Problematizing the rapid changes in didactics, material and spatial conditions as factors underlying...

PROBLEMATIZING THE RAPID CHANGES IN DIDACTICS, MATERIAL AND SPATIAL CONDITIONS AS FACTORS UNDERLYING THE DISSATISFACTION

AMONG NORDIC TEACHERS AND STUDENTS TOWARDS EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGIES

MD. SAIFUDDIN KHALIDPHD (HCCI) , MSC (CSC)

ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, KHALID @LEARNING.AAU.DK

BARRIERS OF INTEGRATING AND ADOPTING EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY: A LITERATURE REVIEW

Scope of the paper

METHODOLOGY

Paper Exclusion Criteria

Applying PACT framework of Interaction design.• People: If not teachers, students, parents and educational administrators.• Activities: Teaching-learning activities• Context: If not educational, for instance, doctors and nurses in clinics and

hospitals.• Technology: If not at all dealing with digital technologies.

Other exclusion criteria• If not in English language• Years: Not before 1991 (History: WWW and Linux were launched)

PRISMA Flow Diagram

Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, The PRISMA Group (2009). Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. PLoS Med 6(6): e1000097. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed1000097

Keywords

• Classroom, • Educational technology, • Information and communication technology• ICT in education• Integration, assimilation, adoption• Diffusion, domestication, • Barriers, challenges, obstacles, and hindrances

QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS & SYNTHESIS

SYNTHESIS

Evident Factors: Designs for Learning in two different contexts and organizational systems

Technology Obsolescense: Not Evident in EdTech Literature

QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS & SYNTHESIS

ANALYSIS

Edtech integration barriers: Seven categorization approaches Categorizations of Barriers Literatures

Micro level, meso level and macro level (Khalid & Nyvang, 2013)

Teacher level, school level and system level (Balanskat et al., 2006)Extrinsic or first-order and intrinsic or second-order (Ertmer, 1999;

Snoeyink & Ertmer, 2001)

Material and non-material barriers (Pelgrum, 2001)Teacher-level barriers (confidence, competence, and resistance to change & negative attitude) and school-level barriers (time, training, accessibility, technical support)

(Bingimlas, 2009)

Resources, knowledge and skills, institution, attitudes and beliefs, assessment, and subject culture

(Hew & Brush, 2006)

Direct and Indirect (Hew & Brush, 2006)

Extrinsic and Intrinsic barriers(Ertmer, 1999; Snoeyink & Ertmer, 2001; Albirini, 2006)

Ertmer’s terminology Applied understanding

First-order

Extrinsic Institutional, incremental

• External to education system, and/or

• Internal to education system levels of macro and meso

Second-order

Intrinsic Fundamental, personal

Internal to individuals — roles within or outside the education system

Material and Non-material barriers(Pelgrum, 2001)

Teacher-level and School-level barriers(Bingimlas, 2009)

• School-level = Institution-Level• University-level• Faculty-level• Department-level• Study program level

• Teacher-level barriers • confidence,• competence, • resistance to change,• & negative attitude

• School-level barriers • time, • training, • accessibility, • technical support

Resources, Knowledge and skills,

Institution, Attitudes and beliefs,

Assessment, Subject culture

(Hew & Brush, 2006)

Direct and Indirect barriers(Hew and Brush, 2006)

Four Categories of Direct Barriers1. Teachers’ attitudes and beliefs towards edcuational

technology2. Teachers’ knowledge and skills3. Institution4. Resources

Framework: Macro, Meso, Micro, External

(Khalid & Nyvang, 2013)

Education system’s external barriers!• Poor internet connectivity• Lower social status – color, cast, creed, gender• Language proficient and language difference• Education and Technology in Family

Micro (Individual) Level Barriers

• Teachers’ and administrators’ attitude and belief

• Students’ attitude• Parents’ attitude

Three components of learners’ motivation1. An expectancy component, which

includes the student’s belief in his or her ability to perform a task (i.e., [computer] self-efficacy),

2. A value component, which includes the student’s goals and beliefs about the importance and interest of the task (i.e., intrinsic value)

3. An affective component, which includes the student’s emotional reactions to the task (i.e., [computer] anxiety).” (Montazemi, 2006, p. 126)

Meso (Institutional) Level Barriers• Teachers’ Subjective norm (social factors of organization)• Classroom Environment and Design• Collaboration as organization culture • Organizational freedom at individual level

Macro (Institutional) Level Barriers• Teachers’ subjective norm (social factors of organization)• Leadership and Decision Support• Classroom environment and design• Collaboration as organziation culture• Organizational freedom at individual level

Macro (National)Macro Level• Teacher Training• National Policies

Multil –Level (Macro & Meso): Resources• Availability of technology• Access to available technology• Time• Technical support• Ressource quality• Funding• Lack of teacher or trainer

Macro & MesoTeachers’ Knowledge and Skills1. Specific Technology2. Technology-supported

pedagogical1. Replacement2. Amplification3. Transformation

3. Technology-related-classroom management

• Corruption & Ethics• Assessment• Re-integration• Vision, Strategy, and Plan

Summing-up• Myth: “One size fits all” – EdTech design & User Experience• Biases:

• Pro-Innovation bias (Rogers, 2003)• “System blame” versus “individual blame” (Rogers, 2003)

• Common Practice: IT support can do everything!• Future direction: Job roles to work the challenges

• Dedicated pedagocial IT specialists• Learning Process and IT Systems Analysts• Time and budget for knowledge and skills development• Learner Experience Design approach for EdTech development

Ref e re nce : K ha l i d , M . S . S ec onda r y E duca t i ona l I ns t i t u t i o n Cen t e r ed D i f f us i on o f I CT i n Ru r a l B ang lades h . ( 20 14 ) . I ns t i t u t f o r Lær i ng og F i l os o f i ,

A a lb o rg Un iv e r s i t e t . URL : h t t ps : / / g oo . g l / i 157T b