006; Hermans et al., 2008), that teachers’ ICT competencies influence their decision to integrate technology into their teaching.
Pedagogical knowledge
Another problem was within-subject. This is in accordance with other study findings (Rodrigues, Steel, & Marks, 2003), that technology integration in the classroom requires teachers’ understanding of concepts, as well as teaching and learning strategies. In this study, a few teachers seemed to have limited pedagogical knowledge and a vague understanding of pedagogical concepts such as ‘cooperative learning’ and ‘students’ independent learning’. Teachers in Group C, for instance, either struggled to provide specific examples of teachers’ classroom practices using technology, or they provided inappropriate examples of these approaches in the classroom. This finding also confirms Chen’s (2008) study, which found a poor understanding of constructivist technology integration will result in teacher-centred classroom practices.
Technology access
Limited ICT accessibility was another factor that negatively influenced some teachers’ use of technology, such as that of the teachers in Groups C and D. All of the participating teachers in the qualitative sample mentioned that ICT resources were the most important element in the teachers’ effective use of technology in both teaching and learning. In addition, the participating principals in the qualitative sample acknowledged that the ICT availability in their schools were lacking in students’ classroom technology, as most of their classrooms were equipped with IWB and teachers’ PCs, and only a few classes were equipped with students’ computers. A primary tension related to this finding was identified between the subject-tools, in terms of the impact of limited ICT accessibility on students’ use of technology. This finding concurs with the discussion of constructivist teachers’ use of technology, where a lack of technology in the classroom is one of several possible constraints (Lim & Chai, 2008).
258
In conclusion, it appears that factors other than the availability of ICT resources affected teachers’ use of technology in this study. Despite the number of ICT resources available inside or outside the schools’ classrooms, the beliefs of the teachers and principals in Group D focussed on administrative work; the beliefs of the teachers in Group C focussed on providing students with supplementary information, and were ‘mixed-primarily teacher- centred’ or ‘teacher-centred’.
Perception of responsibilities
Another significant tension appeared to exist between subject-division of labour. Teachers in Groups C and D did not seem to want to devote more effort and time to their teacher-centred practices. They believed that it was the MOE’s responsibility to instruct them in how to use technology in a way that would support student-centred practice. In contrast, teachers in Groups A and B devoted effort to supporting student-centred teaching, even if their schools did have full-time technicians and sufficient ICT resources. The perception of responsibilities was also noted in the report of the principals’ qualitative analysis, mostly from Group A. Principals in this group took the initiative to support technology use by establishing IT departments in their schools.
Factors at the principal/school level
Technology problems and technical support
All of the teachers highlighted the need for ongoing technical support and requested to have a full-time technician assigned there for this purpose. They had to depend substantially on themselves for their teaching with technology, and indicated that their schools lacked technical support services. Schools either did not have a technician or had only one technician who was available when teachers had technical problems. A primary tension related to this finding was identified between subject-community. The absence of technical support services and insufficient technical support appeared to prevent some principals (especially in Group D) from encouraging teachers’ use of technology in teaching and learning. It appeared to waste and disrupt lesson time and activities for some teachers, especially in the cases of Groups C and D, where teachers had low ICT competency. Even when some schools were equipped with ICT resources, the unavailability and insufficiency of technicians made some teachers avoid fully integrating technology into their teaching. This
259
agrees with the findings of Younie (2006): that technical issues significantly affect teachers’ use of technology.
Principals’ attitude towards technology
A positive attitude from school principals towards technology seemed to positively influence teachers’ intention and actual use of technology. A tension related to this finding was identified between subject-community. All of the participating teachers shared positive statements about their current school principals, and they highlighted the benefits of positive reinforcement in the use of technology. ‘Amro’, however (one of the Group D teachers), who held a negative attitude of his previous school principal, still perceived technology as being unsuitable for teaching and student learning. The interview data analysis of principals from non-participating teachers’ schools also confirmed this claim. Principals in Groups A, B, and C appeared to hold a positive attitude towards technology, while principals from Group D were not concerned about technology use and acknowledged that technology was optional for teachers to use, since they were mostly focussed on covering the syllabus and fulfilling examination requirements, either with or without the use of technology. For teachers in Group D, since their epistemic beliefs about knowledge and learning were central, these beliefs were the main reason for their traditional teaching with technology, as is echoed elsewhere in the literature (Chai, 2010; Deng et al., 2014). An “objective” secondary tension can be identified between object-community, with teachers’ choices with technology not meeting the expectation of some school principals. Deeb was a school principal in Group B. He preferred primarily student-centred practice. He reported that in his school there were still some teachers resistant to the integration of technology into the classroom in a way that support student learning.
Technological pedagogical knowledge
Another problem appeared to exist within-subject. The principals in Groups C and D, who held teacher-centred beliefs about teachers’ technology practices, lacked pedagogical technological knowledge. Both ‘Naif’ and ‘Saeed’ struggled to provide specific examples of technological tools that teachers could use in their classroom teaching with technology, although the researcher tried to help them by mentioning a few examples. This result is supported by McGarr and Kearney’s (2009) study, which found that the lack of familiarity of ways in which technology could be integrated into curriculum and classroom teaching
260
affected principals’ ideas about technology. Conversely, the principals in Groups A and B, who held advanced beliefs about technology use—including supporting existing curriculum pedagogical beliefs, having primarily student-centred beliefs about pedagogical practice, and focussing on the knowledge and skills required for the use of complex tools—were able to provide examples of the technological tools that teachers might use in the classroom. This suggests that principals who have technological pedagogical knowledge would be able to encourage student-centred practices.
School culture
School culture appeared to positively influence the teachers’ application of technology. Two interrelated secondary tensions can be identified in relation to this between subject- community and within community. As noted, some teachers (especially in Groups B and D) were influenced by those teachers who were already using technology. They reported trying to follow the steps of these technology-practising teachers; the principals also provided a supportive environment and a positive relationship among school staff, thus encouraging collaboration between colleagues in technology use. The behaviour of the practising teachers confirms the arguments raised in the literature (Hu, 2007): that school culture might influence teachers’ use of technology. In this study, however, school culture seemed to have allowed for the development of a convenient way of teaching, with no strong tensions being identified for most of the teachers. The aforementioned Group D teacher, ‘Amro’, mentioned that his current school environment was more supportive than his previous school, but that had not changed his beliefs and practices with technology.
Factors at the Ministry/system level
ICT school policy
As already indicated in the qualitative data, the teachers’ use of technology and the principals’ beliefs about the teachers’ use of technology were more likely teacher-centred, using technology for presentation purposes or as an ‘information tool’ (Tondeur et al., 2007). The absence of ICT policy was another factor to influence beliefs and practices with technology. None of the schools had an established policy to guide classroom instruction with technology use. This appeared to created misconceptions, especially with the teachers and principals in Group D; the teachers perceived technology as a threat, and held a rather
261
negative attitude towards it, while the principals perceived technology as tools merely for facilitating administrative work, rather than for supporting teaching and learning processes. Teachers from Group C felt that they might go further in their use of technology if they had a proper ICT policy to guide their use of it.
Professional development
Almost all of the participating teachers found that their ICT training programmes were isolated from any aspect of pedagogy or use of technology in the classroom. A primary tension related to this finding was identified between subject-rules. The Ministry of Education provided a few training courses, as the majority of teachers complained of the lack of professional development programmes for use of technology conducted by the Ministry. Furthermore, the training programmes that were provided focussed on simple and basic technological skills, instead of high-tech skills or pedagogical or technological use in the classroom. Palak and Walls (2009) suggested that teacher training should move away from isolated technology integration and towards training programmes that focus on pedagogical strategies for using technology in the classroom that would help teachers use technology to support student-centred pedagogy. In this study, the majority of the training programmes were related to operating computers, IWBs, using various Microsoft programmes, and using school Blackboard tools.
Integration of technology in the curriculum
Another tension found in this study is fundamental, and was identified between rules-subject: the majority of teachers reported a lack of time to be a constraint in their technology use. The main issue for the teachers was not the lack of time per se, but overloaded syllabi that they perceived did not fit with the lesson times they had available, confirming relevant arguments in the literature (Liu, 2011; Voogt & Pelgrum, 2005) that this issue might have a negative impact on technology integration. Some of the principals pointed out that ‘teachers’ use of technology should adhere to the official curriculum’ and that to some extent, a few teachers did not effectively use technology to support student learning. Principals from Group D, for example, reported that teachers should focus on syllabus coverage and meeting exam requirements.
262
Communication and cooperation
Both principals and teachers reported communication and cooperation between schools and the MOE to be a major barrier. In fact, various studies (Fullan, 2007; Younie, 2006) have warned that communication and cooperation between agents seems to significantly influence the integration of technology in the classroom. Two interrelated secondary tensions can be identified in relation to this between subject-division of labour and within division of labour. Teachers were not familiar with professional development programmes for technology use offered by the MOE. This indicated that perhaps the MOE was not properly informing or updating schools about such programmes. In addition, both teachers and principals were frustrated by the long process; according to them, they encountered indifference from the MOE when dealing with their requests for solving technical issues and their need for technical support. This situation highlighted a lack of cooperation between the principals/school and the MOE. This led some schools to bring in technical support from outside the school, rather than calling for help from the MOE.
The following framework (Figure 8.8) draws together the main findings of the study, indicating the relationship between beliefs and practices and the categories of factors that influence this relationship across the sample.
263
Figure 8.8. Relationship between beliefs and practices, and intervening factors
264
8.2 Implications for Change
Years after the introduction of technology in the Saudi education sector, the use of technology is largely still teacher-centred in its approach. This study has examined the status of technology integration within Saudi secondary school education from the principals’ and teachers’ perspectives (beliefs and practices). The findings suggest that for the majority of the principals and teachers involved in the study, technology use was either ‘primarily teacher- centred’ or ‘teacher-centred’. Although the study attempted to ascertain the factors that influence this situation, this was complicated by inconsistencies between some teachers’ reports and what was observed; this led to questioning of those teachers’ positive beliefs and reported practices in the pre-lesson data (questionnaires and interviews). In addition, the different influence of those factors on the teachers’ practice across the sample raised the issue of ‘internal and external’ barriers to technology integration.
Starting from the core finding, a weak link existed between the beliefs of the majority of principals as well practice of the majority of teachers and supporting student-centred classroom practice. As the frameworks for understanding teachers’ practices with technology reviewed in Chapter 3 suggested (Chan & Elliott, 2004; Donnelly et al., 2011; Ertmer et al., 2012), this could be attributed to teachers’ and principals’ lack of pedagogical knowledge about student-centred pedagogies with technology use. The teachers and principals in Group C seemed to have misconceptions about certain pedagogical concepts, such as ‘cooperative learning’ and ‘independent learning’. This misconception encouraged them to preserve traditional teaching approaches, which in turn obstructed them from integrating technology in a way that would support student-centred pedagogy.
Another weak link was found between Group D’s principals’ beliefs and teachers’ practices with technology and the support of student-centred classrooms. As the frameworks for understanding teachers’ epistemic beliefs with technology reviewed in Chapter 3 suggested (Belenky, 1986; Perry, 1968; Schommer, 1990; Schommer & Walker, 1995), this could be attributed to their dualistic beliefs in teacher authority and knowledge certainty. Related to this, both principals and teachers in this group considered the teacher to be knowledgeable, and that knowledge is certain and found in textbooks and that learning should be obtained via memorisation. This limited epistemic belief also encouraged
265
principals and teachers to remain with traditional teaching approaches.
In addition to the aforementioned lack of pedagogical knowledge and epistemic beliefs, other factors influenced teachers’ use of technology. A number of teachers and principals (especially in Group D) were not convinced of the benefits of teaching with technology for student learning; they explained their preference for teacher-centred practice or non-teachers’ use of technology in the classroom. With this group, we should not expect teachers to use technology or principals to encourage teachers’ classroom use of technology simply by equipping schools with technology. Yet, teachers will not integrate technology consistently to support student-centred learning—and principals will not encourage teachers’ use of technology to support student-centred learning—unless the teachers train or are informed about student-centred pedagogy with technology, and unless the principals see the teachers’ student-centred use of technology in practice to have pedagogical benefits for student learning, as happened with Groups A and B.
The study also indicated that the majority of schools lack classroom resources, and sufficient technology access needs to be made accessible to teachers and their students. Yet two of the twelve Group B teachers, whose classrooms lacked computers for students, were able to enact practices that closely aligned with their student-centred beliefs, which suggests that second-order barriers of beliefs, not first-order barriers of technological resources, are the true gatekeepers.
Contextual factors (school- and ministry system–related) were also found to interfere with the desired change. These included an absence of ICT policy, which was exacerbated by the fact that the current curriculum did not address technology. The absence of ICT policy factors in isolation does not present the full picture, however. The majority of teachers and principals mentioned that technology problems and lack of technical support were amplified, and were major obstacles to the use of technology. Although studies from the literature indicate that these issues have largely been eliminated in the majority of schools (Ertmer et al., 2012; Fullan, 2007; Rogers, 2003), this was not the case in Saudi Arabia, and might not be so in other countries where teachers must prepare classroom technology usage by themselves.
In addition, overloaded syllabuses and examination requirements were involved in the problems of limited time for students to use technology. This study noted that many teachers
266
and principals in Group D shared the belief that lengthy syllabuses and fulfilment of examination requirements hinder the use of technology. This is a good lesson for those teachers and principals who focus on providing as much information as possible to students. The school curriculum needs to consider other aspects that will contribute to students’ social and educational development, rather than exclusively focus on cognitively overloaded subject syllabuses.
8.3 Recommendations for Practice
This section provides recommendations for practice from the current study at three levels that influence beliefs and practices: teacher/classroom, school, and system.
8.3.1 Teacher/classroom level
Recommendations are first provided for participants. Unquestionably, professional development programmes need to provide teachers with benefits and pedagogies with technology use. In order to be convinced that technology could have a meaningful place in classroom teaching, however, it is essential to understand teachers’ beliefs and aligned practices. Effort is required to understand teachers’ epistemic and pedagogical beliefs and the use of technology; not necessarily aiming for higher but for more purposeful technology. Conscious consideration of how their students’ learning could be influenced by their beliefs and practices would, however, help teachers to discard their dualistic epistemic beliefs, ‘developing computer and rudimentary skills’ pedagogical beliefs, and teacher-centred practices.
The current study has indicated variations in the availability of ICT resources in the participating teachers’ schools. The majority of the teachers indicated a need for further classroom technology. In addition, only one teacher from the sample (from Group A) reported having classroom computers for students. The school and ministry should work together to support classrooms by providing more technology such as computers, in order to facilitate students’ interaction with technology.
8.3.2 School level
Recommendations are also proposed for principals whose assigned responsibilities include managing and supervising teachers’ classroom practices of technology. It is important that they attend to student-centred classrooms, in order to understand students’ learning benefits
267
through teachers’ use of technology in the classroom. This may assist in discarding the beliefs of those principals who believe in the use of technology only for administrative work. This would also encourage principals to shift from only supporting teaching-centred practices and to consider other classroom teaching and activities that would contribute to student- centred learning activities.
It is also essential that principals focus on encouraging teachers to create change- oriented environments by supporting teachers’ use of technology; they can do this by including teachers in the decision-making process, ensuring that teachers are aware of the pedagogical purposes of the available tools, and giving teachers the opportunity to try new technological approaches in order to effectively implement technology in their classrooms. Also, because only two teachers (from Group B) from the qualitative sample reported using technology in the learning resources room, principals should encourage and facilitate teachers to use such resources.
The majority of teachers from the qualitative sample (and a few principals) reported different influences of the school environment on technology implementation. Thus, it is important to go ‘local’ (Davis, 2010) by addressing each school’s needs, considering that all school staff (principals, peers, and teachers) are responsible for the insufficient use of technology. Principals and teacher peers’ collaboration and support should be exploited to provide a motivational culture for technology integration.
8.3.2 Ministry/system level
Policymakers, who are responsible for informing and setting the formal framework for technology integration in the classroom, should establish clear and feasible ICT policies, focussing on the successful implementation of technology. They should include which ICT knowledge, skills, and pedagogies teachers should have (in order to effectively use technology in education) and how they might develop the knowledge, skills, and pedagogies. The policy should also be linked with the curriculum aims, which would be used to guide teachers in their classroom practices.
This study also proposes recommendations for the MOE, whose assigned responsibilities include sending officials or supervisors to visit schools and mentoring technology use in schools. It is important for the Ministry to communicate with teachers by
268
looking into their responses and needs and confronting any obstacles they may face in the classroom use of technology. A number of teachers and principals highlighted the long process involved for the Ministry to resolve technical issues. Thus, the Ministry should inform schools about how to face certain issues, and about whom to contact. Furthermore, it would be an effective strategy if the MOE gave schools more autonomy to manage their own resources and to solve their own issues; it should give teachers more flexibility to adapt their teaching based on their students’ learning needs.
The current study has indicated that the majority of current professional development programmes focus on technical skills. Pedagogical practices with technology need to be targeted and improved in order to achieve effective technology integration. This will be provided when the organisers and instructors design and conduct ICT training programmes in association with pedagogical approaches. Principals and teachers in this study clearly requested that the training programmes be practical and related to technology in the classroom. It would also be beneficial for professional development programmes to address pedagogical concepts that some teachers reported to apply to technology, including ‘cooperative learning’ and ‘independent learning’, and such programmes should provide them with appropriate practices for classroom teaching. It is essential for these professional development programmes to be updated regularly, with teachers’ needs and continuous development for teaching and learning pedagogies kept in mind.
8.4 Contributions of the Study
The current study contributes to knowledge in three aspects: knowledge of the field, context of the study, and methodology design. In terms of literature, the first positive contribution is associated with the fact that it explored teachers’ perspectives about technology and identified the relationship between beliefs and practices. In this way, the current study extends research that has aimed to explore links between beliefs and practices (Prestridge, 2012; Teo, Chai, Hung, & Lee, 2008). In addition, the study framework emerged from the cross-case analysis to provide a classification of diverse beliefs about technology and the corresponding practices with technology, which provides a better understanding of teacher responses. Thus, the current study complements other studies that have aimed to develop a typology of teacher technology use informed by their beliefs (Tondeur et al., 2007) and other
269
studies that have developed a typology based on the different levels of practices (Ertmer et al., 2012; Mama & Hennessy, 2013).
The current study framework also adds to previous work by attaching particular characteristics to different types of beliefs, including both epistemic and pedagogical beliefs. It thus provides a more specific identification than general ‘positive’ and ‘negative’ identification. The same is true for identifying the types of practices, which reflect the different levels of teachers’ use of technology, from teacher-centred to student-centred. Furthermore, the current study has explored principals’ beliefs about teachers’ use of technology and has identified the relationship between principals’ beliefs and teachers’ beliefs and practices, adding to the limited studies to focus on the influence of principals on technology integration (Bridges, 2003; Hew & Brush, 2007).
The tensions identified contextual factors that influence teachers’ beliefs and practices with technology, thus corroborating evidence from other studies (Coffland & Strickland, 2004; Liu, 2011). The current study, however, examined the influence of these factors on teachers’ use of technology in the Saudi context, and at the interrelated levels of the teacher/classroom, the school/principal, and the Ministry/ system, thus strengthening the developing argument of the ecological perspective for systemic change (Davis, 2010), Therefore, the argument should shift towards addressing these factors and their impacts within all levels.
In terms of context, limited research has been conducted on technology integration in Saudi Arabia, and even less in examining principals’ and teachers’ responses to it. The current study initially corroborated previous evidence about the factors that influence technology, which are mostly related to the absence of ICT policy and a lack of ICT resources (Al Harbi, 2014). The study identified additional factors, however, related to teachers’ perceptions of responsibilities, lack of pedagogical knowledge, overloaded syllabus, principals’ attitude to technology, lack of pedagogy-based professional development, and lack of communication and cooperation between schools and the Ministry. Furthermore, the current thesis takes an additional step in soliciting teachers’ epistemic and pedagogical beliefs, and how these may affect their practices. The thesis also added another step in incorporating principals’ pedagogical beliefs, and how these may affect teachers’ beliefs and practices.
270
The use of the activity theory was another significant methodological contribution of this study. It confirmed AT’s applicability and usefulness in linking between all parts (beliefs, practices, and factors) and identifying tensions within an activity system, which adds to the limited studies that have focussed on conflicts in the educational technology field (Murphy & Rodriguez-Manzanares, 2008).
8.5 Study Limitations
The design of any academic research study always includes both limitations and opportunities. This thesis has a number of limitations, which to a great extent are justified by the nature of the study and the logistical constraints of Ph.D. research. One limitation of this study is related to the sample, which was from model secondary schools equipped with unique technological infrastructure. This may render generalisability to the rest of the public secondary schools in Saudi Arabia. This is balanced by the fact that the principals and teachers who worked at the schools were randomly assigned to participate in this study. In addition, the decision to select the particular secondary schools was related to the MOE’s plan to expand technology integration across the country within the next few years; the MOE expected that the current study’s findings would inform this process.
An additional limitation is related to the small sample size. Conclusions that are based on quantitative data from 67 principals and 82 teachers and are based on follow-up qualitative data from 12 principals and 12 teachers might not be generalisable to the principals and teaching community of Saudi Arabia or other contexts. This was acknowledged at the beginning of the study, however: when it was stated that the aim of the study was not to generalise findings, but rather to contribute to our understanding of technology integration. In fact, the sample in the quantitative data included the majority of principals and teachers in the identified schools. The sample size in the qualitative data was considered to be appropriate for the teachers’ multi-case study and the principals’ thematic approach to providing in-depth analysis. The principals and teachers presented a spectrum of beliefs and practices, making the findings more representative of a larger population.
The participants (both principals and teachers) of this research were from boys’ secondary schools in Saudi Arabia. According to the education system in Saudi Arabia, boys’ and girls’ education is segregated at all levels, in terms of both school buildings and teaching
271
staff. The results of this investigation therefore might not be generalisable to girls’ secondary schools. The researcher could send the online questionnaire to girls’ schools via email, or he could interview them via Skype, but this would not be possible for the classroom observations. As acknowledged in the methodology chapter, however, the study not only explored the reported beliefs and practices, but also aimed to explore the actual classroom practices in order to identify the consistency between reported beliefs and practices and observed practices.
8.6 Future Research
The current study explored teachers’ beliefs and practices with technology; it also made an attempt to explore principals’ beliefs about teachers’ use of technology. Yet, due to the logistic constraints of the Ph.D. research, a more extensive exploration of the principals’ views was not possible. A study comprising further interviews and focus groups with both principals and teachers could be both interesting and informative.
Among the main qualitative findings of the current study was an exploration of the typology of beliefs and practices with technology. Quantitative studies are thus needed to investigate the relative significance and practices of the typology of beliefs and practices identified in this study. The number of schools that are equipped with technology is increasing every year in Saudi Arabia, especially in the principal cities, which makes quantitative study a possible approach for exploring a typology of beliefs and practices with technology across a wider and more diverse selection of regions of the country. Furthermore, the scope of the present study was confined to teachers of Arabic language in model Saudi Arabian secondary schools. Therefore, it would be interesting to apply the methodology used in this study and explore the typology of beliefs and technology practices with teachers of other disciplines.
Another opportunity for future research is related to the impact of ministry/system factors upon beliefs and practices with technology. Future research could be conducted that would investigate technology integration within education in relation to the aims of the educational system, and within the broader context of educational reform. Such research could be further exploited to give understanding of the influence of these factors.
Finally, extensive exploration of the principals’ and teachers’ exemplary beliefs and
272
practices (such as those of Groups A and B in the current study) could provide further insights into the factors that prompt these principals and teachers to a student-centred use of technology, as well as provide models for practice for teacher-centred principals and teachers. More research is needed into this aspect in order to address all grades and subjects.
8.7 Final Remarks
This study has explored principals’ and teachers’ beliefs and practices with technology. The study was located in a context that has a long tradition of teacher-centred pedagogy dominating teaching and learning processes. It was therefore significant to understand the preference of principals and teachers for teacher-centred practices with technology. As one teacher said, ‘It is just a tool’, and as some principals in interviews claimed, the use of technology might only distract student attention.
Studies should not lack historical and contextual reference (Jones & McDougall, 2006). Any study should indicate the general purposes behind these technological choices, followed by a detailed process of using technology and contextual factors. When we look into the practice of educational technology, all reports seem to be culturally sensitive, based on differences in the socio-cultural context. The limitations in all studies and reports should not be addressed at the same level for all participants or researchers. Finally, evidence should be combined from studies with different methodological approaches; collecting data through several collection methods and devoting attention to triangulation would provide the educational community with valid knowledge to use and build on.
A final concern is related to the rapid adoption of innovations that have been applied in other countries. The issue here is how the Saudi educational agencies could be guided to filter their choices. The MOE could work in collaboration with research agencies at different universities to establish plans to implement technology in schools.
273
References
Ackoff, R. L. (1989). From data to wisdom. Journal of Applied Systems Analysis, 16, 3–9. Ahmad, S. A., BawaChinade, U., Gambaki, A. M., Ibrahim, S., & Ala, N. A. (2012). The need for moodle as a learning management system in Nigerian universities: Digesting university Utara Malaysia learning zone as a case study. Academic Research International, 2(3), 444-458. Ainley, J., Banks, D., & Fleming, M. (2002). The influence of IT: Perspectives from five Australian schools. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 18(4), 395–404. Al Harbi, H. E. M. (2014). An examination of Saudi high school teachers’ ICT knowledge and implementation (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Queensland University of Technology: Brisbane, Australia. Al-Abdullatif, A. M. (2012). An investigation into the perceptions of university students and instructors on the effectiveness of online education in a Saudi tertiary environment (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Griffith University: Brisbane, Australia. Al-Aqeely, A. (2001). The current situation of computers at public secondary schools in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia according to headmaster’s attendee of diploma course at the College of Education. Journal of King Saud University, Educational Sciences and Islamic Studies, 14(2), 477–521. Al-Shehri, S. (2012). Contextual language learning: The educational potential of mobile technologies and social media (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Queensland: Brisbane, Australia. Al-Sulaimani, A. A. (2010). The importance of teachers in integrating ICT into science teaching in intermediate schools in Saudi Arabia: A mixed methods study. RMIT University: Melbourne, Australia. Alaugab, A. M. (2007). Benefits, barriers, and attitudes of Saudi female faculty and students toward online learning in higher education (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Kansas. Albirini, A. (2006). Teachers’ attitudes toward information and communication technologies: The case of Syrian EFL teachers. Computers & Education, 47(4), 373–398. Alexander, R. J. (1992). Policy and practice in primary education. London, UK: Routledge. Algamdy, H. (2006). The development of the educational system in Saudi Arabia. Al-Riyadh: Abn Rashed Library. Alhugail, S. (2011). The system and policy of education in Saudi Arabia. Al-Riyadh: Dar Khuraiji. Ally, M. (2008). Foundations of Educational Theory for Online Learning. In T. Anderson (Ed.), The Theory and Practice of Online Learning. Athabasca University, Athabasca, Canada, 16-44. Almaghlouth, O. A. D. (2008). Saudi secondary school science teachers’ perceptions of the use of ICT tools to support teaching and learning. (Unpublished M.Ed thesis, University of Waikato, 2008). Retrieved from http://researchcommons.waikato.ac.nz/handle/10289/2432 Alsalman, S. (2011, March). Learning resources centers. Paper presented at the Global Learn Asia Pacific 2011, Melbourne. Retrieved from http://www.editlib.org/p/37152/ Altun, S. (2015). The effect of cooperative learning on students’ achievement and views on the science and technology course. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 7(3), 451–468.
274
Alzaidi, A. M. (2008). Secondary school head teachers’ job satisfaction in Saudi Arabia: The results of a mixed methods approach. ARECLS, 5, 161–185. Ananiadou, K., & Claro, M. (2009). 21st century skills and competences for new millennium learners in OECD countries. Paris, France: Centre for Educational Research and Innovation (CERI) – New Millennium Learners. Azevedo, R., Torney-Purta, J., & Greene, J. (2008). Modeling epistemic and ontological cognition: Philosophical perspectives and methodological directions. Educational Psychologist, 43(3), 142–160. Balanskat, A., Blamire, R., & Kefala, S. (2012). The ICT impact report. A review of studies of ICT impact on schools in Europe. Brussels: European Schoolnet. Baylor, A. L., & Ritchie, D. (2002). What factors facilitate teacher skill, teacher morale, and perceived student learning in technology-using classrooms? Computers & Education, 39(4), 395–414. Beauchamp, G. (2004). Teacher use of the interactive whiteboard in primary schools: Towards an effective transition framework. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 13(3), 327–348. Bebell, D., Russell, M., & O’Dwyer, L. (2004). Measuring teachers’ technology uses: Why multiple-measures are more revealing. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 37(1), 45. Becta (2004). What the research says about ICT and continuing professional development (CPD) for teachers. Coventry, UK: Becta. Belenky, M. F. (1986). Women’s ways of knowing: The development of self, voice, and mind. New York, NY: Basic Books. Bell, F. (2010). Connectivism: Its place in theory-informed research and innovation in technology-enabled learning. The International Review Of Research In Open And Distributed Learning, 12(3), 98-118. Bendixen, L., & Feucht, F. (2010). Exploring similarities and differences in personal epistemologies of U.S. and German elementary school teachers. Cognition and Instruction, 28(1), 39–69. Benna, U. G., & Al-Harigi, F. N. (2006). An approach to the analysis of virtual metropolitan Dammam. Scientific Journal of King Faisal University (Basic and Applied Sciences), 7(1), 1427H. Bradford, P., Porciello, M., Balkon, N., & Backus, D. (2007). The Blackboard Learning System: The be all and end all in educational instruction? Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 35(3), 301–314. Brenton, H., Hernandez, J., Bello, F., Strutton, P., Purkayastha, S., Firth, T., & Darzi, A. (2007). Using multimedia and Web3D to enhance anatomy teaching. Computers & Education, 49(1), 32–53. Bridges, J. W. (2003). Principal influence: Sustaining a vision for powerful new forms of learning using technology (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of California, Los Angeles: Los Angeles, United States. Brine, J., & Franken, M. (2006). Students’ perceptions of a selected aspect of a computer mediated academic writing program: An activity theory analysis. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 22(1), 21–38. Brislin, R. W. (1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1(3), 185–216.
275
Brown, A., & Dowling, P. (1998). Doing research/reading research: A mode of interrogation for education. London, UK: Falmer Press. Brownlee, J. (2004). Teacher education students’ epistemological beliefs: Developing a relational model of teaching. Research in Education, 72 (1), 1-17. Brownlee, J. M. (2001). Knowing and learning in teacher education: A theoretical framework of core and peripheral beliefs in application. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education and Development, 4(1), 131–155. Burkes, K. M. E. (2007). Applying cognitive load theory to the design of online learning (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Burnard, P., & Younker, B. A. (2008). Investigating children’s musical interactions within the activities systems of group composing and arranging: An application of Engeström’s activity theory. International Journal of Educational Research, 47(1), 60–74. Calderhead, J. (1996). Teachers: Beliefs and knowledge. In D. Berliner & R. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 709–725). New York, NY: Macmillan Library Reference. Chai, C. S. (2010a). The relationships among Singaporean preservice teachers’ ICT competencies, pedagogical beliefs and their beliefs on the espoused use of ICT. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 19(3), 387–400. Chai, C. S. (2010b). Teachers’ epistemic beliefs and their pedagogical beliefs: A qualitative case study among Singaporean teachers in the context of ICT-supported reforms. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 9(4), 128–139. Chai, C. S, Chin, C. K., Koh, J. H. L., & Tan, C. L. (2013). Exploring Singaporean Chinese language teachers’ technological pedagogical content knowledge and its relationship to the teachers’ pedagogical beliefs. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 22(4), 657–666. Chai, C. S., Teo, T. K. G., & Lee, C. B. (2010). Modelling the relationships among beliefs about learning, knowledge, and teaching of pre-service teachers in Singapore. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 19(1), 25–42. Chambers, J. J. (2011). Evaluating the effectiveness of ICT rollout in an Irish primary school: A case study of a primary school in the west of Ireland (Unpublished master’s thesis). University of Limerick. Chan, K.-W., & Elliott, R. G. (2002). Exploratory study of Hong Kong teacher education students’ epistemological beliefs: Cultural perspectives and implications on beliefs research. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 27(3), 392–414. Chan, K.-W., & Elliott, R. G. (2004). Relational analysis of personal epistemology and conceptions about teaching and learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20(8), 817–831. Charalambous, K., & Karagiorgi, Y. (2006). ICT in-service training and school practices: In search for the impact. Journal of Education for Teaching, 32(4), 395–411. Chen, C.-H. (2008). Why do teachers not practice what they believe regarding technology integration? Journal of Educational Research, 102(1), 65–75. Ciekanski, M., & Chanier, T. (2008). Developing online multimodal verbal communication to enhance the writing process in an audio-graphic conferencing environment. ReCALL, 20(2), 162–182. Coakes, S. J., Steed, L. G., & Ong, C. (2010). SPSS: Analysis without anguish: Version 17.0 for Windows. Milton, Australia: Wiley.
276
Coffland, D. A., & Strickland, A. W. (2004). Factors related to teacher use of technology in secondary geometry instruction. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 23(4), 347-365. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2011). Research methods in education. Abingdon, UK: Routledge. Cole, M. (2009). Using Wiki technology to support student engagement: Lessons from the trenches. Computers & Education, 52(1), 141–146. Condie, R., & Munro, B. (2007). The impact of ICT in schools: Landscape review. Coventry, UK: Becta. Cook, J. (2002). The role of dialogue in computer-based learning and observing learning: An evolutionary approach to theory. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 2002(1). Cowlishaw, K., & Budge, K. (2012). Student and teacher perceptions of learning and teaching: A case study. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 36(4), 549–517. Cox, M., & Webb, M. (2004). A review of pedagogy related to information and communications technology. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 13(3), 235–286. Creswell, J. W. (2009). Editorial: Mapping the field of mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 3(2), 95–108. Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall. Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches (Vol. 3). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. Creswell, J. W., & Plano, V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Guder, C. (2010). Patrons and Pedagogy: A Look at the Theory of Connectivism. Public Services Quarterly, 6(1), 36-42. Dabbagh, N. (2005). Pedagogical models for e-learning: A theory-based design framework. International Journal of Technology in Teaching and Learning, 1(1), 25–44. Dahl, D., & Smimou, K. (2012). On the relationship between students’ perceptions of teaching quality, methods of assessment, and satisfaction. Journal of Education for Business, 87(1), 22. Daniels, H. (2001). Vygotsky and pedagogy. London, UK: Routledge/Falmer. Davidson-Shivers, G. V., & Rasmussen, K. L. (2006). Web-based learning: Design, implementation, and evaluation. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall. Davis, N. E. (2010). Global interdisciplinary research into the diffusion of information technology innovations in education. Researching IT in Education: Theory, Practice and Future Directions, 142–149. London: Routledge DeNeui, D. L., & Dodge, T. L. (2006). Asynchronous learning networks and student outcomes: The utility of online learning components in hybrid courses. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 33(4), 256–259. Deng, F., Chai, C. S., Tsai, C. C., & Lee, M. H. (2014). The relationships among Chinese practicing teachers’ epistemic beliefs, pedagogical beliefs and their beliefs about the use of ICT. Educational Technology & Society, 17(2), 245–256. Denscombe, M. (2008). Communities of practice: a research paradigm for the mixed methods approach. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 2(3), 270–283. DeVellis, M. K. (1991). Reliability test of attitudinal instruments. Paper presented at the Annual Research Conference, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.
277
Dewhurst, D. G., Macleod, H. A., & Norris, T. A. M. (2000). Independent student learning aided by computers: An acceptable alternative to lectures? Computers & Education, 35(3), 223–241. Dilshan, S., Moustafa, G., & Yike, G. (2012). WikiSensing: An online collaborative approach for sensor data management. Sensors, 12(10), 13295–13332. Donnelly, D., McGarr, O., & O’Reilly, J. (2011). A framework for teachers’ integration of ICT into their classroom practice. Computers & Education, 57(2), 1469–1483. Douglas, J. A. (2011). Competency for quality online teaching (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Virginia, United States. Dreher, C., Reiners, T., Dreher, N., & Dreher, H. (2009). Virtual Worlds as a Context Suited for Information Systems Education: Discussion of Pedagogical Experience and Curriculum Design with Reference to Second Life. Journal of Information Systems Education, 20(2), 211. Drost, E. A. (2011). Validity and reliability in social science research. Education, Research and Perspectives, 38(1), 105–123. Dunleavy, M., Dexter, S., & Heinecke, W. F. (2007). What added value does a 1:1 student to laptop ratio bring to technology‐supported teaching and learning? Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23(5), 440–452. Edwards, C. H. (2011). Educational change: From traditional education to learning communities. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Education. Ellis, D. L. (2012). A new generation: A new model of education in the 21st century (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Southern California. United States Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki, Finland: Orienta-Konsultit Oy. Engeström, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14(1), 133–156. ERT (1997). Investing in knowledge: The integration of technology in European education: Brussels, Belgium: ERT. Ertmer, P. A. (2006). Teacher pedagogical beliefs and classroom technology use: A critical link. Retrieved from: http://www.edci.purdue.edu/ertmer/docs/AERA06_TchrBeliefs.pdf. Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T. (2010). Teacher technology change: How knowledge, confidence, beliefs, and culture intersect. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(3), 255–284. Ertmer, P. A., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A., & York, C. S. (2006). Exemplary technology-using teachers: Perceptions of factors influencing success. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 23(2), 55–61. Ertmer, P. A., Paul, A., Molly, L., Eva, R., & Denise, W. (1999). Examining teachers’ beliefs about the role of technology in the elementary classroom. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 32(1), 54–72. Ertmer, P. A. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for technology integration? Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4), 25–39. Ertmer, P. A., Gopalakrishnan, S., & Ross, E. M. (2001). Technology-using teachers: Comparing perceptions of exemplary technology use to best practice. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 33(5).
278
Ertmer, P. A., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T., Sadik, O., Sendurur, E., & Sendurur, P. (2012). Teacher beliefs and technology integration practices: A critical relationship. Computers & Education, 59(2), 423–435. Fang, Z. (1996). A review of research on teacher beliefs and practices. Educational Research, 38(1), 47–65. Fowler, F. J. (2002). Survey research methods (Vol. 1). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Fullan, M. (2007). The new meaning of educational change. London, UK: Routledge. Fullan, M. (2014). The principal: Three keys to maximizing impact/Michael Fullan. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Gail, C., & Terry, E. (2011). Designing for learning: Online social networks as a classroom environment. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 12(7), 1–26. Galanouli, D., Murphy, C., & Gardner, J. (2004). Teachers’ perceptions of the effectiveness of ICT-competence training. Computers & Education, 43(1), 63–79. Gao, J., & Hargis, J. (2010). Promoting technology-assisted active learning in computer science education. Journal of Effective Teaching, 10(2), 81–93. Gates, B. (2000). Business at the speed of thought: Succeeding in the digital economy (Vol. 10). London, UK: Penguin. Gay, L. R., Mills, G. E., & Airasian, P. W. (2011). Educational research: Competencies for analysis and applications. Boston, MA: Prentice Hall. Gerring, J. (2004). What is a case study and what is it good for? American Political Science Review, 98(2), 341–354. Ghalib, W. M., & Sulaiman, M. F. (2007). Learning management system (LMS) for delivering Arabic language courses: Initiatives taken at the Center for Languages, International Islamic University Malaysia. Online Journal of Instructional Technology, 287–299. Ghamrawi, N. (2013). The relationship between the leadership styles of Lebanese public school principals and their attitudes towards ICT versus the level of ICT use by their teachers. Open Journal of Leadership, 2(1), 11-20. Gibson, I. W. (2001). At the intersection of technology and pedagogy: Considering styles of learning and teaching. Journal of Information Technology for Teacher Education, 10(1–2), 37–61. Gilakjani, A. P., Leong, L.-M., & Ismail, H. N. (2013). Teachers’ use of technology and constructivism. International Journal of Modern Education and Computer Science, 5(4), 49–63. Girvan, C., & Savage, T. (2010). Identifying an appropriate pedagogy for virtual worlds: A Communal Constructivism case study. Computers & Education, 55(1), 342-349. Girvan, C., Tangney, B., & Savage, T. (2013). SLurtles: Supporting constructionist learning in Second Life. Computers and Education, 61(1), 115-132. Godwin-Jones, R. (2008). Emerging technologies mobile-computing trends: lighter, faster, smarter. Language, Learning & Technology, 12(3), 3. Goodyear, P., Salmon, G., Spector, J. M., Steeples, C., & Tickner, S. (2001). Competences for online teaching: A special report. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49(1), 65–72. Graham, C. R. (2011). Theoretical considerations for understanding technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK). Computers & Education, 57(3), 1953– 1960.
279
Granger, C. A., Morbey, M. L., Lotherington, H., Owston, R. D., & Wideman, H. H. (2002). Factors contributing to teachers’ successful implementation of IT. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 18(4), 480–488. Griffin, T. D, & Ohlsson, S. (2001). Beliefs vs. knowledge: A necessary distinction for predicting, explaining and assessing conceptual change. Paper presented at the 23rd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Edinburgh, UK. Guri-Rosenblit, S. (2005). Eight paradoxes in the implementation process of e-learning in higher education. Higher Education Policy, 18(1), 5–29. Haddad, W., & Draxler, A. (2002). Technologies for education: Potentials, parameters and prospects; Challenges and possibilities of ICTs for education. Paris, France: UNESCO/AED. Hamed, A. (2012). The utilization of technology in teaching of the Arabic language in secondary schools in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 64, 594–603. Harasim, L. M. (2012). Learning theory and online technologies. New York, NY: Routledge. Hardman, J. (2005). Activity theory as a framework for understanding teachers’ perceptions of computer usage at a primary school level in South Africa. South African Journal of Education, 25(4), 258–265. Harel, I. (1991). Children designers: Interdisciplinary constructions for learning and knowing mathematics in a computer-rich school: Ablex Publishing. Harrison, A. J. (2011). Identifying leadership styles that influence the willingness of community college faculty to teach online courses. Capella University. Minneapolis. United States Heirdsfield, A., Davis, J., Lennox, S., Walker, S., & Zhang, W. (2007). Online learning environments: What early childhood teacher education students say. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 28(2), 115–126. Heirdsfield, A., Walker, S., Tambyah, M., & Beutel, D. (2011). Blackboard as an online learning environment: What do teacher education students and staff think? Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 36(7), 1–16. Hennessy, S., Deaney, R., Dawes, M., & Bowker, A. (2008). Supporting professional development for ICT use in the secondary classroom using a multimedia resource: Final Report to NCETM. University of Cambridge. England, United Kingdom. Hennessy, S. (2006). Integrating technology into teaching and learning of school science: A situated perspective on pedagogical issues in research. Studies in Science Education, 42, 1–50. Hennessy, S., & Mama, M. (2010). Level of technology integration by primary teachers in Cyprus and student engagement. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 19(2), 269. Hermans, R., Tondeur, J., van Braak, J., & Valcke, M. (2008). The impact of primary school teachers’ educational beliefs on the classroom use of computers. Computers & Education, 51(4), 1499–1509. Hew, K. F., & Brush, T. (2007). Integrating technology into K–12 teaching and learning: Current knowledge gaps and recommendations for future research. Educational Technology Research and Development, 55(3), 223–252. Hijzen, D., Boekaerts, M., & Vedder, P. (2007). Exploring the links between students’ engagement in cooperative learning, their goal preferences and appraisals of instructional conditions in the classroom. Learning and Instruction, 17(6), 673–687.
280
Hofer, B. K. (2001). Personal epistemology research: Implications for learning and teaching. Educational Psychology Review, 13(4), 353–383. Hofer, B. K., & Pintrich, P. R. (1997). The development of epistemological theories: Beliefs about knowledge and knowing and their relation to learning. Review of Educational Research, 67(1), 88–140. Hopson, M. H., Simms, R. L., & Knezek, G. A. (2002). Using a technology-enriched environment to improve higher-order thinking skills. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 34(2), 109-119. Hsieh, P.-H., & Dwyer, F. (2009). The instructional effect of online reading strategies and learning styles on student academic achievement. Educational Technology & Society, 12(2), 36–50. Hu, L. (2007). Teachers’ beliefs and attitudes towards information and communication technology (ICT) and related pedagogy for English for business purposes (EBP) in Chinese higher education (Unpublished doctoral thesis). King’s College London, London. Hu, L., & Webb, M. (2009). Integrating ICT to higher education in China: From the perspective of activity theory. Education and Information technologies, 14(2), 143– 161. Hu, Z., & McGrath, I. (2011). Innovation in higher education in China: Are teachers ready to integrate ICT in English language teaching? Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 20(1), 41–59. Huffaker, D. (2003). Reconnecting the classroom: E-learning pedagogy in US public high schools. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 19(3), 356–370. Jarvis, P., Holford, J., & Griffin, C. (2003). The theory & practice of learning (Vol. 2). UK: Kogan Page. Johnson, S. D. & Aragon, S. R. (2003). An instructional strategy framework for online learning environments. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 2003(100), 31–43. Johnson, M. (2005). Effective practice with e‐learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(4), 697–698. Jonassen, D. (2003). Using cognitive tools to represent problems. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 35(3), 362. Jones, A. (2004). A review of the research literature on barriers to the uptake of ICT by teachers. BECTA. Jones, A., & McDougall, A. (2006). Theory and history, questions and methodology: Current and future issues in research into ICT in education. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 15(3), 353–360. Judson, E. (2006). How teachers integrate technology and their beliefs about learning: Is there a connection? Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 14(3), 581–597. Juniu, S. (2006). Use of technology for constructivist learning in a performance assessment class. Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science, 10(1), 67–79. Kagan, D. M. (1992). Implications of research on teacher belief. Educational Psychologist, 27(1), 65–90. Kane, R., Sandretto, S., & Heath, C. (2002). Telling half the story: A critical review of research on the teaching beliefs and practices of university academics. Review of Educational Research, 72(2), 177–228.
281
Kang, N.‐H., & Wallace, C. S. (2005). Secondary science teachers’ use of laboratory activities: Linking epistemological beliefs, goals, and practices. Science Education, 89(1), 140–165. Karagiorgi, Y., & Symeou, L. (2005). Translating constructivism into instructional design: Potential and limitations. Educational Technology and Society, 8(1), 17–27. Karasavvidis, I. (2009). Activity theory as a conceptual framework for understanding teacher approaches to information and communication technologies. Computers & Education, 53(2), 436–444. Kekkonen–Moneta, S., & Moneta, G. B. (2002). E-learning in Hong Kong: Comparing learning outcomes in online multimedia and lecture versions of an introductory computing course. British Journal of Educational Technology, 33(4), 423–433. Kenny, J. (2003). Student perceptions of the use of online learning technology in their courses. Retrieved from: http://trove.nla.gov.au/version/166843071 Kershner, R., & Warwick, P. (2008). Primary teachers’ understanding of the interactive whiteboard as a tool for children’s collaborative learning and knowledge-building. Learning, Media and Technology, 33(4), 269. Keys, P. (2005). Are teachers walking the walk or just talking the talk in science education? Teachers and Teaching, 11(5), 499–516. Khine, M. S., & Fisher, D L. (2003). Technology-rich learning environments: A future perspective. Singapore: World Scientific. King, M. M. (2012). Twenty first century teaching and learning: Are teachers prepared? (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). College of Saint Elizabeth. United States. Kirschner, P. A., & Erkens, G. (2006). Cognitive tools and mindtools for collaborative learning. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 35(2), 199–209. Kirschner, P., & Davis, N. (2003). Pedagogic benchmarks for information and communications technology in teacher education. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 12(1), 125–147. Komis, V., & Jimoyiannis, A. (2007). Examining teachers’ beliefs about ICT in education: Implications of a teacher preparation programme. Teacher Development, 11(2), 149– 173. Krause, K. L., Bochner, S., & Duchesne, S. (2003). Educational psychology for learning and teaching. South Melbourne. Thomson Learning. Laurillard, D. (2013). Rethinking university teaching: A conversational framework for the effective use of learning technologies. London. Routledge. Laus, R., Ivanitskaya, L., & Casey, A. (2004). Research readiness self-assessment: Assessing students’ research skills and attitudes. Journal of Library Administration, 41(1), 167– 183. Leach, J., & Moon, B. (1999). Learners & pedagogy. London, UK: Paul Chapman. Lee, C. B., Chai, C. S., Teo, T., & Chen, D. (2008). Preparing pre-service teachers’ for the integration of ICT based student-centred learning (SCL) curriculum. Journal of Education, 13, 15–28. Lee, J. C.-K., Zhang, Z., Song, H., & Huang, X. (2013). Effects of epistemological and pedagogical beliefs on the instructional practices of teachers: A Chinese perspective. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 38(12), 119–146. Leedy, P. D., & Ormrod, J. E. (2013). Practical research: Planning and design. Boston, MA: Pearson.
282
Lei, J., & Zhao, Y. (2007). Technology uses and student achievement: A longitudinal study. Computers & Education, 49(2), 284–296. Leithwood, K. (1994). Leadership for school restructuring. Educational Administration Quarterly, 30(4), 498–518. Leithwood, K. A., & Riehl, C. (2003). What we know about successful school leadership. Nottingham, UK: National College for School Leadership. Levin, T., & Wadmany, R. (2006). Teachers’ beliefs and practices in technology-based classrooms: A developmental view. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 39(2), 157-181. Levin, T., & Wadmany, R. (2008). Teachers’ views on factors affecting effective integration of information technology in the classroom: Developmental scenery. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 16(2), 233-263. Lewin, C., Somekh, B., & Steadman, S. (2008). Embedding interactive whiteboards in teaching and learning: The process of change in pedagogic practice. Education and Information Technologies, 13(4), 291–303. Lim, C. P., & Chai, C. S. (2008). Teachers’ pedagogical beliefs and their planning and conduct of computer-mediated classroom lessons. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(5), 807–828. Lim, C. P., & Hang, D. (2003). An activity theory approach to research of ICT integration in Singapore schools. Computers & Education, 41(1), 49–63. Lim, C. P., Hung, D, Wong, P., & Hu, C. (2004). The pedagogical design of ICT integration in online learning: A case study. International Journal of Instructional Media, 31(1), 37-47. Lim, C. P., & Khine, M. (2006). Managing teachers’ barriers to ICT integration in Singapore schools. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 14(1), 97-125. Lin, F. R., Lin, S. C., & Huang, T. P. (2008). Knowledge sharing and creation in a teachers’ professional virtual community. Computers & Education, 50(3), 742–756. Lipponen, L. (2002). Exploring foundations for computer-supported collaborative learning. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning: Foundations for a CSCL Community. Boulder, CO: Jan 7-11, 72-81. Liu, S.-H. (2011). Factors related to pedagogical beliefs of teachers and technology integration. Computers & Education, 56(4), 1012–1022. Loureiro, A., & Bettencourt, T. (2010). Immersive environments–A connectivist approach. In Knowledge management, information systems, e-learning, and sustainability research (pp. 202-214). Springer Berlin Heidelberg. Lyle, J. (2003). Stimulated recall: A report on its use in naturalistic research. British Educational Research Journal, 29(6), 861–878. Macneill, N., Cavanagh, R. F., & Silcox, S. (2005). Pedagogic leadership: Refocusing on learning and teaching. IEJLL: International Electronic Journal for Leadership in Learning, 9(2). Mama, M., & Hennessy, Sara. (2013). Developing a typology of teacher beliefs and practices concerning classroom use of ICT. Computers and Education, 68, 380–387. Markauskaite, L. (2007). Exploring the structure of trainee teachers’ ICT literacy: The main components of and relationships between, general cognitive and technical capabilities. Educational Technology Research and Development, 55(6), 547–572. Mason, J. (2002). Qualitative researching (Vol. 2). London, UK: Sage.
283
Mason, R., & Rennie, F. (2008). E-learning and social networking handbook: Resources for higher education. New York: Routledge. Mayer, R. E. (2008) (2008). Applying the science of learning: evidence-based principles for the design of multimedia instruction. The American psychologist, 63(8), 760-769. McCormick, R., & Scrimshaw, P. (2001). Information and communications technology, knowledge and pedagogy. Education, Communication & Information, 1(1), 37–57. McGarr, O., & Kearney, G. (2009). The role of the teaching principal in promoting ICT use in small primary schools in Ireland. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 18(1), 87– 102. McGrail, E. (2005). Teachers, technology, and change: English teachers’ perspectives. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13(1), 5-24. Mello, L. R. (2006). Identifying success in the application of information and communication technology as a curriculum teaching and learning tool. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 15(1), 95–106. Meyer, J. H., & Eley, M. G. (2006). The Approaches to Teaching Inventory: A critique of its development and applicability. The British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 633-649. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: an expanded sourcebook (Vol. 2). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Ministry of Education (2007). Report of King Abdul Abdullah Bin Abdulaziz project for the development of public education. Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: Ministry of Education Press. Ministry of Higher Education (2007). The centre for e-learning. Retrieved from http://www.elc.edu.sa Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054. Moshaikeh, M. S. H. (1992). Implementing educational technology in Saudi Arabia. International Journal of Instructional Media, 19(1), 65–70. Mumtaz, S. (2000). Factors affecting teachers’ use of information and communications technology: A review of the literature. Journal of Information Technology for Teacher Education, 9(3), 319–342. Munn, P., & Drever, E. (1990). Using questionnaires in small scale research: A teachers’ guide. Edinburgh, UK: Scottish Council for Research in Education. Murphy, E., & Rodriguez-Manzanares, M. A. (2008). Using activity theory and its principle of contradictions to guide research in educational technology. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 24(4), 442–457. Myint Swe, K., & Fisher, D. L. (2003). Technology-rich learning environments: a future perspective. River Edge, NJ: World Scientific. Naicker, V. (2011). Educators’ theories and beliefs and the use of computers in secondary schools. Educational Research and Reviews, 6(10), 688–694. National Center for Education Statistics (2006). Internet access in U.S. public schools and classrooms: 1994–2005. Washington, DC: US Department of Education. Retrieved from: http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2007/2007020.pdf. Nespor, J. (1987). The role of beliefs in the practice of teaching. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 19(4), 317–328. Neuman, W. L. (2006). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
284
Niederhauser, D. S., & Stoddart, T. (2001). Teachers’ instructional perspectives and use of educational software. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(1), 15–31. Osburn, H. G. (2000). Coefficient alpha and related internal consistency reliability coefficients. Psychological Methods, 5(3), 343–355. Osman, K., & Lee, T. T. (2014). Impact of interactive multimedia module with pedagogical agents on students’ understanding and motivation in the learning of electrochemistry. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 12(2), 395–421. Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T., Glazewski, K. D., Newby, T. J., & Ertmer, P. A. (2010). Teacher value beliefs associated with using technology: Addressing professional and student needs. Computers & Education, 55(3), 1321–1335. Oyaid, A. A. (2009). Education policy in Saudi Arabia and its relation to secondary school teachers’ ICT use, perceptions, and views of the future of ICT in education. (DhD, University of Exeter, 2009). Retrieved from https://eric.exeter.ac.uk/repository/handle/10036/69537 Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307–332. Palak, D., & Walls, R. T. (2009). Teachers’ beliefs and technology practices: A mixed- methods approach. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 41(4), 417. Papert, S. (1991). Situating constructionism. In I. Harel, & S. Papert (Eds.), Constructionism (pp. 1–14). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associate. Patsula, P. J. (1999). Applying learning theories to online instructional design. Athabasca University, Seoul. Retrieved from http://www.patsula.com/usefo/webbasedlearning/tutorial1/ Patten, B., Sánchez, I. A., & Tangney, B. (2006). Designing collaborative, constructionist and contextual applications for handheld devices. Computers & Education, 46(3), 294- 308. Peerapat, T. (2010). Faculty perceptions about the implementation of e-learning in Thailand: An analysis of cultural factors (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Northern Illinois University Pehkonen, E., & Pietilä, A. (2003). On relationships between beliefs and knowledge in mathematics education. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the CERME-3 (Bellaria) meeting. Belaria. Italy. Retrieved from: http://www.dm.unipi.it/didattica/CERME3/draft/proceedings_draft/TG2_draft Pelgrum, W. J. (1993). Attitudes of school principals and teachers towards computers: Does it matter what they think? Studies in Educational Evaluation, 19(2), 199–212. Pelgrum, W. J. (2001). Obstacles to the integration of ICT in education: Results from a worldwide educational assessment. Computers & Education, 37(2), 163–178. Pellegrino, J. W. (2007). Professional development in integrating technology into teaching and learning: Knowns, unknowns, and ways to pursue better questions and answers. Review of Educational Research, 77(4), 575–614. Perry, W. G. (1968). Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years: A scheme. Cambridge, MA: Bureau of Study Counsel. Pituch, K. A., & Lee, Y-k. (2006). The influence of system characteristics on e-learning use. Computers & Education, 47(2), 222–244. Plomp, T., & Voogt, J. (2009). Pedagogical practices and ICT use around the world: Findings from the IEA international comparative study SITES2006: Editorial Introduction to this special issue. Education and Information technologies, 14(4), 285-292.
285
Porter, L. R. (2004). Developing an online curriculum: Technologies and techniques. Hersey, PA: Information Science. Prendes, M. P., Castaneda, L., & Gutierrez, I. (2010). ICT competences of future teachers/Competencias para el uso de TIC de los futuros maestros. Comunicar, 18(35), 175-181. Prensky, M. (2005). Digital natives, digital immigrants. Gifted(135), 29-31. Prestridge, S. (2007). Models of teacher information and communication technologies (ICT) professional development that empower multiliterate classroom practices (Unpublished doctoral thesis). Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia. Prestridge, S. (2012). The beliefs behind the teacher that influences their ICT practices. Computers & Education, 58(1), 449–458. Prestridge, S., & Tondeur, J. (2015). Exploring elements that support teachers’ engagement in online professional development. Education Sciences, 5(3), 199–219. Reinen, I. J., & Plomp, T. (1993). Staff development as a condition for computer integration. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 19(2), 149–166. Roblyer, M. D., & Doering, A. H. (2010). Integrating educational technology into teaching. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Robson, C. (2002). Real world research: A resource for social scientists and practitioner- researchers (Vol. 2). Oxford, UK: Blackwell. Rodrigues, S., Steel, P., & Marks, A. (2003). Developing science and ICT pedagogical content knowledge: A model of continuing professional development. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 40(4), 386–394. Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations. London, UK: Free Press. Roth, W.-M. (2007). “Vygotsky’s neglected legacy”: Cultural-historical activity theory. Review of Educational Research, 77(2), 186–232. Ruthven, K., Hennessy, S., & Deaney, R. (2005). Incorporating Internet resources into classroom practice: Pedagogical perspectives and strategies of secondary-school subject teachers. Computers & Education, 44(1), 1–34. Sang, G., Valcke, M., van Braak, J., & Tondeur, J. (2010). Student teachers’ thinking processes and ICT integration: Predictors of prospective teaching behaviors with educational technology. Computers & Education, 54(1), 103–112. Schmidt, K., & Brown, D. (2004). A model to integrate online teaching and learning tools into the classroom. Journal of Technology Studies, 30(2), 86–92. Schommer, M. (1990). Effects of beliefs about the nature of knowledge on comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(3), 498–504. Schommer, M. (1994). Synthesizing epistemological belief research: Tentative understandings and provocative confusions. Educational Psychology Review, 6(4), 293–319. Schommer, M., & Walker, K. (1995). Are epistemological beliefs similar across domains? Journal of Educational Psychology, 87(3), 424–432. Schraw, G., & Olafson, L. (2003). Teachers’ epistemological world views and educational practices. Journal of Cognitive Education And Psychology, 3(2), 178–235. Schunk, D. H. (2012). Learning theories: An educational perspective. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall. Seok, S. (2008). Teaching aspects of e-learning. International Journal on E-Learning, 7(4), 725–741.
286
Shahvarani, A., & Savizi, B. (2007). Analyzing some Iranian high school teachers’ beliefs on mathematics, mathematics learning and mathematics teaching. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 2(2), 54–59. Shatah, A. (1996). Learning Arabic language between theory and practice. Cairo, Egypt: Egyptian-Lebanese House. Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 2(1). Sinatra, G. M., & Kardash, C. A. M. (2004). Teacher candidates’ epistemological beliefs, dispositions, and views on teaching as persuasion. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29(4), 483–498. Smeets, E. (2005). Does ICT contribute to powerful learning environments in primary education? Computers & Education, 44(3), 343–355. Smith, T. C. (2005). Fifty-one competencies for online instruction. Journal of Educators Online, 2(2), 1-18. 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 (pp. 449–460). New York: Springer. Somekh, B. (2007). Pedagogy and learning with ICT: researching the art of innovation. London. Routledge. Soros, G. (2002). On globalization. New York: PublicAffairs. Stake, R. (2005). Qualitative case studies. In N. K. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed.). (pp. 443–466) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Stake, R. E. (2006). Multiple case study analysis. New York, NY: Guilford. Stockwell, G. (2007). A review of technology choice for teaching language skills and areas in the CALL literature. ReCALL, 19(2), 105-120. Sutherland, R. (2004). Designs for learning: ICT and knowledge in the classroom. Computers & Education, 43(1), 5-16. Sweeney, T. (2010). Transforming pedagogy through interactive whiteboards: Using activity theory to understand tensions in practice. Australian Educational Computing, 24(3), 28–34. Tearle, P. (2003). ICT implementation: What makes the difference? British Journal of Educational Technology, 34(5), 567–583. Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2009). Foundations of mixed methods research: Integrating quantitative and qualitative approaches in the social and behavioral sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Teo, T., Chai, C. S., Hung, D., & Lee, C. B. (2008). Beliefs about teaching and uses of technology among pre‐service teachers. Asia‐Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 36(2), 163–174. Thomas, R. C., & Milligan, C. D. (2004). Putting teachers in the loop: Tools for creating and customising simulations. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 2004(15), 1.22. Tinio, V. L. ICT in education. Retrieved from: http://www.saigontre.com/FDFiles/ICT in Education Tondeur, J., Van Braak, J., & Valcke, M. (2007). Towards a typology of computer use in primary education. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23(3), 197–206. Tondeur, J., Hermans, R., van Braak, J., & Valcke, M. (2008). Exploring the link between teachers’ educational belief profiles and different types of computer use in the classroom. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(6), 2541–2553.
287
Trangratapit, P. (2010). Faculty perceptions about the implementation of e-learning in Thailand: An analysis of cultural factors. (Doctoral Dissertation), Northern Illinois University. United States. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (2011). Competency framework for teachers. Paris, France: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. Villar, L. M., & Alegre, O. M. (2008). Measuring faculty learning in curriculum and teaching competence online courses. Interactive Learning Environments, 16(2), 169–181. Voogt, J., & Pelgrum, H. (2005). ICT and curriculum change. Human Technology, 1(2), 157– 175. Voogt, J., & Pelgrum, W. J. (2009). School and teacher factors associated with frequency of ICT use by mathematics teachers: Country comparisons. Education and Information technologies, 14(4), 293-308. Vrasidas, C., & McIsaac, M. S. (2001). Integrating technology in teaching and teacher education: Implications for policy and curriculum reform. Educational Media International, 38(2), 127–132. Vygotksy, L. (1978). Mind in society: the development of higher psychological processes: Harvard University Press. Watkins, C., & Mortimore, P. (1999). Pedagogy: What do we know. London, UK: Paul Chapman. Watson, D. (2006). Understanding the relationship between ICT and education means exploring innovation and change. Education and Information Technologies, 11(4), 199–216. Watson, D. M. (2001). Pedagogy before technology: Re-thinking the relationship between ICT and teaching. Education and Information technologies, 6(4), 251–266. Webb, M. (2010). Models for exploring and characterising pedagogy with information technology. Researching IT in Education: Theory, Practice and Future Directions, 91–111. Webb, M. E. (2002). Pedagogical reasoning: Issues and solutions for the teaching and learning of ICT in secondary schools. Education and Information Technologies, 7(3), 237–255. Weiss Roberts, L., Geppert, C. M. A., Coverdale, J., Louie, A., & Edenharder, K. (2005). Ethical and regulatory considerations in educational research. Academic Psychiatry: The journal of the American Association of Directors of Psychiatric Residency Training and the Association for Academic Psychiatry, 29(1), 1–5. Windschitl, M., & Sahl, K. (2002). Tracing teachers’ use of technology in a laptop computer school: The interplay of teacher beliefs, social dynamics, and institutional culture. American Educational Research Journal, 39(1), 165–205. Wishart, J. (2008). Challenges faced by modern foreign language teacher trainees in using handheld pocket PCs (Personal Digital Assistants) to support their teaching and learning. ReCALL, 20(3), 348–360. Wozney, L., Venkatesh, V., & Abrami, P. (2006). Implementing computer technologies: Teachers’ perceptions and practices. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 14(1), 173–207. Yee, D. (2000). Images of school principals’ information and communications technology leadership. Journal of Information Technology for Teacher Education, 9(3), 287–302.
288
Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Younie, S. (2006). Implementing government policy on ICT in education: Lessons learnt. Education and Information Technologies, 11(4), 385–400.
289
Appendices
Appendix A
1. Principal Questionnaire
Principals’ beliefs about technology* use in Saudi secondary education
*Technology: Interactive whiteboard, computers, Internet, educational software, generic software, digital projector, etc. Questionnaire code…
A. Demographic information 1. Age group: ☐ Under 30 ☐ 30–39 Years ☐ 40–49 Years ☐ Over 50 Years Years 2. Level of ☐ Diploma ☐ Bachelor’s ☐ Master’s degree ☐ PhD education: degree 3. Years of ☐ ≤ 5 years ☐ 6-9 years ☐ 10 years and princpalship above experience: 4. ICT Training: ☐ No ☐ Yes
B. Beliefs about technology use Please rate your beliefs about the following benefits of technology use
I believe that using technology Strongly Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree in teaching and learning Agree Disagree
1. accommodates students’ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ personal learning
290
preferences.
2. promotes students’ learning both inside and outside the ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ classroom. 3. promotes student-centred ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ teaching approaches. 4. maintains high expectations ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ of students. 5. is more effective than traditional classroom ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ learning. 6. improves the research skills ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ of students. 7. enhances collaboration ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ among students. 8. improve students’ learning ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ achievements. 9. helps teachers to organize ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ student learning.
C. Overall technological skills How would you rate your level of technological skills in general?
☐ Very High ☐High ☐Moderate ☐Low ☐ Very Low
D. Beliefs about teachers’ practices with technology use Please rate your beliefs about the following teachers’ classroom practice with technology use
I believe in classroom practice Strongly Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree teachers should use technology Agree Disagree
1. as communication tool. ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
291
2. for multimedia presentations. ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
3. to enable student cooperative ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ learning. 4. to enable student problem- ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ solving learning. 5. as information presentation ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ tool. 6. to enable students’ independent ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ learning. 7. as research tool. ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
8. to enable student of sharing ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ knowledge.
9. as a knowledge reinforcement ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ tool
10. to enable student self- ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ assessment.
292
Appendix B
2. Teacher Questionnaire
Teachers ’ beliefs and practices with technology* use in Saudi secondary education
*Technology: Interactive whiteboard, computers, Internet, educational software, generic software, digital projector, etc. Questionnaire code… A. Demographic information 1. Age group: ☐ Under 30 ☐ 30–39 Years ☐ 40–49 Years ☐ Over 50 Years Years 2. Level of ☐ Diploma ☐ Bachelor’s ☐ Master’s degree ☐ PhD education: degree 3. Years of ☐ ≤ 5 years ☐ 6-9 years ☐ 10 years and teaching above experience: 4. ICT Training: ☐ No ☐ Yes
5. Grade that you teach in the ☐ 10th ☐ 11th ☐ 12th current school
B. Beliefs about technology use Please rate your beliefs about the following benefits of technology use
I believe that using technology in Strongly Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree teaching and learning Agree Disagree 1. accommodates students’ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ personal learning preferences.
293
2. promotes students’ learning both ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ inside and outside the classroom. 3. promotes student-centred ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ teaching approaches. 4. maintains high expectations of ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ students. 5. is more effective than traditional ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ classroom learning. 6. improves the research skills of ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ students. 7. enhances collaboration among ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ students. 8. improves students’ learning ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ achievements. 9. helps teachers to organize ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ student learning.
C. Technological skills 1. How would you rate your level of technological skills in general?
☐ Very High ☐ High ☐ Moderate ☐ Low ☐ Very Low
2. How would you rate your ability to use the following?
Very High High Moderate Low Very Low 1. Word processing ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ 2. Presentation software ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ 3. Spreadsheets ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ 4. Multimedia authoring ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ 5. Graphic creation ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ 6. Web design ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
294
7. Email ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ 8. Web searching ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ 9. Social networking 10. Learning management system ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
11. Databases ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
D. Practice with technology use Please rate your level of classroom practices with the following technology use
Very High Moderate Low Very In my class, I use technology High Low 1. as communication tool. ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ 2. for multimedia presentations. ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
3. to enable student cooperative learning. ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
4. to enable student problem-solving ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ learning. 5. as information presentation tool. ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ 6. to enable students’ independent ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ learning. 7. as research tool. ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ 8. to enable student sharing of knowledge. ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
9. as a knowledge reinforcement tool ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
10. to enable student self-assessment. ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
295
Appendix C
3. Pre-lesson interview schedule
Interview Code……… A. Beliefs about knowledge and student learning with technology 1. What comes to your mind when you think about the student knowledge with use of technology? 2. What are your beliefs about the benefits of technology use on student knowledge? 3. What comes to your mind when you think about student learning with use of technology? 4. What are your beliefs about the benefits of technology use on student learning? 5. With use of technology, how do you know when your students understand? 6. With use of technology, how do you know when learning is occurring in the classroom? B. Beliefs about teaching with technology 1. What comes to your mind when you think about teaching process with technology use? 2. What are your beliefs about the benefits of technology use on the teaching process? 3. With use of technology, how do you decide what to teach and what not teach? C. Practices with technology 1. What pedagogical approaches do you use while teaching through technology? 2. What is the student’s role in the classroom do you have with use of technology? 3. What is your role in the classroom do you have with use of technology? 4. What teaching and learning classroom activities do you use with use of
296
technology? 5. In what ways do you use ICT resources to support learning and teaching process? 6. What technological skills and tools do you find them important for pedagogical use of technology? D. Barriers to technology integration 1. What concerns do you have about use of technology? 2. How do you find the resources available in the class/school? 3. Are there any practical issues that you think hinder you from using technology? (Technical support, overloaded syllabus, lack of time…) 4. What are your comments about ICT professional development programs? (were they beneficial? were they related to pedagogy and classroom practice?) 5. What government and / or school supports do you need for your classroom use of technology?
297
Appendix D
4. Observation schedule
Observation Code… A. Background 1. Date:
2. Lesson setting (classroom, lab, other):
3. Number of students:
4. Subject:
5. Purpose of lesson:
6. Start time:
7. End time:
8. Total time:
B. Classroom context 1. Sketch the classroom layout identifying the position of technology:
C. Pedagogical approaches 1. Briefly describe teaching approach, the lesson observed, presenting the structure:
298
D. Roles of teacher and students 1. Describe teacher’ role and student ‘role in the classroom, student’ interaction with technology
E. Way of using ICT resources 1. Describe the way ICT resources incorporate in the classroom.
F. Technologies used by teachers and students 1. Describe the types of technologies used by teachers and others used by students.
299
G. Learning activities Technology Purpose Student’ Interval Amount of integration/ response (Beginning, mid, technology activity (motivation, end) use participation etc.) 1 2 3
F. Observed barriers/ difficulties 1. Describe observed barriers / difficulties happed in the classroom relating to the technology use.
300
Appendix E
5. Post-lesson interview schedule
Interview Code……… A. Potential for more ICT use 1. Were there any potential for more classroom activities incorporated ICT and in what ways?
B. Modification to the classroom activities 1. Did you make any modifications (related technology use or not) to your classroom activities due to unforeseen circumstances?
C. Questions for clarification of unclear points Informed by previously collected data in observed lesson.
D. Other Barriers to technology integration 1. Are there any practical issues that you think hinder you from using technology in previous observed lesson?
301
Appendix F
6. Principal interview schedule
Interview Code………
A. Beliefs about teaching with technology 1. What comes to your mind when you think about teaching process with technology? 2. What are your beliefs about the benefits of teachers’ use of technology on the teaching process? 3. What are your beliefs about the benefits of teachers’ use of technology on student learning? B. Beliefs about teacher’ practice with technology 1. What pedagogical approaches do you think teachers should use while teaching through technology? 2. What is the student’s role in classroom do you believe he should have with teacher’ use of technology? 3. What is the teacher’s role in classroom do you believe he should have with use of technology? 4. What teaching and learning classroom activities do you believe should be used with teacher’s use of technology? 5. In what ways do think teacher should use ICT resources to support learning and teaching process? 6. Do you have evidence of teacher’ use of technology in the class? 7. What technological skills and tools do you believe are important for teacher’ pedagogical use of technology? C. Barriers to technology integration 1. What concerns do you have about teachers’ use of technology? 2. How do you describe the ICT resources available in the class/school?
302
3. Do you acknowledged any obstacles to teachers’ use of technology in the class? 4. What are your comments about ICT training program provided with teachers? (were they useful to teachers? were they related to pedagogy and classroom practice?) 5. What government and / or school supports do you have for teachers’ classroom use of technology? 6. What is your role as principal to support teachers’ use of technology?
303
Appendix G
Data analysis of principals’ demographic factors
One Way ANOVA of Age, level of education, and Years of experiences and differences in principals’ beliefs about technology use IV N M SD One-Way ANOVA Result
Source F P Under 30 4.3889 .43552 Between 12 Years Groups 1.009 .395 30 -39 Years 4.4253 .41687 Within Age 29 Groups 40- 49 Years 4.2857 .46291 21 Over 50 4.0889 .60553 5 Years Bachelor's 4.3793 .44005 Between 58 degree Groups 1.694 .192 Level of Master's 4.0635 .49215 Within 7 education degree Groups PhD 4.5000 .39284 2
4.294 0.408 Between 0.443 0.644 ≤ 5 years 17 Groups Years of 6 –9 years 4.438 0.403 Within 16 experiences Groups 10 years and 4.337 0.494 34 above The significance level is 0.05
Independent Samples T Test of ICT Training differences in principals’ beliefs about technology use IV N M SD Independent Samples T Test Result
t df P MD ICT Yes 30 4.467 0.372 Training 1.956 65 0.055 0.211 No 37 4.255 0.488
The significance level is 0.05
304
Independent Samples T Test of ICT Training differences in principals’ beliefs about teachers’ practices with technology IV N M SD Independent Samples T Test Result
t df P MD ICT Yes 30 4.6033 0.328 Training -1.620 65 0.110 - 0.151 No 37 4.5414 0.420
The significance level is 0.05
One Way ANOVA of Age, level of education, and Years of experiences and differences in principals’ beliefs about teachers’ practices with technology IV N M SD One-Way ANOVA Result
Source F P Under 30 4.5750 .36711 Between 12 Years Groups .099 .960 30 -39 Years 4.5069 .35044 Within Age 29 Groups 40- 49 Years 4.5048 .39683 21 Over 50 4.5200 .66106 5 Years Bachelor's 4.5138 .36004 Between 58 degree Groups 1.786 .176 Level of Master's 4.4286 .57071 Within 7 education degree Groups PhD 5.0000 .00000 2
4.594 0.372 Between 0.613 0.545 ≤ 5 years 17 Groups Years of 6 –9 years 4.456 0.331 Within principalship 16 experiences Groups 10 years and 4.471 0.420 34 above The significance level is 0.05
305
Appendix H
Data analysis of teachers’ demographic factors
One Way ANOVA of Age, level of education, and Years of experiences and differences in teachers’ beliefs about use of technology IV N M SD One-Way ANOVA Result
Source F P Under 30 4.3333 .62731 Between 17 Years Groups .896 .447 30 -39 Years 4.2323 .41048 Within Age 33 Groups 40- 49 Years 4.1065 .59473 24 Over 50 4.3750 .37060 8 Years Bachelor's 4.2148 .52254 Between 75 degree Groups .464 .630 Level of Master's 4.3333 .54433 Within 4 education degree Groups PhD 4.4815 .27962 3
≤ 5 years 10 4.0222 .45902 Between 1.452 0.240 Groups Years of 6 –9 years 4.1640 .62125 Within experiences 21 Groups 10 years and 4.2985 .47166 51 above The significance level is 0.05
306
Independent Samples T Test of ICT Training differences in teachers’ the beliefs about technology use
IV N M SD Independent Samples T Test Result
t df P MD ICT Yes 17 4.229 0.536 Training -.014 80 0.989 0.002 No 65 4.231 0.514
The significance level is 0.05
Independent Samples T Test of ICT Training differences in teachers’ practices with technology
IV N M SD Independent Samples T Test Result
t df P MD ICT Yes 17 3.805 0.654 Training -1.377 80 0.172 -.293 No 65 3.512 0.811
The significance level is 0.05
Independent Samples T Test of ICT Training Differences in the teachers’ technological skills IV N M SD Independent Samples T Test Result
t df P MD ICT Yes 17 3.551 0.470 Training 2.757 80 0.001* 0.447 No 65 3.104 0.623 The significance level is 0.05 *p < 0.05
307
One Way ANOVA of Age, level of education, and Years of experiences differences in teachers’ practices of technology IV N M SD One-Way ANOVA Result
Source F P Under 30 3.6706 .91976 Between 17 Years Groups .659 .580 30 -39 Years 3.4394 .75950 Within Age 33 Groups 40- 49 Years 3.6083 .79450 24 Over 50 3.8125 .58904 8 Years Bachelor's 3.5347 .78405 Between 75 degree Groups 1.586 .211 Level of Master's 3.7250 .74554 Within 4 education degree Groups PhD 4.3333 .73711 3
3.800 0.855 Between 0.725 0.488 ≤ 5 years 10 Groups Years of 6 –9 years 3.438 0.802 Within teaching 21 experiences Groups 10 years and 3.584 0.772 51 above The significance level is 0.05
308
Appendix I
Observed lessons of the four case studies presented in the within-case analysis section
Fareed’s Observed Lessons
Fareed’s class was average in size, with twenty students. He classified the students’ achievement and attainment as a ‘good class but with mixed abilities’. The researcher observed him for two periods (ninety minutes total), both on Arabic literature. A brief description of the lessons is provided below.
First lesson: Arabic literature: Topics in contemporary Saudi poetry
Fareed adapted his own method, and combined cooperative and problem-solving learning. The topic of the lesson was modern Saudi poetry. As Fareed reported in his pre-lesson interview, this unit is taught over two 45-minute lessons; in the first observation, the lesson was dedicated to social topics in modern Saudi poetry.
The lesson began with the projection (from the relevant section in the textbook11) on the IWB of this open question: ‘What do you expect the social topics in Saudi contemporary poetry to be?’ Fareed requested that the students’ textbooks be closed so that each student could devote his attention to the board and his group and not be distracted by his individual textbook. He asked the students in each group to discuss the possible answers to the question. In order to help them develop their answers, he encouraged the groups to use desktop computers when collecting data and to write down and report their own knowledge they obtained about social topics in Saudi poetry. Next, he asked for a volunteer from each group to come forward and talk to the class. The student who was to speak for his group, stood in the front, used the IWB, and talked to the class as if he were a reporter. He would support his talk with a few online references. The students ended with several social issues that had been raised in the contemporary Saudi poetry they had read. This first activity took approximately twelve minutes.
For the second activity, which took about fifteen minutes, the learning-teaching
11 The textbook for secondary school Grade 10 Arabic literature was available in an electronic version and easily projected on the IWB.
309
strategy moved to a problem-based inquiry method: the lesson developed into cognitively complex tasks, drawing on transdisciplinary combinations of knowledge that challenged the students with real-life problems to solve. In this activity, poverty was the social problem that was most often mentioned in modern Saudi poems. Students discussed this problem in groups. Fareed then distributed a discussion guide to each group that included three questions: ‘What is the problem and what are its causes?’, ‘How can we solve the problem?’, and ‘What is the best solution?’
Students worked collaboratively to define the poverty problem, determine its causes, and suggest solutions. They then investigated possible solutions until they reached a consensus on one solution (such as social solidarity) that was agreed upon by two groups. During each phase, from defining the problem to suggesting solutions, students used classroom desktop computers to search on the Internet for relevant information and to find an appropriate solution. During this activity, Fareed reminded them that they should tell the class why they ended up with this particular solution over other solutions.
A few groups created their own PowerPoint presentations, which included text and a few pictures, while others used Microsoft Word for their work. Then, from each group, different volunteers used the IWB to explain their work to the class. This activity took approximately sixteen minutes.
During the last two minutes of the class, Fareed thanked the students and encouraged them to put what they had done in this lesson on the school Blackboard website,12 or to email him the information so that he could put it in their e-profiles.
Second lesson: Arabic literature: Homesickness poem
The second observed lesson was a poem about homesickness for one’s country, written by Hamza Shehata, one of Saudi Arabia’s most famous modern poets. The lesson began with a five-minute YouTube video that presented a brief introduction to the poet’s life. Based on the video, Fareed then explained to the class how the poet’s life was often reflected in his poems.
In the second activity, a student in one of the groups presented a multimedia PowerPoint presentation that his group had created before the lesson. It included text, video, still photos, and sound. The presentation clearly reflected the group’s understanding of the
12 The school Blackboard can be accessed at: http://www.alaqsa.edu.sa
310
text, as it linked the meaning of the poem with the YouTube video’s content. The topic of the poem was homesickness, and because the poet was from Jeddah, he frequently mentioned Jeddah and how life was in the past, so the students added a few historical pictures of Jeddah. The sound in the presentation was the voice of a student, and was reflective of this student’s excellent presentation skills; all the students were very engaged. Fareed then thanked this group and encouraged them to put their work on the school Blackboard website. This activity took about seven minutes.
In the next nine minutes, using an electronic version of the textbook, Fareed showed the poem to the students and encouraged the students in each group to discuss the meanings of any difficult words they encountered. Students used classroom computers to find the meanings of these words in online academic Arabic language dictionaries.13 A few students also used the same Arabic language dictionary on their mobile devices.14
In the next activity, students in each group discussed rhetorical images in the poem. Fareed occasionally intervened in group discussions by asking open-ended questions such as, ‘Why did the poet use this word?’ and ‘How can we link a word in one verse and another word in a different verse?’; he used IWB features such as highlighting to encourage students’ critical thinking. This activity took fifteen minutes.
Naseer’s Observed Lessons
Naseer’s class was average in size, with eighteen students. In terms of achievement, he classified the students as a ‘good class but with mixed abilities’. The researcher observed him for a total of two periods (ninety minutes total) of his Arabic language competency syllabus. A brief description of the lessons is provided below.
First lesson: Arabic grammar competencies
The instruction was a combination of the teacher’s introduction of the new lesson, the students’ group project, and the teacher using PowerPoint as a summary and further explanation of the lesson content. The topic of the lesson was grammar competencies. As Naseer reported in his pre-lesson interview, this unit is taught over two 45-minute lessons; I
13 The online dictionaries can be accessed at: http://www.baheth.info 14 The application can be installed from the Apple store at: https://itunes.apple.com/au/app/m- ajm-allght/id642317578?mt=8
311
observed the one dedicated to grammar competencies, which included conjunctions, adjectives, emphasis, substitutions, and numbers.
In the first activity, Naseer welcomed the students to the new lesson; he started by saying that ‘it is very important to use grammar competencies in all parts of our life, including our normal life or when we use and participate in the World Wide Web’. He then mentioned that he received four different projects from the four groups regarding this lesson. He explained to me that before each lesson, his students cooperatively (as a group) used the students’ computers and the Internet in the learning resources room to explore the concepts of the lesson before coming to the class; in the class they used the IWB to discuss with other groups in the class (group work) what they had learnt.
For the second activity, which took about twenty-five minutes, volunteers in two groups presented their groups’ projects, which were related to using grammar competencies in daily life. Using the IWB, two students from the two groups presented different language errors they had found in social forums, Twitter, and in street advertisements (see Figure 7.5.). The student speakers also distributed worksheets to the students in the other groups to fill out, and took notes about each error, its type, corrections, and grammatical rules. The student speakers gave them about three minutes to discuss and identify the possible errors in each sentence or paragraph. The students then discussed the errors. The speaker used the IWB stylus to circle the errors suggested by the class students. During the class’s attempts to identify the errors, the student speakers asked them to read the sentences based on grammatical errors they thought had been made, which led a few students to change their answers and to think differently about alternative grammar. In the last PowerPoint slide, the student speakers presented a table that indicated a summary of all the errors that had been found, along with their corrections. During this activity, Naseer stood on the left side of the IWB to monitor the students’ discussion.
In the third activity, Naseer used the IWB with a PowerPoint slide to present a summary of the most common grammatical errors found by the students in the four groups. He emphasised the importance of using correct grammar, and explained to the students how grammatical errors could affect the meaning of sentences. Naseer then commented on the students’ explanations, and went on to explain the grammar in sentences that the students had not addressed. In particular, this included explanations of adjectives and substitutions, which
312
often confuse students. He then asked students to submit their project presentation to the school Blackboard, or to email it to him during their break time. This part of the first activity took approximately five minutes.
Second lesson: Arabic spelling competencies
Naseer’s practice in the second lesson was consistent with his practice in the previous lesson. The instruction was a combination of teacher talk, using PowerPoint as a teaching content presentation tool, and students’ group projects.
In the first activity, which took roughly twenty-three minutes, Naseer introduced the topic, indicating it would be about spelling competencies. Then, he encouraged three volunteers to form three groups, and to use the IWB to present their groups’ projects. These involved finding an academic essay and analysing it to identify examples of spelling rules that had been used in the essay. The presentation clearly reflected the groups’ understanding of the spelling errors they had collected, and they were able to explain the spelling rules. Three students voluntarily presented different e-essays, using the IWB stylus to circle the spelling rules and asking students about the types of spelling and their rules. During the students’ explanations of their groups’ projects, Naseer encouraged them to discuss spelling rules in groups before articulating their conclusion, and he encouraged each student in each group to participate in the class discussions.
In the second activity (which lasted ten minutes), using an electronic version of the textbook, Naseer presented a learning activity related to writing the correct spelling of difficult words. He encouraged students in each group to discuss the correct spelling of these words; he distributed worksheets with tables that included columns for errors and their corrections, and he asked the students to close their textbooks so that they could devote their attention to their group. Then, student volunteers from each group came to the front of the class; they wrote the spelling of difficult words that were suggested by their groups, using the IWB stylus on the electronic version of the textbook. They explained the spelling rules behind each word to the whole class.
Then, in the third activity, for about two minutes Naseer asked the students to submit their project presentation to the school Blackboard in their break time. He encouraged the students to prepare for a new lesson, which would require them to write an academic essay
313
about a social issue of their choosing. In order to find an issue to write about, Naseer encouraged the students to use e-journals to become familiar with academic writing styles, and to benefit from discussions raised in social networking sites such as Facebook.
Amaad’s Observed Lessons
Amaad’s class was relatively small, with only fifteen students. He classified the class as a ‘good class but not … the best one’ with regard to achievement. The researcher observed Amaad during two periods (ninety minutes total) of the Arabic language competence syllabus. A brief description of the lessons is provided below.
First lesson: Arabic language competencies: Writing a report
The instruction was a combination of the teacher searching for relevant information and teacher-controlled student group activities using time management software. The topic of the lesson was how to write a report. As Amaad mentioned in the pre-lesson interview, this unit was taught in one 45-minute lesson; I observed him for the whole period.
At the beginning of the lesson, Amaad, after distributing cards to the students, asked them to stand. Each card included a question and its answer about the characteristics of writing a good report. He explained how to conduct this activity by asking one of the students to come to him with his card. He asked the student, ‘What is the characteristic of a good introduction in writing a report?’ The student replied, ‘It should be clear, short….’ The student then asked Amaad a question: ‘What is the characteristic of a good title in writing a report?’ The teacher replied, ‘It should reflect the content of the report….’ Then, they exchanged their cards. Amaad then divided his students into two groups: the first group had card number 1, and the second group had card number 2. This first activity took approximately five minutes.
The second activity took about twelve minutes. The students from the first group selected a student from the second group and asked a question. The IWB also had time- programme software (see Figure 7.7). After the allotted time in the programme software had elapsed, the other student (from the second group) asked a different question. During this activity, Amaad searched the Internet for information about writing a report. He then asked the students to return to their seats.
In the third activity, he presented the previous forum discussion, which had talked
314
about ways to write reports. He read and explained the discussion to the whole class, and compared it with the textbook content. Some points were found to be similar and some different. He asked the students to benefit from the steps of writing reports mentioned in the aforementioned forum, but he recommended that they focus more on the textbook content. This activity took about thirteen minutes.
In the fourth activity, he asked students to discuss (as a group) the textbook exercises. He used the same time-programme software as before; the students could not take more than three minutes for each exercise. He checked the students’ answers in each group and directed a few of the groups to discuss further when they did arrive at the correct answer. This activity took about six minutes.
In the fifth activity, which lasted twelve minutes, he encouraged each group’s members to use their own laptops and to write a report in Microsoft Word about a topic of their choosing. The time-management software was set to five minutes. Amaad then asked three volunteers to come forward, and to use the IWB to present their reports to the class. He commented on each presented report, focussing on the skills mentioned above. It was a very interactive activity, as the students were enthusiastic and enjoyed it. It reflected a good level of students’ understanding of the skills for writing reports. For example, in some reports, students talked about both the advantages and disadvantages of what they read, and they were able to suggest solutions.
Second lesson: Language competencies: Oral communication competency
This instruction was a combination of teacher talk, using PowerPoint as a teaching content presentation tool, and a teacher-controlled student group activity using time management software. The second observed lesson was about oral communication competency. As Amaad reported in the post-lesson interview, this unit was taught over two 45-minute lessons; I observed the first one, which was dedicated to persuasion and influencing communication skills.
At the beginning, he asked students if they had any questions from the previous lesson (on writing communication skills), using the IWB for a brief five-minute recapitulation.
The second activity took about fifteen minutes. Amaad used PowerPoint that included texts and pictures that did not appear in the textbook; he asked students to describe different
315
types of communication as reflected in the pictures. In order to achieve the objective of the lesson, which was to enable students to distinguish between different types of communications, the teacher initiated a discussion based on three pictures with three types of communication. This approach helped students to identify similarities and differences and to recognise persuasion and influencing communication skills.
For the next seventeen minutes, Amaad formed four groups. Three groups had four members each, and the fourth group had three. He then asked the students in each group to choose a topic of interest and to talk to the rest of the members of the group, using persuasion and influencing communication skills; he also used the time management programme software. After the allotted time had elapsed, the other students in a group took turns talking to their group members until all students in the group had practiced their communication skills.
In the final eight minutes, Amaad asked the students to answer textbook exercises as a group. He checked the students’ answers in each group, and directed a few groups to discuss further when they did arrive at the correct answer.
Amro’s Observed Lessons
Amro’s class was average in size, with twenty-three students. He classified it as being ‘average’ in achievement and good in terms of discipline and behaviour. The researcher observed him for two periods (ninety minutes total) of his Arabic language competencies syllabus. A brief description of the lessons is provided below. Although I tried to convince him to use another teaching method in the second lesson, he diplomatically said ‘I will do my best but nothing would be different from my previous practice’.
First lesson: Academic critique skills
Amro used a PowerPoint presentation of the lesson content displayed on the IWB. He first presented examples of four opinions that discussed how people should deal with books that run counter to their society’s values. Amro presented these opinions, reading from the PowerPoint slides and highlighting the evidence that supported each opinion. For example, the third opinion was that preventing unwanted books from getting published sometimes gives these books more publicity. This first activity took about twenty-five minutes: more than the half time of the lesson.
316
In the first three minutes, Amro sometimes stopped the PowerPoint presentation and selected a few students to answer questions, in order to ascertain if they were still following him. He asked them questions such as, ‘Which point are we on now?’
For the next seventeen minutes, he provided examples of books that had become popular when they were banned in several countries. All of the learning activities were dependent on the PowerPoint presentation. The lesson and reinforcement of skills and knowledge were only delivered through Amro’s talking about each opinion and moving from one slide to another.
During both previous activities, Amro returned to the previous slides and repeated his explanations. The students merely listened to him without any participation, as Amro failed to give them any opportunities to ask questions.
Second lesson: Academic writing
The second observation, overall, showed practices that were consistent with his first observed lesson. Amro used the technology as presentation tools. In this lesson, students’ desks were arranged for group work, but Amro did not draw any of the benefits from student group work that normally come with using such student-centred pedagogical approaches. Similarly to the first lesson, Amro used technology (e.g. IWB and teacher’s PC) to present lesson content to the students, whereby he directed all the classroom teaching and learning activities and again spoke for most of the class.
In this first activity, which took about thirty-three minutes, he used PowerPoint to present several examples of academic writing, indicating how each writer supported his or her idea. For example, the first proof used in the first text was observation, while the second proof used in the second text was life experience.
In the last activity, which took about twelve minutes, Amro selected a few students from each group to come to the front of the classroom. The students were expected to use the PowerPoint aid on the IWB to explain everything the teacher had covered. When these students came to the front, however, they only read from the PowerPoint slides and held their textbooks, while Amro directed their reading and helped them to move from one PowerPoint slide to the next.
317